The Senate on the Brink [The NYT blatantly shills for the obstructionist Democrats]

NY Times ^ | March 6, 2005 | MEATHEAD EDITORIAL

[Lancey Howard]

The hypocrisy of the NY Times would embarrass the people who work there.... if they had any shame to begin with.

[neverdem]

When do they think a majority not been enough for a judicial confirmation?

I hate to confirm what the Times alluded to, but the pubbies denied up or down votes to Paez for four years and Berzon for two years until Trent Lott relented on Mar 9, 2000 with those Clinton nominees. They are hoisting us on our own petard, although some were quoted at the time saying that they would never do what they are doing now, by refusing to vote for cloture.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r106:FLD001:S51345

Go down the page until you see a linked "Page: S1340"

Page: S1340
Judge Deserves Rousing Approval
Infamous Anniversary for Courts
The Paez and Berzon Votes
Senate GOP Drags Feet on Justices
Ending a Judicial Blockade

[Congressman Billybob]

A "blockade," not bringing the nomination up for a vote, is not the same as a filibuster, which is preventing a vote. As long as there is a committee structure in the Senate there will be occasional delays there, and later delays before a floor vote.

None of that contradicts the point that it takes a simple majority of Senate, now 51 votes, to confirm a judicial appointment.

John / Billybob

[Lancey Howard]

At that time (Paez and Berzon) did the New York Times berate the Democrats for puuting forward left-wing extremists?

[neverdem]

When did the Times say any lefty was extreme? To them Stalin and Mao were only slightly left of center.

[Jamfar]

Read Hugh Hewitt's Article: "Byrd Droppings" at www.hughhewitt.com.

Byrd himself, when Majority Leader, spoke out FOR rule changes to benefit his party. It is in the Congressional Record for 1979, according to the article. Byrd further traced the history of rule changes, showing that such changes have been done since the inception of Congress. So he got his changes! Now, the shoe is on the other foot.

[StormEye]

"The White House should meet with Senate leaders of both parties and come up with a list of nominees who will not be filibustered."

In other words, Minority Rule. Bush should have a meeting with them -- and tell the DemonRATS to go to Hell! It's time to force the issue. Get rid of the filibuster of judicial nominees and nominees for other positions. Up or down votes from now on.

[scoastie]

if this isn't done, now, there may not be later.....the option of filibustering has been abused...this what you do when you discipline a child....take away the option. They are a MINORITY..get it???

[scoastie]

yes we are...you eliminate the rule, you eliminate the practice...

[scoastie]

the Republicans won't because they have the 'elderly' in the senate to consider...they could not stand the old=fashioned way...that is why they have this gentlemen's agreement....

[scoastie]

yes, how many does it take to have a majority? Like 51, 55, 60? What is the difference between a majority and a minority?? What do these words mean????

[WHBates]

"One great thing Bush is doing, is the broad front strategy. He is hitting the dims on SS, judicial nominees, taxes, and foreign policy all at once. The dims are always full volume, full hate on any issue. Thus by presenting them with multiple challenges, he dilutes their response. They can only scream at the top of their lungs, they have no capacity beyond that.

I don't know if it was "The Plan" but it seems to be working.

[CyberAnt]

"The Republicans are claiming that 51 votes should be enough to win confirmation of the White House's judicial nominees. This flies in the face of Senate history."

This has nothing to do with Senate history. And .. this is not about a "Republican claim" .. we're talking about a Senate rule which subverts the Constitution - AND IT WAS THE DEMOCRATS WHO DID IT. A Senate rule does not TRUMP THE CONSTITUTION.

Now .. here come the repubs trying to change it back TO CONFORM TO THE CONSTITUTION and here is the NYT lying through their teeth about it.

But .. what else can you expect!

[goldstategop]

A Republican President re-elected with a four million vote popular majority is not allowed by the Democrats to name judges who favor his philosophy to the federal bench. And naturlich, the New York Times concurs. Then you have RINOs afraid of making moderates angry than doing what's right. What's this talk about a so-called "nuclear option." Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention presidential nominees have to be confirmed with 60 votes. The filibuster has always been used in the past to block legislation. The Democrats' opposition to President Bush's judicial picks isn't because they're unqualified or something in their past prevents them from being a judge; no - the sole reason for the Democrats' obstructionism is based on politics - we don't like these people's political beliefs. And that's wrong.

Oh and by the way, if the President's nominees really are extreme, nothing prevents the Senate from voting them down. So why don't the Democrats want an up or down vote in the Senate on these choices? The truth is quite simple, contrary to what the minority party and the NYT would have people believe. Its that the judicial nominess named by President Bush are precisely where most of the country is today. 51% of the American people deserve to be able to have a federal judiciary that reflects the guy for whom they voted. Its that simple.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[CyberAnt]

Hmmmmm?? You're against the "nuclear option" but you want them to "end the practice of filabusters" ..??

But .. the "nuclear option" is the only THING WHICH WILL END THE FILABUSTERS.

A SENATE RULE DOES NOT TRUMP THE CONSTITUTION. The dems inserted a senate rule to allow for the filibuster of judicial nominees - THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL - I've read the paragraph in the Constitution - and filibusters are not allowed for judicial nominees.

The repubs are trying to change that rule BACK TO WHERE IT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION, which requires only a simple majority, or 51 votes.

I'm not YELLING - I'm just trying to make some emphasis in the statements.

[CyberAnt]

"promoting a political agenda"

LOL! According to the "projection technique" the dems just told us what they're doing.

You see, the projection technique is where you project upon your opponent - what you're actually doing. The dems have been using this for years. They still haven't figured out that when they make a statement about the repubs "promoting a political agenda" what they're really saying is that promoting an agenda is what they're doing. I find this facinating. They evidently think we're too stupid to figure it out.

[CyberAnt]

"It's like we are dealing with complete morons"

Exactly .. and on purpose. I believe they know the truth - but they are willing to deceive to "promote a political agenda".

[CyberAnt]

What the heck "damage" are they talking about ..?? And .. what evidence do they ever provide to substantiate their claims ..??

Disgusting people!

[CyberAnt]

You and me both - I'm sick of this garbage. Bowing and scraping to this disgruntled minority is disgusting.

[CyberAnt]

Exactly!!!