Posted on 05/18/2005 10:21:08 PM PDT by davidosborne
Text Credit to Ken5050: DAY-1 THREAD
Welcome, all you Freepers, to the continuing C-span soap operas about judicial nominations. "The Guiding SEARCHLIGHT, " "As the SENATE Turns, "One NOMINATION to Live" "GERIATRIC Hospital" (for all you Byrd and Lautenberg fans out there). Follow along with us, as the Dems raise the level of histrionics, bloviation, pontification, and all around bad acting to new highs, er, lows...
Getting ready to call now. If any kind of "deal" goes through, I swear that I will send a PINK paper letter to each of those 6 RINOS saying "You're fired."
I thought for a while that 9/11 was the crisis, but I now think it was part of the Unraveling.
If the Republicans prevail in this, the democrats might try to shut down the Senate. Should they do so, we could end up with one ineffective legislative body, no bills passed, no nominees confirmed, no treaties ratified.
This could precipitate a Constitutional crisis, resulting in all sorts of things, including a Constitutional Convention.
However, I do not think this likely.
Lott was surprising me, especially the way he defended JRB. I hope all that mant he won't buck the party.
I really like Bond---what did happen to his arm/shoulder?
I just called both of my senator's offices---Cornyn's office just took the message, but the lady at Kay Bailey's office was VERY talkative, and when I mentioned the "compromise committee" she exclaimed, OH,THEM!!! She said in no way is Kay Bailey involved in any compromise and she won't!!!
I like the spunk of her receptionist!!!!
Yup..but would he settle for the #2 spot?
That's because he already got the snot knocked out of HIM when he tried it a couple of weeks ago.
That is precisely why Lott was on the floor acting strong!
Democrats Thought it was Improper to Filibuster Judicial
Nominees
May 19, 2005 | FR Researchers
Posted on 05/19/2005 8:17:55 AM PDT by Peach
Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Delaware) March 19, 1997: “But I also respectfully suggest that everyone who is nominated is entitled 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.”
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Illinois)September 28, 1998: “We should meet our responsibility. I think that responsibility requires us to act in a timely fashion on nominees sent before us. ... Vote the person up or down.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) September 11, 1997: “Let’s bring their nominations up, debate them if necessary, and vote them up or down.”
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)February 3, 1998: “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.”
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) May 10, 2000: “The Founding Fathers certainly intended that the Senate advise as to judicial nominations, i.e., consider, debate, and vote up or down. They surely did not intend that the Senate, for partisan or factional reasons, would remain silent and simply refuse to give any advice or consider and vote at all.”
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) 5/14/97 : “It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.”
Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD): “I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination.” (Congressional Record, 10/5/99)
Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD): “Hispanic or non-Hispanic, African American or non-African American, woman or man, it is wrong not to have a vote on the Senate floor.” (Congressional Record, 10/28/99)
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): “My expectation is that we’re not going to hold up judicial nominations. …You will not see us do what was done to us in recent years in the Senate with judicial nominations.” (Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume,” 6/4/01)
Richard Durbin (D-IL) "If, after 150 days languishing on the Executive Calendar that name has not been called for a vote, it should be. Vote the person up or down." (Cong. Rec., 9/28/98, S11021)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “Let’s bring their nominations up, debate them if necessary, and vote them up or down.” (Congressional Record, 9/11/97)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “It is our job to confirm these judges. If we don’t like them, we can vote against them.” (Congressional Record, 9/16/99)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “Our institutional integrity requires an up-or-down vote.” (Congressional Record, 10/4/99)
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA): “[The filibuster process] is used … as blackmail for one Senator to get his or her way on something that they could not rightfully win through the normal processes.” (Congressional Record, 1/4/95)
Tom Harkin (D-IA) "Have the guts to come out and vote up or down….And once and for all, put behind us this filibuster procedure on nominations." (Cong. Rec., 6/22/95, S8861)
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA): “I urge the Republican leadership to take the steps necessary to allow the full Senate to vote up or down on these important nominations.” (Congressional Record, 9/11/00)
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “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, 2/3/98) Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “It is true that some Senators have voiced concerns about these nominations. But that should not prevent a roll call vote which gives every Senator the opportunity to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ ... Parties with cases, waiting to be heard by the federal courts deserve a decision by the Senate.” (Congressional Record, 9/21/99) Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI): “These nominees, who have to put their lives on hold waiting for us to act, deserve an ‘up or down’ vote.” (Congressional Record, 9/21/99) Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “I hope we … will accept our responsibility and vote people up or vote them down. … If we want to vote against them, vote against them.” (Congressional Record, 10/22/97) Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “Now, every Senator can vote against any nominee. … But it is the responsibility of the U.S. Senate to at least bring them to a vote.” (Congressional Record, 10/22/97) Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “ "I have stated over and over again … that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported …” (Congressional Record, 6/18/98) Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “[E]arlier this year … I noted how improper it would be to filibuster a judicial nomination.” (Congressional Record, 10/14/98) Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “[I]f the person is otherwise qualified, he or she gets the vote. … Vote them up, vote them down.” (Congressional Record, 9/21/99) Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): “[W]e should have up-or-down votes in the committee and on the floor.” (CNN’s “Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields,” 6/9/01)
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): “[W]e are charged with voting on the nominees. The Constitution does not say if the Congress is controlled by a different party than the President there shall be no judges chosen.” (Congressional Record, 3/7/00)
Carl Levin (D-MI) "If a bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate is prepared to vote to confirm the President's appointment, that vote should occur." (Cong. Rec., 6/21/95, S8806)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1406380/posts
Any presidential appointee being denied a vote on the floor after due debate is unconstitutional.
The "committee system" which was devised by the Senate to assist their doing business is not, and it is clear that almost all nominees would have the committee's vote upheld, so it has been a "no harm" situation . Nevertheless, I will repeat, if it results in an appointee being denied a vote, it is unconstitutional - and I would love to see the Senators halt business right now to take up Feinstein's appeal to eliminate the unconstitutional "blue slip".
He is a smarmy RAT!!!
Heard a caller on C-Span this morning say "I am a Democrat, always vote Democrat...although I do vote for McCain."
Made me laugh.
Can a minority of Senators pass legislation? Why not? Could not the Senate make THAT the rule? That is the guts of your argument.
Is there a possibility that some of the Pubbies are in effect, not so much "spies" but "closet agents" of Frist and the leadership...specifically to keep an eye on McCain...Warner comes to mind, as does De Wine..?
Lindsey Graham has been a HUGE disappointment and seeing his name on that list has confirmed everything I've thought about him for 2 years now.
I bet he runs and loses to Hillary in the primaries and then takes the job. Depends on how nasty H's attack dogs (party and MSM) get during the race to discredit Richardson.
By the by, Ann is naughty.
HMMMMMM---Voinivich---not surprised, but Gordon Smith, I thought, had decided to stay the course...
Of course that doesn't mean he wouldn't work on the committee, but IMHO, anyone that is on that committee isn't dedicated enough to be trusted!
"Is there a possibility that some of the Pubbies are in effect, not so much "spies" but "closet agents" of Frist and the leadership...specifically to keep an eye on McCain...Warner comes to mind, as does De Wine..?"
I think that some are, it would be wise to keep an eye on McCain!
Placemarker for later. I need to make my granddaughter lunch.
Linsey has forgotten that he was elected by a RED state and should be supporting President BUSH, not toddling along behind McCain, whom SC did not support.
Not true. Frist didn't, therefore is was not unanimous.
S13 - 108th Congress
S14 - 108th Congress <-- See middle of 2nd column
Sen Bond is taking it to them, clear and precise.
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.