Posted on 03/05/2005 7:01:29 PM PST by neverdem
The White House's insistence on choosing only far-right judicial nominees has already damaged the federal courts. Now it threatens to do grave harm to the Senate. If Republicans fulfill their threat to overturn the historic role of the filibuster in order to ram the Bush administration's nominees through, they will be inviting all-out warfare and perhaps an effective shutdown of Congress. 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. Republicans and Democrats should tone down their rhetoric, then sit down and negotiate.
President Bush likes to complain about the divisive atmosphere in Washington. But he has contributed to it mightily by choosing federal judges from the far right of the ideological spectrum. He started his second term with a particularly aggressive move: resubmitting seven nominees whom the Democrats blocked last year by filibuster.
The Senate has confirmed the vast majority of President Bush's choices. But Democrats have rightly balked at a handful. One of the seven renominated judges is William Myers, a former lobbyist for the mining and ranching industries who demonstrated at his hearing last week that he is an antienvironmental extremist who lacks the evenhandedness necessary to be a federal judge. Another is Janice Rogers Brown, who has disparaged the New Deal as "our socialist revolution."
To block the nominees, the Democrats' weapon of choice has been the filibuster, a time-honored Senate procedure that prevents a bare majority of senators from running roughshod. Republican leaders now claim that judicial nominees are entitled to an up-or-down vote. This is rank hypocrisy. When the tables were turned, Republicans filibustered President Bill Clinton's choice for surgeon general, forcing him to choose another. And Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, who now finds judicial filibusters so offensive, himself joined one against Richard Paez, a Clinton appeals court nominee.
Yet these very same Republicans are threatening to have Vice President Dick Cheney rule from the chair that a simple majority can confirm a judicial nominee rather than the 60 votes necessary to stop a filibuster. This is known as the "nuclear option" because in all likelihood it would blow up the Senate's operations. The Senate does much of its work by unanimous consent, which keeps things moving along and prevents ordinary day-to-day business from drowning in procedural votes. But if Republicans change the filibuster rules, Democrats could respond by ignoring the tradition of unanimous consent and making it difficult if not impossible to get anything done. Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has warned that "the Senate will be in turmoil and the Judiciary Committee will be hell."
Despite his party's Senate majority, however, Mr. Frist may not have the votes to go nuclear. A sizable number of Republicans - including John McCain, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Lincoln Chafee and John Warner - could break away. For them, the value of confirming a few extreme nominees may be outweighed by the lasting damage to the Senate. Besides, majorities are temporary, and they may want to filibuster one day.
There is one way to avert a showdown. The White House should meet with Senate leaders of both parties and come up with a list of nominees who will not be filibustered. This means that Mr. Bush - like Presidents Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush before him - would agree to submit nominees from the broad mainstream of legal thought, with a commitment to judging cases, not promoting a political agenda.
The Bush administration likes to call itself "conservative," but there is nothing conservative about endangering one of the great institutions of American democracy, the United States Senate, for the sake of an ideological crusade.
Thanks for the links.
And then
Republicans and Democrats should tone down their rhetoric,
Even Orwell would have been shocked at how far the left has gone in distorting the language.
The White House's insistence on choosing only far-right judicial nominees has already damaged the federal courts.
As will become clear later in their article they are making a statement of "fact" that they fail to justify by any evidence. Rule number one in the extreme anti-American leftist handbook by Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals (and Hillary's bible) is to state as fact your opinion and simply ignore any inconvenient facts.
Now it threatens to do grave harm to the Senate. If Republicans fulfill their threat to overturn the historic role of the filibuster in order to ram the Bush administration's nominees through, they will be inviting all-out warfare and perhaps an effective shutdown of Congress. 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.
