Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"WEAPONS OF MASS OBSTRUCTION"
Conservative Alerts ^ | ConservativeAlerts.com

Posted on 05/16/2003 10:40:36 AM PDT by webber

"Weapons of Mass Obstruction"

Tom Daschle and the Democrats have been OUTRAGEOUSLY blocking votes on a number of the President's judicial nominees, as you've probably been reading about in my columns lately.

This Friday will mark the two-year anniversary of President Bush's nominations of Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen. For TWO YEARS now, these highly qualified individuals have languished in confirmation hell while the Democrats drag their heels, hoping to keep them off the bench.

So I had my friend Jim Bieber at Beiber Communications come up with an original ad poking fun at the Democrats and calling on them to end their unconstitutional filibuster.

The ad is headlined, "Weapons of Mass Obstruction" and features a cartoon of missiles -- drawn in the likeness of Democrat senators Leahy, Kennedy, Schumer, Daschle (a bit shorter than the rest!) and Clinton -- standing shoulder to shoulder blocking a man in robes from getting by.

The text of the ad begins: "We are 'saddened, saddened' that Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle and Senate Democrats have 'failed so miserably' to treat President Bush's judicial nominees in a fair and democratic manner."

As I said, I have no problem ridiculing the left when the left earns ridicule.

You can see a copy of the ad design by by going to:

Weapons of Mass Obstruction


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: crimepromotion; demonrats; illegality; injustice; liberalhatred; nojustice; obstructionists; procrime; treason; unconstitutional

1 posted on 05/16/2003 10:40:36 AM PDT by webber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: webber
Tom Daschle and the Democrats have been OUTRAGEOUSLY blocking votes on a number of the President's judicial nominees

I know of two (named above) and those two are the only ones still blocked according to the Democrats. Are there others being blocked?

2 posted on 05/16/2003 11:03:20 AM PDT by hotpotato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hotpotato
According to tom dass-hole, he will block all federal judge appointments of President Bush who do not meet the "pro-infanticide" litmus test.
3 posted on 05/16/2003 11:10:16 AM PDT by webber (Liberalism = pro-infanticide, pro-perversion, pro-adultry, pro-Satan, and anti-morality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: webber
Well done!
4 posted on 05/16/2003 11:11:28 AM PDT by Ed_in_NJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: webber
But the article states:

Tom Daschle and the Democrats have been OUTRAGEOUSLY blocking votes on a number of the President's judicial nominees, as you've probably been reading about in my columns lately.

The writer clearly claims the democrats have been blocking votes on a number of the President's judicial nominees. I was asking what other nominees other than the two already listed because the democrats have been arguing they have only blocked two and passed over a hundred. Are you the writer? I would like to know who in addition to the two listed.

5 posted on 05/16/2003 12:00:30 PM PDT by hotpotato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: hotpotato
All nominees of the President who DO NOT MEET THE "PRO-INFANTICIDE" LITMUS TEST WILL BE FILIBUSTERED BY THE DEMON-RAT COMMITTEE, preventing it from going to the FULL SENTATE for a vote because it has already been shown that the FULL Senate would have voted FOR these judges to Federal Court positions.
6 posted on 05/16/2003 12:21:02 PM PDT by webber (Liberalism = pro-infanticide, pro-perversion, pro-adultry, pro-Satan, and anti-morality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: webber
Why won't you name their names? You've stated the democrats have been blocking a number of nominees and I simply asked who they were, not a description of what type. I'm only asking you to name those who have been blocked other than the two known because the democrats have been defending themselves with the claim that this has been overblown by the republicans because there are only TWO blocked. Why won't you name the names of the others who are blocked... if there are any? After reading so much hype and disinformation from both sides, I always try to get the facts. I'm not aware of any others being blocked besides the two you have listed (Estrada and Owens). Do you have ADDITIONAL NAMES (see, I can type in all-blocks, too).
7 posted on 05/16/2003 1:33:27 PM PDT by hotpotato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: hotpotato
I suppose someone could get the names for you, but you really should do your own research.

