Sen. Hatch Explodes at Dems Over Filibuster

NewsMax.com ^ | 2/12/03 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

[mrmargaritaville]

Hatch is nothing more than a blow hard-"all talk no action type". He is a "staunch" conservative when it fits the situation. I bet twenty minutes after his "explosion" he was out at a restaurant with that bloated pig teddy kenndey sipping a $150 bottle of french wine yukking it up.

[MHGinTN]

I wonder, is Orrin Hatchling finally starting to get it? Starting to realize that the democrats have never been about 'fair' or 'bi-partisan' or 'cooperating for the good of the country' or ... oh, never mind. I ought to know better than to ask such a silly question after listening to Hatch for all these years. [Sitting next to Leahy for so long has corrupted the man.]

[From The Deer Stand]

HOW DOES PATRICK LEAHY FEEL ABOUT FILIBUSTERS?

A primary moving force behind the filibuster is the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy. So, just how does Mr. Leahy feel about filibustering judicial nominees? For that we only have to go to 144 Cong. Rec. S6522 (June 18, 1998):

"I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would refuse to put an anonymous hold on any judge; 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. If we don't like somebody the President nominates, vote him or her down. But don't hold them in this anonymous unconscionable limbo, because in doing that, the minority of Senators really shame all Senators."

I guess that was then, and this is now … right, Senator Leahy?

[Kryptonite]

Not untrue. David Souter would count as for the Pubbies, but your unsourcelinked (new word in the spirit of our President) stat wouldn't recognize his true impact on the balance of ideology on the SCOTUS. The average Klintoon activist is soooo extreme, and far too many Bush I and Reagan nominees not principled enough, that the Bush II appointments are absolutely critical to the future of this country.

The 9th Circuit declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional last year. That is merely exemplar of the sort of "progress" this country faces on a routine basis if the Bush nominees are not approved.

[Kryptonite]

BUSTED!

[denydenydeny]

But if Bush succeeds in filling every open seat, some of them vacant because Clinton nominees were blocked, 11 of the 13 circuits will have Republican-appointed majorities. In eight of the 13, Republican nominees would have majorities of 2 to 1 or more."

Um...should someone tell cogitator that we've had Republican presidents in office for 23 of the last 35 years? And therefore a Republican majority of judicial appointees would parallel the free electoral choices of the American people.

I'm kind of curious why someone would be disturbed that the makeup of the federal judiciary would reflect national electoral results.

[Kryptonite]

we've had Republican presidents in office for 23 of the last 35 years. And therefore a Republican majority of judicial appointees would parallel the free electoral choices of the American people.

Excellent observation.