Replies

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA): “According to the U.S. Constitution, the President nominates, and the Senate shall provide advice and consent. 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. Barbara Boxer, Congressional Record, 5/14/97, p. S4420)

Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D-MD): “It is worse than that. It is not whether you let the President have his nominees confirmed. You will not even let them be considered by the Senate for an up-or-down vote. That is the problem today. In other words, the other side will not let the process work so these nominees can come before the Senate for judgment.” (Sen. Paul Sarbanes, Congressional Record, 3/19/97, p. S2539)

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE): “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. Joe Biden, Congressional Record, 3/19/97, p. S2540)

Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD): "This so-called supermajority is the Senate's filibuster rule. All of America had a good taste of how the filibuster rule worked in the 103d Congress. It brought work to a full stop. It put into the hands of a minority the power to bargain for, hold hostage, blackmail or simply block anything they wanted. The Constitution is straightforward about the few instances in which more than a majority of the Congress must vote: A veto override, a treaty, and a finding of guilt in an impeachment proceeding. Every other action by the Congress is taken by majority vote. The Founders debated the idea of requiring more than a majority to approve legislation. They concluded that putting such immense power into the hands of a minority ran squarely against the democratic principle. Democracy means majority rule, not minority gridlock." (Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, 1/30/95, p. S1748)

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “Nominees deserve a vote. … The President and the Senate do not always agree. But we should resolve these disagreements by voting on these nominees--yes or no.” (Sen. Ted Kennedy, Congressional Record, 1/28/98, p. S85)

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “When the Founders wrote the Constitution and gave the Senate the power of advice and consent on Presidential nominations , they never intended the Senate to work against the President, as this Senate is doing, by engaging in a wholesale stall and refusing to act on large numbers of the President's nominees.” (Sen. Ted Kennedy, Congressional Record, 9/21/99, S11102)

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): “They are simply holding up the President’s appointees because they don’t want them to be selected, or they have some other issue and they are trying to hold the nominee hostage.” (Sen. Harry Reid, Congressional Record, 4/22/97, p. S3398)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “To delay judicial nominations for months and years and to deny them a vote is wrong.” (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 10/14/98, p. S12578)

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL): “If, after 150 days languishing in a committee there is no report on an individual, the name should come to the floor. 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. They are qualified or they are not.” (Sen. Dick Durbin, Congressional Record, 9/28/98, p. S S11031)

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): “I also plead with my colleagues to move judges with alacrity--vote them up or down. But this delay makes a mockery of the Constitution, makes a mockery of the fact that we are here working, and makes a mockery of the lives of very sincere people who have put themselves forward to be judges and then they hang out there in limbo.” (Sen. Chuck Schumer, Congressional Record, 3/7/00, p. S1211)

Credit a Yahoo poster
http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=&board=37138469&tid=apfilibusterfight&sid=37138469&action=m&mid=64401