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

NY Times ^ | March 6, 2005 | MEATHEAD EDITORIAL

[queenkathy]

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.

[neverdem]

If Slate published it, it supports their world view, regardless of who wrote it.

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.

[neverdem]

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.

[Phsstpok]

What the dems are doing is a planned strategy against a large block over the entire first Bush term against numerous Republican appointees. What happened twice during the eight years of the Clinton tumor on the body politic were spontaneous reactions to freakazoid extremists.

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.

[AaronInCarolina]

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 read the article that you linked to at Slate, and I could find no mention of denying vote for cloture. What is your source for that info. In fact, why would they have to be in that position to block a nomination??? Did not the Republicans control the senate, and therefore the judicial committee? Did Paez make it out of committee? If so, did the Republicans then block an up/down vote on the floor even though the Republican controlled committee okayed his nomination???

If the Paez nomination was blocked in committee, that is entirely appropriate, and nothing like what is happening in this senate. Please correct me, because I personally don't know much about the Paez case, but I do know that most so-called obstruction of judicial nominees that occurred in the Republican controlled senate was just a completely appropriate exercise of majority rule, not minority tyranny.

[neverdem]

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.

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.

[neverdem]

They were approved by the Judiciary Committee. Click on the link in comment# 102. Then go down about ten lines from the top of the list and find a linked "Page: S1340". You have to do it that way. If I linked it directly, then you would find that thomas.loc.gov uses a temporary URL for these citations. These editorials, among others, apparently were entered into the Congressional Record.

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.

[Rushy]

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

[KingofQue]

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.

[longtermmemmory]

NYT Translation: Leftist be alarmed, the Republicans are in danger of growing a spine.


(free at last, freeeeee at last.)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[E.G.C.]

Media bias bump.

[Rodney King]

in all likelihood it would blow up the Senate's operations.

And that's a bad thing?

[sjmiller]

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.

[AaronInCarolina]

They were approved by the Judiciary Committee. Click on the link in comment# 102. Then go down about ten lines from the top of the list and find a linked "Page: S1340". You have to do it that way. If I linked it directly, then you would find that thomas.loc.gov uses a temporary URL for these citations. These editorials, among others, apparently were entered into the Congressional Record.

Thanks for the info. This is the first I have heard of an example of a nominee blocked outside of the committee.

If I might, I would suggest that in this case the tactic used in the Paez case was still a mildly less objectionable one than that used by the minority Democrats currently. Those invoking this tactic were members of the majority, most of whom may have been against that nominee. I admit, it is a weak distinction, but majority status does confer upon a party certain perks that minority status does not. Had the Republicans who employed this tactic been in the minority party, that certainly would have been equivalent to what the democrats are currently doing. They weren't.

[agincourt1415]

Re: Fillabuster

Make em (the Democrats) stand in the Senate and talk till they drop dead, maybe KKK BYRD will collapse on the Senate floor.

[SwinneySwitch]

"nuclear option"

They can't even spell right at the NYT. it's

"NUCULER option"!

[OESY]

And the blogger's keyboard is mightier than the pen.