Interesting Slate article on the Republicans' continuing descent into self parody

[wirelessenabled]

no message

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern
If Leahy threatened to abolish the blue slip process, I can see a reason to write the President.
Fern

Where's your concern about the Republicans' threat to boycott *every* Obama judicial nominee (as they did with Clinton to get their way), abusing the blue slip tradition?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Fern
If Leahy threatened to abolish the blue slip process, I can see a reason to write the President.
Fern

Where's your concern about the Republicans' threat to boycott *every* Obama judicial nominee (as they did with Clinton to get their way), abusing the blue slip tradition?

First, as regards this thread I'm mostly concerned that we have it right: Namely the letter is about 'blue slip', not filibuster, and it was prompted by Leahy's remarks.

If we're all OK on that, then show me the " Republicans' threat to boycott *every* Obama judicial nominee". Link me up please. I haven't seen it. (I googled and got nothing)

BTW: What do you mean by "boycott"? (There must be another term, I don't see how 'boycott' fits in with judicial nominees; shopping at Wallmart? Yes. But nominees?)

TIA

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Fern

According to the news web site Politico, they also asked Obama to respect the Senate's constitutional role in reviewing judicial nominees by asking for input from the home state senators for any potential judicial selection to determine whether Republicans would be opposed to the pick.

That's where the filibuster threat comes into play. (author trying to distort what is obviously a reference to 'blue slip' into filibuster.)

?Regretfully, if we are not consulted on, and approve of, a nominee from our states, the Republican Conference will be unable to support moving forward on that nominee,? the letter warns. ?And we will act to preserve this principle and the rights of our colleagues if it is not.?

"input from the home state senators" is exactly what the blue slip process is. But eski and the article he links are trying to call that a filibuster. A filibuster is different (denying 60 votes to bring the nomination to a vote) and involves ALL senators, not just the home state senators.

Fern

Then just read from eski's article.

Even though they try to claim 'filibuster", the verbiage in the senate letter they quote is clear the subject is 'blue slip', not filibuster.

If Leahy threatened to abolish the blue slip process, I can see a reason to write the President. Why they'd write him about the subject of filibuster makes no sense. AFAIK, no Dem senator has suggested the 'nuclear option'. The letter is not about filibustering, it's about the blue slip.

Fern

Hey genius, they are threatening to filibuster based on the lack of a blue slip process. This isn't complicated... you just don't understand what's going on and you are deliberately trying to misconstrue what's going on in service of a right wing agenda.

You just don't understand the Congress, and so you don't know what's going on.

 

[Fern]

You keep saying 'filibuster' but you've got nothing that even remotely proves it. So far anyway.

This is reminding me of a tactic I've noticed with the Dems - pre-emptive complaints. They start complaining about the other guys words or deeds before they've even happened.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern
You keep saying 'filibuster' but you've got nothing that even remotely proves it. So far anyway.

This is reminding me of a tactic I've noticed with the Dems - pre-emptive complaints. They start complaining about the other guys words or deeds before they've even happened.

Fern

The only thing that 'proves' it is every single analysis from every last person looking at the letter. I've asked you twice now, so I'll ask you a third time. Provide a single, solitary person who thinks that letter is referring to anything other than a filibuster.

Just one.

EDIT: You won't be able to, because anyone that understands how the Senate works knows that's exactly what that letter meant. I don't fault you for not understanding it, but I do expect you do admit when you don't. You simply don't understand the terms at use here, but you're trying to twist them in service of a right wing agenda.

 

[Fern]

The language of the letter is clear (note mention of "home senators"), certainly whoever wrote that piece from the .org site I linked thinks it's about 'blue slips'

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Fern
If Leahy threatened to abolish the blue slip process, I can see a reason to write the President.
Fern

Where's your concern about the Republicans' threat to boycott *every* Obama judicial nominee (as they did with Clinton to get their way), abusing the blue slip tradition?

First, as regards this thread I'm mostly concerned that we have it right: Namely the letter is about 'blue slip', not filibuster, and it was prompted by Leahy's remarks.

If that's your main concern, you have it wrong - the letter is clearly threatening to filibuster any nominee on which a home state Republican Senator is not consulted.

The letter clearly says the 41 Senators signing the letter 'will not be able to move forward' on any nominee on which that consultation doesn't happen.

The word filibuster is not used, presumably to avoid the pointing out of hypocrisy from being any more obvious than it already is, but read any credible article on it.

If we're all OK on that, then show me the " Republicans' threat to boycott *every* Obama judicial nominee". Link me up please. I haven't seen it. (I googled and got nothing)

On this, I read what I now believe is an inaccurate quote - for example, check the People for the American Way's press release. I have mailed them about the issue.

So, I'm modifying my statement to say as above that they're threatening to block any nominee from 'their states' where they are not satisfied they were adequately 'consulted'.

BTW: What do you mean by "boycott"? (There must be another term, I don't see how 'boycott' fits in with judicial nominees; shopping at Wallmart? Yes. But nominees?)

I'm not sure why I used that less than optimal word - let me change it to what I meant to say, 'block' any nominee. And yes, that means some form of filibuster.

Some filibusters are 'threatened', few actually get to the 'stand up and read the phone book' activity. But the point is the 60 votes for cloture needed.

 

[Fern]

The letter clearly says the 41 Senators signing the letter 'will not be able to move forward' on any nominee on which that consultation doesn't happen.

:light:

OK, I can accept that.

So, if the blue slip process is dumped they'll filibuster?

OK, if the article said that I wouldn't have disagreed. I may not agree, however, that it's as ironic as the Slate article makes out. In this case they're threatening filibuster to get the process restored (or more accurately, threatening to ensure it's NOT eliminated).

BTW: I wouldn't be surprised if the Repubs do try a filibuster at some point. I will be surprised if they can muster it. Too small a minority, and too many moderates (Collins, Snowe etc)

EDIT: Slate article is horribly mis-leading IMO.:

The irony now on display among Republicans on the Senate judiciary committee is staggering. You need to pedal your intellectual bike hard and fast just to get past the hypocrisy of the sudden rule changes: Senate Republicans who, four short years ago, condemned the use of the filibuster as "unconstitutional" and threatened to answer it with the "nuclear option" are now earnestly pledging to filibuster President Obama's judicial nominees, even though he has named just one. (They hate him.) Because, of course, the filibuster isn't unconstitutional when it comes to thwarting "judicial activists."

The threat of filibuster has nothing to do with judicial activism, rather a retaliatory manoeuvre over the blue slip threat.


The other article:

(1) According to the news web site Politico, they also asked Obama to respect the Senate's constitutional role in reviewing judicial nominees by asking for input from the home state senators for any potential judicial selection to determine whether Republicans would be opposed to the pick.

(2) That's where the filibuster threat comes into play.

(3) ?Regretfully, if we are not consulted on, and approve of, a nominee from our states, the Republican Conference will be unable to support moving forward on that nominee,? the letter warns. ?And we will act to preserve this principle and the rights of our colleagues if it is not.?

When I now read that in conjuction with what you posted above, yes, it seems filibuster threatened if blue slip process not honored.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern

The letter clearly says the 41 Senators signing the letter 'will not be able to move forward' on any nominee on which that consultation doesn't happen.

:light:

OK, I can accept that.

So, if the blue slip process is dumped they'll filibuster?

OK, if the article said that I wouldn't have disagreed. I may not agree, however, that it's as ironic as the Slate article makes out. In this case they're threatening filibuster to get the process restored (or more accurately, threatening to ensure it's NOT eliminated).

BTW: I wouldn't be surprised if the Repubs do try a filibuster at some point. I will be surprised if they can muster it. Too small a minority, and too many moderates (Collins, Snowe etc)

Fern

I'm not sure why you are substituting the word ironic for hypocritical (since you caught my use of the word boycott rather than block).

But the hypocrisy is stronger than you may be aware. I won't go into the history in this post that takes a while to type, but on the specific issue, the Republicans are the ones who set the precedent of proceeding on a nominee who had both home state Senators opposed, as I wrote in a prevous post, in 2004 - something the demand not happen now.

Let me try to summarize the issue here.

First, if I understand blue slips correctly, Senators can return them approving a nominee, disapproving a nominee, or not return the slip which implies disapproval.

The starting, or trigger, issue is Republicans' demand that Obama consult them on nominees from 'their' states. The first threat is that if they feel Obama does not consult them, the Senator will not return the blue slip for that nominee, because they weren't conslted, regardless of the qualifications of the nominee.

Leahy said that he will respect the blue slip blocks, but that he views it as an abuse if the Republicans use the blue slip blocks simply to block any nominee they feel they were not consulted on, and that he will do two things - he will not let them use the blue slip anonymously, they will have to be named publically as blocking the nomineation (the same policy he had under Bush when he was chairman); and that he will 'reconsider' letting blue slips block nominees if 'abused'.

The Republicans' second threat is that if he does 'reconsider' his letting blue slipsf block nominees they use them on because they weren't consulted, they'll then filibuster.

So, the chain of events is, Republicans demand to be consulted on nominees from their states (even though Bush appointed candidates the Democrats felt were radicals, without consultation); if they're not, they'll blue slip every such nominee, and expect the blue slips to block the nominee (even though they set the precedent for not respecting the blue slips under Bush); and if the blue slips are not honored, they'll filibuster (despite some of them having said filibusters are unconstitutional under Bush).

One thing the articles don't say enough about is the issue of whether one disapproval or two are the threshhold for blocking a nominee.

As for the term 'blue slip' - while it has the definitions I list above, when it's used as a verb, it seems to refer to disapproving a nominee (whether returned or not).

Even though the norm is apparently to return the blue slip with approval.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Craig234
-snip-
I'm not sure why you are substituting the word ironic for hypocritical (since you caught my use of the word boycott rather than block).

I used it because the author did:

The irony now on display among Republicans on the Senate judiciary committee is staggering.

Originally posted by: Craig234
The starting, or trigger, issue is Republicans' demand that Obama consult them on nominees from 'their' states. The first threat is that if they feel Obama does not consult them, the Senator will not return the blue slip for that nominee, because they weren't conslted, regardless of the qualifications of the nominee.

Can't be, unless the time line is confused in these articles. It's said Leahy made his remark in early Feb, looks like the letter is from this month - first week in March (from two sources). That's why I say Leahy's remark started it, and the letter is in respose to that.

The Democrats fired what figures to be the first of many judicial confirmation shots across the Republican bow less than a month after taking the reins of both the White House and the Congress. In early February, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) hinted that the traditional ?blue slip? policy -- under which Senate action will not be taken on a judicial nominee unless both home-state Senators approve by returning their ?blue slips? -- might not be honored now that President Obama will be making the judicial selections.

So, because of the timeline (as I understand it) I can't agree with this:

So, the chain of events is, Republicans demand to be consulted on nominees from their states (even though Bush appointed candidates the Democrats felt were radicals, without consultation); if they're not, they'll blue slip every such nominee, and expect the blue slips to block the nominee (even though they set the precedent for not respecting the blue slips under Bush); and if the blue slips are not honored, they'll filibuster (despite some of them having said filibusters are unconstitutional under Bush).

Then there is the language of the letter:

According to the news web site Politico, they also asked Obama to respect the Senate's constitutional role in reviewing judicial nominees by asking for input from the home state senators for any potential judicial selection to determine whether Republicans would be opposed to the pick.

That's where the filibuster threat comes into play.

?Regretfully, if we are not consulted on, and approve of, a nominee from our states, the Republican Conference will be unable to support moving forward on that nominee,? the letter warns. ?And we will act to preserve this principle and the rights of our colleagues if it is not.?

I.e., if no blue slip process, then filibuster.

Fern

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Fern
If Leahy threatened to abolish the blue slip process, I can see a reason to write the President.
Fern

Where's your concern about the Republicans' threat to boycott *every* Obama judicial nominee (as they did with Clinton to get their way), abusing the blue slip tradition?

You mean the way Michigan Dem senators blocked 4 Bush nominees because Bush wouldn't renominate Carl Levin's relative? :laugh:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Craig234
-snip-
I'm not sure why you are substituting the word ironic for hypocritical (since you caught my use of the word boycott rather than block).

I used it because the author did:

The irony now on display among Republicans on the Senate judiciary committee is staggering.

Understood, but the author would have done better to use hypocrisy. You are allowed to improve on his word.

Originally posted by: Craig234
The starting, or trigger, issue is Republicans' demand that Obama consult them on nominees from 'their' states. The first threat is that if they feel Obama does not consult them, the Senator will not return the blue slip for that nominee, because they weren't conslted, regardless of the qualifications of the nominee.

Can't be, unless the time line is confused in these articles. It's said Leahy made his remark in early Feb, looks like the letter is from this month - first week in March (from two sources). That's why I say Leahy's remark started it, and the letter is in respose to that.

We can trace the history back many years if you like, but what I'm referring to is what the letter itself says it's about - the demand for Obama to consult them.

Do you have a link to the Leahy statement you're referring to? The Leahy statement I referred to was about the Republicans' threat to block nominees they're not consulted on.

BTW, I should probably post a reminder with some history, that Republicans have used the threat to block all judicial nominees of a Democratic president before to get their way.

The recess appointment is a constitutional authority the president has, and it's long had some controversy, such as Truman using it to appoint a black judge the south blocked.

The president has never been required to announce his plans in advance, but Republicans wanted Clinton to, and lacking any authority to demand it, they used the blackmail of blocking all of his judicial nominees - a blatant abuse of their power. He gave in to their demand to get his judges appointed, as the shortage was critical after Republican obstructionism.

The Democrats fired what figures to be the first of many judicial confirmation shots across the Republican bow less than a month after taking the reins of both the White House and the Congress. In early February, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) hinted that the traditional ?blue slip? policy -- under which Senate action will not be taken on a judicial nominee unless both home-state Senators approve by returning their ?blue slips? -- might not be honored now that President Obama will be making the judicial selections.

So, because of the timeline (as I understand it) I can't agree with this:[/quote]

You are quoting from a very misleading right-wing source. Can you find something better, and/or link the actual leahy comments they allege - I think the facts fit my post.

I'm frankly disgusted by some of the lies and distortions and omissions in the right-wing articles on this.

So, the chain of events is, Republicans demand to be consulted on nominees from their states (even though Bush appointed candidates the Democrats felt were radicals, without consultation); if they're not, they'll blue slip every such nominee, and expect the blue slips to block the nominee (even though they set the precedent for not respecting the blue slips under Bush); and if the blue slips are not honored, they'll filibuster (despite some of them having said filibusters are unconstitutional under Bush).

Then there is the language of the letter:

According to the news web site Politico, they also asked Obama to respect the Senate's constitutional role in reviewing judicial nominees by asking for input from the home state senators for any potential judicial selection to determine whether Republicans would be opposed to the pick.

That's where the filibuster threat comes into play.

?Regretfully, if we are not consulted on, and approve of, a nominee from our states, the Republican Conference will be unable to support moving forward on that nominee,? the letter warns. ?And we will act to preserve this principle and the rights of our colleagues if it is not.?

I.e., if no blue slip process, then filibuster.

Fern

Right.

Again, my timeline is right, IMO - read the leahy statement which begins with him saying he will continue the same blue slip policy at this time.

The only mention of reconsidering that is if the Republicans blue slip over not being consulted - so if you say that's not the timeline, what are you referring to?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Fern
If Leahy threatened to abolish the blue slip process, I can see a reason to write the President.
Fern

Where's your concern about the Republicans' threat to boycott *every* Obama judicial nominee (as they did with Clinton to get their way), abusing the blue slip tradition?

You mean the way Michigan Dem senators blocked 4 Bush nominees because Bush wouldn't renominate Carl Levin's relative? :laugh:

No one will be surprised that you are ignorant about the real story on that nomination.

It wasn't about her being his cousin's former wife. It went back to a conflict that started under President Clinton. The then-Republican Senator felt he had made a deal with Clinton that he would not block three of Clinton's nominees, and Clinton would not appoint any more judges from Michigan - but Clinton then appointed White. Apparently feeling resentful about the broken deal, the Senator blue-slipped White not for her qualifications, but to punish Clinton, for the then-longest period a nominees was blocked in history.

In 2000, Bush took office and the Republican Senator was replaced by a Democrat. The Democraic Senators said that they were going to punish Republicans by blocking those nominations, for the previous punishment of Clinton by blocking White. Eventually, the 'gang of 14' deal allowed Bush's nominees to get appointed, but later, for a new opening, the Democratic Senators insisted - much as the Republican had - that they would approve no more nominees, and Bush re-appointed White in a deal.

 

[winnar111]

Radical abortionist nominee is about to get pwned.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...orting-abortion-rights

President Obama's nominee to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel once compared "forced pregnancy" with slavery. Now Republicans are considering a filibuster to block her confirmation.

The controversy stems from comments made 20 years ago by Dawn Johnsen, a law professor at Indiana University, whose nomination is pending before the full Senate.

In a brief filed when she was a lawyer with the National Abortion Rights Action League, Johnsen cited a footnote that said forcing women to bear children was "disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude, prohibited by the 13th Amendment, in that forced pregnancy requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state's asserted interest."

At her confirmation hearing last month, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., asked whether Johnsen had said abortion rights should be protected by the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery.

"It seems to me just candidly beyond the pale," said Specter, who supports abortion rights.

But Johnsen said she merely suggested an analogy in the footnote and "never believed the 13th Amendment had any role" in the abortion issue.

At least 45 House Republicans have co-signed a letter to Obama asking him to withdraw Johnsen's nomination because of her "brazen" abortion rights stance.

But supporters of Johnsen are fighting back, most notably her former employer.

NARAL said this week it is mobilizing its nationwide network of activists and supporters to pressure the Senate to confirm Johnsen and two other Obama nominees -- Judge David Hamilton and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius -- and stop what it deems attacks on nominees who support abortion rights. Filibusters won't be tolerated, the group said.

"The use of the 'F' word when referring to any of these nominees is unacceptable -- and this threat will not go unanswered," NARAL president Nancy Keenan said in a press release.

"Our activists will make it clear to their senators that derailing nominees for critical positions in the Obama administration and in the federal court simply because they have taken pro-choice positions is not an option. We will keep up the pressure until we go three for three and see these distinguished nominees confirmed by the Senate."

Ryan Patmintra, a spokesman for Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., a member of the Judiciary Committee, told FOXNews.com that Specter's vote will determine whether Johnsen gets confirmed because of his ranking status on the Judiciary Committee.

His moderate position also gives him considerable influence in the Senate where Democrats hold a 58-41 majority and need at least two Republicans to cross the aisle to block filibusters.

Specter's office did not respond to a request for an interview. But a Senate aide to the Judiciary Committee told FOXNews.com that there's no way Specter will vote for Johnsen's nomination because it could damage his prospects in what is shaping up to be a tough primary next year against conservative Pat Toomey, a former congressman and current president of the Club for Growth.




It's about time they got repaid for their BS.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Radical abortionist nominee is about to get pwned.

I guess if by "pwned" you mean the GOP is going to flail around uselessly like a bunch of inept shitheads, then yes, you have that correct.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: Craig234

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed [and hence clamorous to be led to safety] by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-- H. L. Mencken

That's a great quote - probably should be expanded to include Talk Radio as well.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: winnar111
Radical abortionist nominee is about to get pwned.

I guess if by "pwned" you mean the GOP is going to flail around uselessly like a bunch of inept shitheads, then yes, you have that correct.

And yet its this radical nominee who won't have a judgeship.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: winnar111
Radical abortionist nominee is about to get pwned.

I guess if by "pwned" you mean the GOP is going to flail around uselessly like a bunch of inept shitheads, then yes, you have that correct.

And yet its this radical nominee who won't have a judgeship.

Winnar, you're a moron. The nominee isn't even going for a judgeship, they are going to head the OLC. It would appear you don't even read the things you cut and paste.

What I DO find funny though is that you thought the Republicans were threatening to filibuster a judicial nominee in that case, and were cheering on their hypocrisy. (considering they repeatedly declared the process 'unconstitutional'. I guess it got more constitutional when they ended up in the minority)

You're just embarrassing yourself now.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
Kill all republicans, feed them to the poor

QFT

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: winnar111
Radical abortionist nominee is about to get pwned.

I guess if by "pwned" you mean the GOP is going to flail around uselessly like a bunch of inept shitheads, then yes, you have that correct.

Wow... Are you describing the reps in congress, or Winnar ? Whatever, both do the same. Except Winnar is an uneducated ignorant whiney christian douchebag... and the reps in Congress are at least educated.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Article here.

I for one have always supported the right to filibuster because I view it as an important tool to protect the rights of the minority. I can't help but notice however that the Republicans, having thrown such a shit fit over this issue in the past, are now preparing to use something that only 4 years ago they described as 'unconstitutional'.

At this point I think they are just embarrassing themselves.

Sadly, viewers of FoxNews lack the mental fortitude to realize the obvious.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Article here.

I for one have always supported the right to filibuster because I view it as an important tool to protect the rights of the minority. I can't help but notice however that the Republicans, having thrown such a shit fit over this issue in the past, are now preparing to use something that only 4 years ago they described as 'unconstitutional'.

At this point I think they are just embarrassing themselves.

Sadly, viewers of FoxNews lack the mental fortitude to realize the obvious.

Yup... Its funny how they call us "elitists"... I guess it sounds alot better than, "they are alot smarter than we are" LOL

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: winnar111
Radical abortionist nominee is about to get pwned.

I guess if by "pwned" you mean the GOP is going to flail around uselessly like a bunch of inept shitheads, then yes, you have that correct.

And yet its this radical nominee who won't have a judgeship.

There's nothing "radical" about supporting abortion rights. And indeed, forcing women to have babies, as the GOP seems to believe is appropriate, smacks strongly of something that a group such as the Taliban would try and enforce.