Posted on 03/05/2005 7:01:29 PM PST by neverdem
thank you for explaining that. I knew some of it but not all. I too wish the repub. would stop playing such nice guys. They always get the shaft when they do. The dems turn around and cheat and steal to get their own way.
I'm not familiar with Slate's worldview. I am familiar Kaus, probably because he was linked by someone at NRO or Reason as a reference. Kaus' link happened to be the first usable result at Google.
Regardless, my point is that pubbies did the same thing to at least two of Clinton's nominees, Paez and Berzon, for about four and two years, respectively, by denying to vote for cloture and keeping debate open. It's not a filibuster.
I am hardly agree with what the dems are doing, but anyone who says that what the dems are doing is unprecedented is either ignorant or full of BS.
I hardly agree with what the dems are doing, but anyone who says that what the dems are doing is unprecedented is either ignorant or full of BS.
And personal attacks of the type you put up as "debate" makes me question your motives.
Your "ignorance and BS" be on your head, sir.
Your "ignorance and BS" be on your head, sir.
It wasn't a personal attack, wasn't intended as an insult nor was it directed to you. I have read the word "unprecedented" in numerous articles. Freeper ambrose prompted me to verify that pubbies used this tactic before. It doesn't make pubbies look good, squealing like stuck pigs, over a parliamentary tactic they used against the bent one at least twice, if not more.
I believe we should hope the dems keep this up. In 2006, Bush should campaign against dem incumbent senators in "red" states making the point that the incumbent senators wouldn't grant a vote for these judicial nominees who believe in the constitution as it was originally intended, and not in making law from the bench as almost all dem nominees wind up doing.
EXECUTIVE SESSION -- (Senate - March 09, 2000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--snip--
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD several editorials supporting Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[From the Los Angeles Times, Feb. 6, 2000]
Judge Deserves Rousing Approval
Perhaps this week the full Senate will finally take up the nomination of Judge Richard Paez to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. With a decisive vote to confirm Paez, the Senate can redeem itself after its disgraceful treatment of this worthy jurist.
--snip--
[From the Los Angeles Times, Jan. 20, 2000]
Infamous Anniversary for Courts
Next Tuesday, four long years will have passed since President Clinton first nominated U.S. District Judge Richard A. Paez to a seat on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. It's a sorry moment.
--snip--
[From the Washington Post, March 3, 2000]
The Paez and Berzon Votes
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott has indicated that the Senate will finally hold up-or-down votes on judicial nominees Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon by March 15. Judge Paez has waited four years for the Senate to consider his nomination, and Ms. Berzon has waited two. Both nominees to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals are well qualified. It is time both were confirmed.
Since virtually EVERY Freeper is so rightfully disgusted by the constant leftwing bias of the NYT, the book "Journalistic Fraud", by Bob Kohn, should be required reading by EVERY Freeper! Read it folks, and you will see exactly HOW the NYT editors and writers have developed a leftist propaganda system designed to surreptitiously spread their bias thru other media outlets across the nation, like a cancer, to a gullible public. It's a fascinating read by a lawyer who literally dissects their technique and exposes it with painful clarity. Rushy
Slam the Dems. Force them to reject. Force the RINO's to expose themselves and then use their votes against them in the re-election.
NYT Translation: Leftist be alarmed, the Republicans are in danger of growing a spine.
(free at last, freeeeee at last.)
Thanks for the ping!
Media bias bump.
And that's a bad thing?
In addition to being historic, what the NYTimes (deliberately) fails to mention is that when the GOP obstructed Clinton's nominees, there were NOT 51 votes to confirm. While as a general principle everyone should get an up or down vote (make the Senators go on record against a nominee), it was a completely different situation. HERE we have a majority of Senators saying they'll support.
Make em (the Democrats) stand in the Senate and talk till they drop dead, maybe KKK BYRD will collapse on the Senate floor.
"nuclear option"
They can't even spell right at the NYT. it's
"NUCULER option"!
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.