There has never been a "historic role of filibuster" in the confirmation of Presidential appointments. The few examples of it have been in only the most obvious and extreme circumstances with nominees who did not have majorities to begin with and who needed to be blocked for obvious and important reasons that were supported by majorities of both parties, not just the minority required to defeat a super majority. 51 votes, a Majority of Senators, has always been enough to win confirmation of judicial nominees. Any other statement is a flat out lie. That lie was the "nuclear option" that the extreme leftists thugs who have hijacked the Democrat party decided to use in President Bush's first term. They decided to throw 200+ years of Constitutional tradition into the toilet and piss on it. They declared war on the President, the Republican majority in Congress and the American people.
Republicans and Democrats should tone down their rhetoric, then sit down and negotiate.
Please, oh priesthood of the leftist's satanic mass, what Republican rhetoric comes within a thousand miles of KKK Byrd's comparing Republicans to NAZIs? And don't even think about saying it was "just the passion of the moment?" KKK Rangel, and KKK Gore as well as KKKerry and KKKennedy have all dropped that little bon mot in the last few years.
President Bush likes to complain about the divisive atmosphere in Washington. But he has contributed to it mightily by choosing federal judges from the far right of the ideological spectrum.
Declaration without evidence, again. President George Bush has gone out of his way to be accommodating to the Democrats and has gotten kicked in the teeth every time he has held out his hand. He has refrained from divisive rhetoric and has held his troops in check, perhaps too long, in the name of bipartisanship.
He started his second term with a particularly aggressive move: resubmitting seven nominees whom the Democrats blocked last year by filibuster.
You mean the ones who were denied the 200 year tradition of an up or down vote when they had a clear majority in the Senate? Those seven? How, pray tell, is that aggressive? I would say that it is a reasoned and reasonable approach to a bunch of corrupt fanatics attempting to seize control of the process of government by illegal means when they have been soundly defeated at the ballot box. I might even call the Democrat's action akin to treason, but that's another discussion.
The Senate has confirmed the vast majority of President Bush's choices. But Democrats have rightly balked at a handful.
Then that must mean that the charge in the first sentence of this article, that the the White House is insisting "on choosing only far-right judicial nominees" is wrong. Or does the New York times accuse the Democrats of being co-conspirators in damaging the courts?
One of the seven renominated judges is William Myers, a former lobbyist for the mining and ranching industries who demonstrated at his hearing last week that he is an antienvironmental extremist who lacks the evenhandedness necessary to be a federal judge.
Declaration without evidence, again. What did he say that leads them to this conclusion? That he's not a life long member of Earth First? For it is obvious that no one else will ever be anything but an antienvironmental extremist to the Times.
Another is Janice Rogers Brown, who has disparaged the New Deal as "our socialist revolution."
Oooooo. An actual quote! But from where? What context? And is that an immediately disqualifying position, even if it really represents her views? Not falling down and worshipping at the alter of the New Deal is a hanging offense! Burn her! Burn her!
To block the nominees, the Democrats' weapon of choice has been the filibuster, a time-honored Senate procedure that prevents a bare majority of senators from running roughshod.
The "time-honored Senate procedure" has only been "time-honored" in the case of legislation, not confirmations. And to quote Democrat Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-MT) when endorsing KKK Byrd's bill in 1975 to change the rules in his own nuclear option to reduce the "super majority" needed to stop a filibuster "We cannot allow a minority" of the senators "to grab the Senate by the throat and hold it there." Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Byrd, and Biden, all agreed. So much for "time-honored Senate procedure."
Republican leaders now claim that judicial nominees are entitled to an up-or-down vote. This is rank hypocrisy. When the tables were turned, Republicans filibustered President Bill Clinton's choice for surgeon general, forcing him to choose another. And Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, who now finds judicial filibusters so offensive, himself joined one against Richard Paez, a Clinton appeals court nominee.
This is rank hypocrisy on the part of the demonrats, in that at the time of these individual occurrences the extremists who now rule the demonrats squealed like the stuck pigs they are about how this was destroying the rule of law and the rules of the Senate. But they didn't fight this because they knew they actually didn't have the votes to confirm these two extremist freaks in the first place, so allowing the filibuster to work got them out of a dangerous vote. These filibusters were sustained by MAJORITIES of the Senate, nut just the minority the dims now coerce to their will. Obviously quite a few Democrats didn't want to have to vote for Clinton's outrageous appointments and were looking to the Republicans to protect them from their own party leadership.
Yet these very same Republicans are threatening to have Vice President Dick Cheney rule from the chair that a simple majority can confirm a judicial nominee rather than the 60 votes necessary to stop a filibuster.
Kinda like how Vice President Nixon defeated the 1950s filibuster by the demonrats, including KKK Byrd and KKK Gore Sr., against the Civil Rights bill?
This is known as the "nuclear option" because in all likelihood it would blow up the Senate's operations. T
No, this is a misnomer that I wish the Republicans had never allowed to stand. The "nuclear option" was when the demonrats decided to filibuster all non-leftist judicial nominees. This is merely a bit of MAD, to ensure that they can't believe that they can get away with an outrageous attack on the constitution.
he Senate does much of its work by unanimous consent, which keeps things moving along and prevents ordinary day-to-day business from drowning in procedural votes. But if Republicans change the filibuster rules, Democrats could respond by ignoring the tradition of unanimous consent and making it difficult if not impossible to get anything done.
Oh please don't block all of the people's business in Congress Mister Brer Bear! And don't throw me into that briar patch, whatever you do (you weasel).
Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has warned that "the Senate will be in turmoil and the Judiciary Committee will be hell."
Arlen, it's clearly where you're going anyway, so you might as well get used to it. I think that's Scottish law, by the way (you weasel).
Despite his party's Senate majority, however, Mr. Frist may not have the votes to go nuclear. A sizable number of Republicans - including John McCain, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Lincoln Chafee and John Warner - could break away. For them, the value of confirming a few extreme nominees may be outweighed by the lasting damage to the Senate. Besides, majorities are temporary, and they may want to filibuster one day.
And this has been my great fear. But if the RINOs do break ranks with the President and the American people, we WILL find a way to do to them what we did to little Tommy Daschle and they, too, will be greatly saddened.
There is one way to avert a showdown. The White House should meet with Senate leaders of both parties and come up with a list of nominees who will not be filibustered.
Pre-approval by the demonrats? I don't think our constitution would stand up to such a betrayal, particularly not to such NAZI pigs as these.
This means that Mr. Bush - like Presidents Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush before him - would agree to submit nominees from the broad mainstream of legal thought, with a commitment to judging cases, not promoting a political agenda.
Ooooooo. Nice construction, but a lie. They imply that Clinton, Reagan and 41 all submitted to pre-approval by the opposition party. Never happened. But I guess the Ministry of Truth New York Times isn't satisfied with merely destroying the Constitution by filibustering nominees. They want to take away the Republican President's ability to nominate people of his choosing. I think they may be testing if Fahrenheit 451 will apply to the Constitution.
The Bush administration likes to call itself "conservative," but there is nothing conservative about endangering one of the great institutions of American democracy, the United States Senate, for the sake of an ideological crusade.
The ideologues on the extreme left have declared war on all of democracy in this country, led by the high priests of the old gay lady. The Senate is the battleground today. If we fail to preserve the notion of fairness and democracy against a fanatic minority then all our liberties may be doomed.
Check the link in comment# 102 also.
This IS a parody, right? So many serious comments, makes me question.
great review....
I'm with you, ambrose. Go back to the REAL filibuster. That way, the Republicans will still have the option...if they have the wherewithal to do it. From what I've heard, the old farts on both side of the aisle agreed to this non-filibuster filibuster because they are too old to carry out a real one.
Help me here. Is this 60 vote thing new? I thought the dems struck a deal with the republicans concerning this. Sorry, I really should know this already. Can you explain?
And this is a bad thing because???
Because Republicans have majorities in the Senate and House and the Presidency. We should be passing Republican legislation. If the rats controlled the legislation then I would agree that shutting down Congress is good. Last session some people wanted to go "nuclear." This would have killed the fetal protection law, internet tax moratorium, missile defense, repealing the death tax, 2003 tax cuts, and dividend tax phase out. With 55 Republican Senators we should be able to pass even better legislation this session.
Strike 1
He was confirmed to the Bozo court (9th circuit).
Strike 2
Opposition to him was characterized (in the link you provide) as "a long-overdue ethnic triumph in the face of Republican obstructionism" while opposition to Bush appointees who are black, hispanic or asian is cast as "opposing extremists."
Strike 3
I regret to inform you that your example is doo doo and confirmation of extremist demonrat leftist hypocrisy.
By now, even the clueless Republican senators ought to know that the NYSlimes will never have anything good to say about them anyway, so why shouldn't they please their Republican constituents and vote to overcome the Dems unconstitutional filibustering on judges? (The Constitution lists 7 cases where filibusters are allowed, and the approval of judges is NOT one of them.) Dance with the ones that brung ya', fellas.
The NYT puts this kind of stuff out because they know the SHEEPLE will believe their propaganda .
Only much further down in the story, long after it has jumped to the innards of the paper--and after we've been told that the GOP opposition to Paez might be used against presidential candidate George Bush--does Simon give any hint that Republicans might have actually had a reason for opposing Paez other than his ethnicity, namely that he was a "judicial activist."
The evidence to back up this complaint wasn't overwhelming, but even the Washington Post editorial page, which ultimately supported Paez, admitted it was "not entirely frivolous." Paez a) had given a speech criticizing the initiative that later ended racial preferences in California, calling it "the proposed anti-civil rights initiative" and strongly hinting--since judges exist in part to enforce civil rights--that he'd strike it down; b) had explained his sense of the appropriate judicial role by saying, "I appreciate ... the need of the courts to act, when they must, when the issue results from the failure of the political process to resolve a certain question"; and c) had struck down as a violation of free speech a Los Angeles ordinance against aggressive panhandling. Everyone concedes that Paez is one of the more liberal judges nominated by Clinton...
lol !! BABABABAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
The voting on the floor is being, effectively, held hostage by the demoJERKs. They are using Senate rules that "require" 60 votes to end any discussion (I believe this is called a cloture vote).
In efffect, the demoCREEPs are using this rule as a filibuster. An actual filibuster involves using various debating tactics to delay the voting on a specific subject (i.e., the confirmation of a judges).
A change to this rule is being called "the nuclear option". The demoSCUM are saying that the 'pubbies' threats of a change are unheard of, but (as another FREEPER pointed out) these scumbags would change this vote in a hearbeat if they were in charge.
The whole thing is a clusterF'.
Only equaling the demoASSes audcity is the sheepishness of the Republicans.
Frist and the pubbies need to grow a set and get the damn judges through. Right now, they have allowed the demoJERKWEEDs to dedicate the game (even though they aren't in charge) and, worse, they have allowed the language and definition of what a filibuster is be manipulated by the demoPUNKs and their willing accomplices in the media. That is probably the most drastic and disappointing aspect of the Republicans lack of cahones.
The whole thing, really, is quite a joke, given the serious nature of the question being sent through our court system. This week's announcement that it is unconstitutional to use the death penalty under minors only points out how far afield the court system (Supreme Court, included) has gone.
Frankly, it's scary. If you read Mark Levin's new book, Men In Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America, you'll want to vomit at what the Supremes (specifically the leftist on the court) have done to this great country. It's sad.
If Slate published it, it supports their world view, regardless of who wrote it. Witness your citation of it to "refute" my point about the relative merits of the large block of filibusters versus the individual counter examples cited by the demonrats. I acknowledge your point, that Paez was approved by a majority, but I will not relinquish the larger issue of demonrats raping the constitution by mounting an unprecedented en mass filibuster.
Slate has published quotes from both Ronald Reagan and Jesus Christ. I obviously don't disagree with either of them in the general case, in the abstract, but I reserve the right to question the use of their writings for evil purposes.
And Mickey Kaus ain't no Ronald Reagan and he sure isn't in the same universe as Jesus Christ.
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.