Skip to comments.
Big lie on filibuster: Democrats are subverting Senate role
Manchester Union Leader ^
| May 15, 2005
| Editorial
Posted on 05/15/2005 4:58:11 AM PDT by billorites
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-38 next last
To: billorites
The Republicans have played by the rules. They have defeated judicial nominations by up-or-down votes, either in committee or before the full Senate. When Clinton was in office Senate committees would routinely refuse to hold hearings on some of his nominees that they viewed as too liberal. Yhey played by the rules then. Like it or not, the Democrats are playing by the rules not. If you don't like the rules then change them.
To: billorites
Another new media /old media example here. We get the truth here on fr, we are the new/media. While the rats create lies and then have them spread by the old/media--letter t.v. nets, the MSM,-- wash.post NY slimes la slimes etc.(no caps necessary for any of them) Nothing really, new just business as usual. Some people know the truth, others don't. Some care, some don't.
In the final analysis we in the new Media will slowly trounce the old purveys of BS.
3
posted on
05/15/2005 5:05:53 AM PDT
by
rodguy911
(rodguy911:First Let's get rid of the UN and the ACLU,..toss in CAIR as well.)
To: billorites
Just do it! At some point you can not tolerate things the
way they are.
By changing the rules will prove that it is constitutional
otherwise it couldn't be done. If the Dem's want to take it
to court then let them. They will not because they know
changing the rules is nothing new.
Do it! Do it!
This issue will have legs for a week or two. As it is it
has been going on for weeks and weeks and weeks. Where is
the advantage of that?
4
posted on
05/15/2005 5:11:39 AM PDT
by
cleo1939
To: cleo1939
They'd never get away with this lie without the MSM! Someone better than I should look up what those slimes were saying when 'RATs were in the majority and filllibusters could have been used by the GOP. I'd bet they were all against it then!
To: SouthCarolinaKit
Absolutely right! It's the same old time tested standby trick used by the rats so successfully. Create a lie and get the old media to spread it. It works 75% of the time. And by the time they are discovered they are on to the next lie. Almost clintonesque.
6
posted on
05/15/2005 5:46:20 AM PDT
by
rodguy911
(rodguy911:First Let's get rid of the UN and the ACLU,..toss in CAIR as well.)
To: Non-Sequitur
Gotta agree with you. The rules allowed Republicans to block Clinton's nominees and the rules allow Democrats to filibuster Bush nominees.
Nothing in the constitution guarantees a full Senate vote on any judicial nominee.
And, changing the filibuster rule is extremely rash and shortsighted.
7
posted on
05/15/2005 5:55:48 AM PDT
by
DaGman
To: DaGman
Have you read and understood what the editorial said? The title is entirely misleading. The point of the editorial is that the DEMOCRATS are LIEING and PERVERTING the way the approval process is supposed to work.
To: DaGman
What does "advise and consent" mean to you? Do you see the irony in overlooking these words in the Constitution in order to allow the filibustering of these nominees to continue, in order that the activist judiciary can continue to read abortion and gay marriage into the Constitution?
9
posted on
05/15/2005 6:35:29 AM PDT
by
Deo et Patria
(Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.)
To: Deo et Patria
"...activist judiciary can continue to read abortion and gay marriage into the Constitution?"
I understand the abortion reference, but not the gay marriage one. When did a court read gay marriage into the US Constitution?
10
posted on
05/15/2005 8:34:38 AM PDT
by
BackInBlack
("The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice.")
To: SouthCarolinaKit
A few comments on the record from the Democrats who now support filibusters of judicial nominees.....
- Senator Leahy (past Judiciary Chairman and current Ranking Member): "If we want to vote against somebody, vote against them. I respect that. State your reasons. I respect that. But don't hold up a qualified judicial nominee. . . . I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would . . . object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate should do its duty." (Congressional Record, June 18, 1998.)
- Senator Leahy: "I have said on the floor, although we are different parties, I have agreed with Gov. George Bush, who has said that in the Senate a nominee ought to get a [floor] vote, up or down, within 60 days." (Congressional Record, October 11, 2000.)
- Senator Daschle (Minority Leader): "As Chief Justice Rehnquist has recognized: 'The Senate is surely under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary time for inquiry it should vote him up or vote him down.' An up-or-down vote, that is all we ask for [Clinton judicial nominees] Berzon and Paez." (Congressional Record, October 5, 1999.)
- Senator Biden (past Judiciary Chairman): "But I also respectfully suggest that everyone who is nominated ought to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor. . . . It is totally appropriate for Republicans to reject every single nominee if they want to. That is within their right. But it is not, I will respectfully request, Madam President, appropriate not to have hearings on them, not to bring them to the floor and not to allow a vote . . . ." (Congressional Record, March 19, 1997.)
- Senator Kennedy (past Judiciary Chairman): "The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court said: 'The Senate is surely under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary time for inquiry it should vote him up or vote him down.' Which is exactly what I would like." (Congressional Record, March 7, 2000.)
- Senator Kennedy: "We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don't like them, vote against them. But give them a vote." (Congressional Record, February 3, 1998.)
- Senator Feinstein (Judiciary Committee member): "A nominee is entitled to a vote. Vote them up; vote them down." (Congressional Record, September 16, 1999.)
