Posted on 05/16/2003 10:40:36 AM PDT by webber
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:
I know of two (named above) and those two are the only ones still blocked according to the Democrats. Are there others being blocked?
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.
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:
- 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 btw, Pickering was withdrawn as a nominee last year and now that the Republicans control the Senate, we will rightfully see him return as a nominee (though I do think the Republicans are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.
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.
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.