I'm not sure what you consider blocked. The 2 are being filibustered.
In January, 2003, Pres. Bush sent 31 judicial nominations to the Senate, (Estrada & Owen & Pickering are included in the 31) of which 29 had been blocked by the 107th.

As of the Easter break, there were 50 vacancies with 39 nominees pending.

For the Court of Appeals alone, The President has submitted 42 superb nominees. As of today, eighteen of them are still waiting for a vote in the Senate - and 8 of those 18 have been waiting more than a year.
8 posted on 05/17/2003 12:35:17 AM PDT by stylin19a (2 wrongs don't make a right.....but 3 rights make a left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: hotpotato
Maybe he/she doesn't know the names.
9 posted on 05/17/2003 12:42:16 AM PDT by ladyinred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a
- I suppose someone could get the names for you, but you really should do your own research.

You're confused. I'm not making the claim. I'm asking the individual who *is* making the claim to back their own claim. I disagree with the claim.

- I'm not sure what you consider blocked.

Again, not my claim. Maybe webber is referring to this:

Frustrated by Senate Democratic filibusters that have blocked confirmation votes on two of his appeals court nominees, President Bush renewed his push Friday for prompt up-or-down votes.

- Bush sent 31 judicial nominations to the Senate, (Estrada & Owen & Pickering are included in the 31) of which 29 had been blocked by the 107th.

What do you mean by "blocked" here? btw, Pickering was withdrawn as a nominee last year and now that the Republicans control the Senate, we will rightfully see him return as a nominee (though I do think the Republicans are waiting for a more friendly climate because it looks like the Democrats will likely filibuster Pickering). See Washington Times article (5/15/03) Senate GOP to resurrect Pickering nomination: "Republicans plan in coming weeks to take up the nomination of U.S. District Court Judge Charles W. Pickering Sr. of Mississippi, who likely faces a filibuster on the Senate floor by Democrats."

From the Whitehouse:

"Two years ago today, President Bush announced his first 11 nominees to the federal appeals courts and asked the Senate to rise above the bitterness of the past and give every nominee fair treatment and a timely up-or-down vote. But 8 of those 11 nominees then waited more than a year without a Senate vote. And today, 3 of these highly qualified nominees still have not received a vote. They are Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen, and Terry Boyle. All of the May 9, 2001, nominees represent the mainstream of American law and values, possess extraordinary experience, intellect and integrity, and enjoy strong bipartisan support.... Yesterday, a minority of Senators for the 6th time blocked a vote on Miguel Estrada and for the 2nd time blocked a vote on Priscilla Owen."

Boyle is being blocked by Edwards (Boyle was blocked during the first Bush administration which generated a retaliatory block by Helms of four nominations from NC during Clinton's administration). Senate rules allow for veto power over home-state judicial nominees.

What the democrats have to say:

"Under the Democratic-led Senate of the 107th Congress and continuing this year in the Republican-led 108th Congress, the judicial confirmation process is working far faster than it did when Republicans routinely blocked nearly 60 of President Clinton’s nominees with anonymous holds, filibusters and other roadblocks. The Senate now has confirmed 123 Bush judicial nominees, with an additional confirmation expected tonight (Roberts, Thursday night). We now also are at the lowest vacancy rate in 13 years, since 1990.... NUMBERS. With the confirmation Monday night of Deborah Cook, judicial vacancies are down to 47, according to the Judiciary Committee website – the lowest in 13 years. The Democratic-led Senate of 2001 and 2002 confirmed 100 Bush judicial nominees, and this year’s Republican-led Senate has confirmed 23, for a total so far of 123 (these numbers will change with the likely confirmation of John Roberts Thursday night)."

Before I can debate democrats on the issue, I like to have my facts straight. I thought Webber might have some useful information and could back up his/her claims. So far, I haven't seen anything I'd use in a debate.

10 posted on 05/17/2003 2:25:53 AM PDT by hotpotato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: webber
.
12 posted on 05/17/2003 2:57:19 AM PDT by ATOMIC_PUNK ("The principles of government... [are] founded in the rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hotpotato
Pickering was re-nominated 1/03. He still languishes in committee.