- "I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would . . . object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported . . ." (-- Senator Leahy, Congressional Record, June 18, 1998)
- "I do not want to get [to] having to invoke cloture on judicial nominations. I think it is a bad precedent." (-- Senator Leahy, Congressional Record, September 16, 1999)
CLICK
11
posted on
05/15/2005 9:11:51 AM PDT
by
deport
(Accept that some days you're the pigeon, and some days you're the statue....)
To: BackInBlack
I am not referring to a specific incident yet with respect to the U.S. Constitution. Given the rationales under which like minded state judges have read a right of gay marriage into state constitutions (see e.g., Massachusetts), combined with the proclivities of federal judges to extract new rights from overseas law, "equal protection" and the "penumbra of emanations," I see the "recognition" of the right to gay marriage in the Constitution as inevitable in the federal courts, unless the judges are checked.
12
posted on
05/15/2005 10:17:20 AM PDT
by
Deo et Patria
(Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.)
To: billorites
The Liberal Democrats just don't like these judges because they don't think our USConstituion should be molded like sillyPutty around sillyLiberal ideals.
13
posted on
05/15/2005 10:53:44 AM PDT
by
TeleStraightShooter
(USMC: Putting MMoore's "MinuteMen", the Fallujah Snuff Video Productions, Out Of Business)
To: Deo et Patria; NHResident
Yes I read the article, and my point is that the same "advise and consent" argument that's used to justify why nominees shouldn't be filibustered, could also have been used against GOP Senators who blocked Clinton appointees. As far as the system being "perverted" by the Dems, why is the system being "perverted" now, but it wasn't when Clinton appointees were blocked?
My entire point is that this move to stop filibustering judicial nominees is extremely shortsighted. Yes, it will accomplish Bush's nominees being confirmed in spite of the minority, but the GOP will eventually rue the day they did away with judicial filibusters. That you can bet on.
This is a classic, textbook case of be careful what you ask for because you just might get it.
14
posted on
05/15/2005 10:56:15 AM PDT
by
DaGman
To: DaGman
By the time that republicnas would rue the day that they blocked filibustering judicial nominations, I submit that the filibuster would not be relevant because looking at the makeup of the courts as they will be slated, any judge appointed will be in no postion to undo what the prospective courts have already done.
Looking at the current trend most states are going red, and those that are going purple are going from purple to red not red to purple. The trend is for conservtives. Besides, if the donks held a workable majortiy they would deploy the nuke themselves, because they were the party who used filibusters to defeat conservative nominees in the first place, after being aginst such measures 6 or 7 years ago.
The GOP has every reason to pull the trigger here.
To: Truth Table
"By the time that republicnas would rue the day that they blocked filibustering judicial nominations, I submit that the filibuster would not be relevant because looking at the makeup of the courts as they will be slated, any judge appointed will be in no postion to undo what the prospective courts have already done." Good point. This will become a moot issue for decades. By then I probably won't care as I won't live to be 100+.
16
posted on
05/15/2005 12:09:27 PM PDT
by
DaGman
To: DaGman
By then I probably won't care as I won't live to be 100+.Exaclty.
To: DaGman
"Yes I read the article, and my point is that the same "advise and consent" argument that's used to justify why nominees shouldn't be filibustered, could also have been used against GOP Senators who blocked Clinton appointees. As far as the system being "perverted" by the Dems, why is the system being "perverted" now, but it wasn't when Clinton appointees were blocked?"
_____________
Because the Clinton appointees were opposed by a majority of the Senate. Therefore, the Senate was well within its rights to block nominees, because the full Senate would not have approved.
Do you see how different the situation is between the Senate witholding its consent (in the Clinton scenario) and a minority of Senators preventing a majority from approving the president's nominees?
18
posted on
05/15/2005 12:15:17 PM PDT
by
Deo et Patria
(Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.)
To: Deo et Patria
"Because the Clinton appointees were opposed by a majority of the Senate. Therefore, the Senate was well within its rights to block nominees, because the full Senate would not have approved." Of course, and I say this for the sake of argument, lacking an up or down vote by the full Senate, we don't know that what you say above is true or not. We can speculate based on news reports, but there never was a full up or down vote on some Clinton appointees. In several cases, there were never any committee hearings as the appointee's home state GOP Senator put a hold on the appointment according to the rules of the Senate. (Note that the constitution says nothing about Senators having this right.) But there is nothing on the record as to the sense of the Senate on confirming Clinton's judicial appointees that were never confirmed.
Do you see where this can go? This could backlash against the GOP. But there also could be an equal chance that people will just get very apathetic and not participate because of what they see as "politics as usual".
19
posted on
05/15/2005 12:44:26 PM PDT
by
DaGman
To: DaGman
but the GOP will eventually rue the day they did away with judicial filibusters. That you can bet on.
They shouldn't as they have made it a stance in the past when they were in the minority that nominees should get up/down votes and they've not conducted a partisan filibuster todate. Thus if they attempt the filibuster of one as a partisan filibuster in the future then they have backed away from their stance. May happen but so be it.
20
posted on
05/15/2005 1:25:31 PM PDT
by
deport
(Accept that some days you're the pigeon, and some days you're the statue....)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-38 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson