Senate Ends Marathon Debate, Stops Bush Nominee

Reuters ^ | 11-14-03

[Brian S]

Fri November 14, 2003 10:05 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats capped a nonstop U.S. Senate debate of nearly 40 hours on Friday by sustaining a procedural hurdle against one of President Bush's four blocked federal appeals court nominees, Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen.

Democrats were also ready to block two additional conservative judicial nominees on Friday -- California jurists Carolyn Kuhl and Janice Rogers Brown -- to raise to the number stonewalled to six.

[Chad Fairbanks]

What the...?

[HarleyD]

Time for some recess appointments.

[Coop]

Did you really expect the Dems would change their minds? The GOP did what it wanted, to call more attention to this matter and show these judges and their base they're mad.

[Chad Fairbanks]

No, I didn't expect them to change their mind. I was more comenting on Rooter's appearance of encouragement and celebration. At least, that;s how it seemed to me...

[MamaLucci]

They still are not, technically, fillibustering these nominations, correct?

[mo]

can you say cash to the dems for 2004.....even foreigh cash..

[KantianBurke]

actually the goal was to shut us conservative grassroots folks up by obtaining a "talking point" for the Sunday news shows. Anyone with an ounce of honesty can admit that this was just a waste of time stunt that'll be forgotten within a few days by the general public.

[plain talk]

Right. I think they should just keep going but only if they're smart enough to figure out how to ward off "Republicans have shut down the government again" attacks.

[Coop]

No, I didn't expect them to change their mind. I was more comenting on Rooter's appearance of encouragement and celebration. At least, that;s how it seemed to me...

Understood.

[grobdriver]

This was so weird.
The Dems threaten filibuster, and the Pubs go talk for 30 hours.
What the...?

[Coop]

Politicians are political animals that want to retain power. View this as a test case. If the GOP reviews what occurred this week and sees public sentiment shifting in its favor, it will repeat this process for probably a longer time period, and perhaps indefinitely.

If it sees no change or public support shifting to the lawless Dems, then don't expect to see this again.

But the calls for a 24/7 filibuster normally do not take into account the realities involved.

[longtermmemmory]

I wonder if Judge Bork would take the job?

[Mr. Bird]

This is what ticks me off: We have the procedural "nuclear option". The concern is that if and when the Dems ever return to power, they would use it against the GOP. But the crux of the issue is this: Given the choice of losing, or using the "nuclear option", the Dems will choose the nuke.

Even after the Trent Lott Era, the 'Pubs still can't find a set. What the Dems are doing is disgusting, and quite possibly unconstitutional (it certainly runs against 200+ years of precedent). So help me, the GOP is shooting itself in the foot again.

[Galtoid]

This provides fodder for 2004. Bush has amassed so much money, that some of his spots will be devoted to the obstructionist Dems. Don't be surprised if next Fall, we see infomercials for each of these good judicial nominees, and how they have been unfairly treated by the Dems. One might think that this marathon was staged explicitly for Karl Rove's archives. HHHMMMM . . . Can you say "come back to bite?"

[harpu]

Correct...the demonRATs have YET to filibuster a single vote. Rather, the pubbieMORONs roll over and play dead based on the threat of a filibuster.

[Zack Nguyen]

Anyone with an ounce of honesty can admit that this was just a waste of time stunt that'll be forgotten within a few days by the general public.

I agree. The only way this will be worthwhile is if the Republicans now use the 40 hour debate (or whatever it was) as political justification to change the Senate rules.

[zook]

Is the "nuke" option where some senator simply calls for a vote and the parliamentarian rules that a vote can occur? If so, I say go ahead and do it, even if the Dems also do it in the future. I'd happily support allowing all questions to come up for a vote.

[cecole]

The parts of the long judicial debate the GOP should use in any upcoming campaign should focus on the Democrats' total hypocrisy by comparing past statements (during the Clinton administration) with their current position (of filibustering judicial nominations). Hopefully the Repubs will use these quotes to maximum advantage in 2004.

[surrey]

I heard someone on talk radio say that the Republicans should have stretched this out to Sunday when all the Democrats are heading to Iowa. God forbid they should show some fortitude!