Blue Slip can be considered a block. 6 were RAT blue slipped as of the Easter recess. Judge Carolyn Kuhl recently got a hearing despite a RAT Sen. Boxer blue slip.

An informal (read: anonymous) hold can be done by any senator. A hold is nothing more than the threat to filibuster. That generally assures the nominee wont come up for a vote..even in committee. That is considered a block.

You may NEVER get the names of those nominations that have an anonymous hold on them.

One can go to: thomas.loc.gov and get a list (but not the reasons) of nominations held in judiciary and for how long.

The presumption is, that those that have been languishing in committee have had an anonymous hold put on them...by a RAT.
13 posted on 05/17/2003 11:38:42 AM PDT by stylin19a (2 wrongs don't make a right.....but 3 rights make a left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: hotpotato
Filibusters Are Unconstitutional -- Say Noted Democrats

In the past, prominent Democrats have said that filibusters are unconstitutional.

However, now that they are blocking President Bush's appointments, they apparently see no problem with using unconstitutional means to punish the President. Prominent Democrats have frequently asserted that the use of filibusters is unconstitutional. They've changed their tune now that they're the minority party in the Senate. Apparently any unethical means is okay as long as it blocks President Bush's judicial nominees.

Notice what these Democrats have said in the past about filibusters: Senator Joe Lieberman on January 4, 1995: "The filibuster rule . . . there is no constitutional basis for it. . . . it is, in its way, inconsistent with the Constitution, one might almost say an amendment of the Constitution by rule of the U.S. Senate." And on January 5: "The Constitution states only five specific cases in which there is a requirement for more than a majority to work the will of this body: Ratification of a treaty, override of a Presidential veto, impeachment, adoption of a constitutional amendment, and expulsion of a Member of Congress. In fact, the Framers of the Constitution considered other cases in which a supermajority might have been required and rejected them. And we by our rules have effectively amended the Constitution--which I believe, respectfully, is not right-- and added the opportunity of any Member or a minority of Members to require 60 votes."
Congressional Record.

Senator Tom Daschle on January 30, 1995: "The Constitution is straightforward about the few instances in which more than a majority of the Congress must vote: A veto override, a treaty, and a finding of guilt in an impeachment proceeding. Every other action by the Congress is taken by majority vote. The Founders debated the idea of requiring more than a majority . . . . They concluded that putting such immense power into the hands of a minority ran squarely against the democratic principle. Democracy means majority rule, not minority gridlock."
Congressional Record.

Senator Tom Harkin on March 1, 1994: "I really believe that the filibuster rules are unconstitutional. I believe the Constitution sets out five times when you need majority or supermajority votes in the Senate for treaties, impeachment."
Congressional Record.

Lloyd Cutler, Carter and Clinton White House Counsel, on September 29, 1968: "Nothing would more poorly serve our constitutional system than for the nominations to have earned the approval of the Senate majority, but to be thwarted because the majority is denied a chance to vote. Senators have never before employed a filibuster against a Supreme Court nomination. Indeed, prior Supreme Court nominations have seldom been debated more than 8 days. Whatever the merits of the filibuster as a device to defeat disliked legislation, its use to frustrate a judicial appointment creates a dangerous precedent with important implications for the very structure of our Government."
Congressional Record.

And again on April 19, 1993: "Requirements of 60 votes to cut off debate and a two-thirds vote to amend the rules are both unconstitutional." And again on May 3, 1993: "The Senate rule requiring a super-majority vote to cut off debate is unconstitutional." Washington Post.

The Senate Democratic minority appears to be using "The Prince" by Nicolo Machiavelli as its ethical guide.

14 posted on 05/18/2003 2:38:17 PM PDT by webber (demon-rats are good at giving out statistics, but most are lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: webber; All
Here are names & positions: Bush Judical Nominees & Status
15 posted on 05/18/2003 3:00:28 PM PDT by texson66 ("Tyranny is yielding to the lust of the governing." - Lord Moulton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson