Senate idiots to pull an all nighter.

[SuperTool]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34028-2003Nov12.html

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Democrats filibuster Pickering nomination

This might just have something to do with it

Stupid is as stupid does. Goose and Gander. And all those other nice little sayings.

Maybe they'll all play nice after this...any bets?

CkG

 

[TheBDB]

They should find some replacements for those judges that can't get a vote. If the Dems hate them enough to go through all this they must be so right-wing that I don't want them on the bench. Same thing for a democrat President, if he picks some left-wing radical they shouldn't make it either.

 

[Witling]

Dems approving of judges = 168
Dems dumping judges = 4, and trying for six

It's just the opposite of when Clinton was in. Grow up!

 

[0roo0roo]

yes, the hipocrisy of the republicans is sickening.

remember clinton...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Dems approving of judges = 168
Dems dumping judges = 4, and trying for six

It's just the opposite of when Clinton was in. Grow up!

All of clintons judge appointees that made it out committee got an up/down vote.

No Bush circuit level(right below supreme court) judge appointee has received an up/down vote yet.

 

[Doboji]

I'm a hypocrit.

I cried bloody murder when the Republicans were blocking Clinton's people. Now I'm supporting the dems in their filibustering.

I'm a hypocrit.... so sue me. Thats the way politics goes... it's how it was meant to be played... and it's how it should work.

-Max

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Doboji
I'm a hypocrit.

I cried bloody murder when the Republicans were blocking Clinton's people. Now I'm supporting the dems in their filibustering.

I'm a hypocrit.... so sue me. Thats the way politics goes... it's how it was meant to be played... and it's how it should work.

-Max

it wasn't how it worked up until bork

 

[CADsortaGUY]

You need to update your thread title SuperTool

It should Read "....AGAIN "

CkG

PS - Mark Belling called this(well actually suggested that they should do something like this) today when he was guest hosting the Rush Limbaugh program I got a chuckle out of him saying it, because I didn't think the Republicans would have enough backbone to make this a big issue...I guess I "misunderestemated" them WTG guys! Like Belling said - I don't think they should stop until the Democrats are ready to let there be a vote on these nominees

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Hey look at it this way . . . Bush and the GOP cannot pass more legislation picking our pockets (and those of our children) as long as they are playing "sleepover".

 

[AEB]

maybe the judges are fine and the DEMS just hate bush like everyone else in this forum

 

[0roo0roo]

just remember the gop rejected something like 68 of clintons judges

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
just remember the gop rejected something like 68 of clintons judges

Right, but they did get to actually vote on them and followed the laws and voting procedures.

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: AEB
maybe the judges are fine and the DEMS just hate bush like everyone else in this forum

The judges and justice that are being 'blocked' are really activist right leaning judicial folks. Justice Brown of the California Supreme Court got 76% of the vote last time she ran here. Go figure! I, however, think she'd be OK on the Circuit Court. Pickering... no way!
The President is trying to leave his mark on America via the courts. I think it the duty of the Senate to try and moderate the courts toward the center. Failing this I'd think we need Amending the Constitution to reflect settled law and let society move the courts into 2003 over time as we do by our presidential vote.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: AEB
maybe the judges are fine and the DEMS just hate bush like everyone else in this forum

In fact, they hate him so much and so blindly that they've actually blocked all 168 of his judicial nominees. Oh wait, no they didn't...

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
just remember the gop rejected something like 68 of clintons judges

Right, but they did get to actually vote on them and followed the laws and voting procedures.

CkG

your saying the republicans have never used filibuster?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: AEB
maybe the judges are fine and the DEMS just hate bush like everyone else in this forum

The judges and justice that are being 'blocked' are really activist right leaning judicial folks. Justice Brown of the California Supreme Court got 76% of the vote last time she ran here. Go figure! I, however, think she'd be OK on the Circuit Court. Pickering... no way!
The President is trying to leave his mark on America via the courts. I think it the duty of the Senate to try and moderate the courts toward the center. Failing this I'd think we need Amending the Constitution to reflect settled law and let society move the courts into 2003 over time as we do by our presidential vote.

But don't you think that the judges should atleast come up for a vote? If they are really that bad then they would probably not get approved...no? Atleast allow the vote - this super-majority ploy by the Dems is silly and sets a pretty bad precedent

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
just remember the gop rejected something like 68 of clintons judges

Right, but they did get to actually vote on them and followed the laws and voting procedures.

CkG

your saying the republicans have never used filibuster?

No - that is not what I'm saying.

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
just remember the gop rejected something like 68 of clintons judges

Right, but they did get to actually vote on them and followed the laws and voting procedures.

CkG

CAD, the way it use to work is that if two senators didn't like the pick in his state they could put a 'hold' on the nominee.. no hearing. Then Hatch moved it to one senator could 'card' the nominee... no hearing. Now Hatch held hearing anyhow by eliminating the method of 'carding' (as I understand it). This filibuster seems the only way to block a nominee from going to the floor.
What these folks are doing on the floor of the senate now is insanity. Jabber, Jabber, Hatch is sharp and if you saw the Thomas hearing you saw an effort to destroy the lady who said Thomas was not fit to be a Supreme.
We need a Democratic Senate and a Republican President and House or visa versa but, the senate must be of the opposite party of the Executive.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
just remember the gop rejected something like 68 of clintons judges

Right, but they did get to actually vote on them and followed the laws and voting procedures.

CkG

THIS IS A LIE.

The fact is the majority of those 68 nominees weren't even given the respect of a committee consideration.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
CAD, the way it use to work is that if two senators didn't like the pick in his state they could put a 'hold' on the nominee.. no hearing. Then Hatch moved it to one senator could 'card' the nominee... no hearing. Now Hatch held hearing anyhow by eliminating the method of 'carding' (as I understand it). This filibuster seems the only way to block a nominee from going to the floor.
What these folks are doing on the floor of the senate now is insanity. Jabber, Jabber, Hatch is sharp and if you saw the Thomas hearing you saw an effort to destroy the lady who said Thomas was not fit to be a Supreme.
We need a Democratic Senate and a Republican President and House or visa versa but, the senate must be of the opposite party of the Executive.

Well if you feel that what "these folks" are doing now is "insanity" - then you'd also agree that using a filibuster (threat) which takes a super-majority to break - is prohibiting the Senate from doing their Constitutional duty to vote on these nominees. Yeah...talk about "insanity"

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: AEB
maybe the judges are fine and the DEMS just hate bush like everyone else in this forum

The judges and justice that are being 'blocked' are really activist right leaning judicial folks. Justice Brown of the California Supreme Court got 76% of the vote last time she ran here. Go figure! I, however, think she'd be OK on the Circuit Court. Pickering... no way!
The President is trying to leave his mark on America via the courts. I think it the duty of the Senate to try and moderate the courts toward the center. Failing this I'd think we need Amending the Constitution to reflect settled law and let society move the courts into 2003 over time as we do by our presidential vote.

But don't you think that the judges should atleast come up for a vote? If they are really that bad then they would probably not get approved...no? Atleast allow the vote - this super-majority ploy by the Dems is silly and sets a pretty bad precedent

CkG

Not in this case. The President is trying to ramrod the nominees through. This action is the only thing available.. they let all but four pass so far.. Not bad really. All this is because they have really right leaning ideology. But, they do seem to act reasonable regarding 'making new law' (the four being blocked) with some exceptions.. I think.

The 60 vote cloture is senate rules... good for the gander too. If the gander ever loses the senate.. the Dem's are pretty weak coming into '04. They may even lose two more seats.. it is possible.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
just remember the gop rejected something like 68 of clintons judges

Right, but they did get to actually vote on them and followed the laws and voting procedures.

CkG

THIS IS A LIE.

The fact is the majority of those 68 nominees weren't even given the respect of a committee consideration.

Well, they didn't make it out of commitee. Seems the rules were followed.

CkG

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay
CAD, the way it use to work is that if two senators didn't like the pick in his state they could put a 'hold' on the nominee.. no hearing. Then Hatch moved it to one senator could 'card' the nominee... no hearing. Now Hatch held hearing anyhow by eliminating the method of 'carding' (as I understand it). This filibuster seems the only way to block a nominee from going to the floor.
What these folks are doing on the floor of the senate now is insanity. Jabber, Jabber, Hatch is sharp and if you saw the Thomas hearing you saw an effort to destroy the lady who said Thomas was not fit to be a Supreme.
We need a Democratic Senate and a Republican President and House or visa versa but, the senate must be of the opposite party of the Executive.

Well if you feel that what "these folks" are doing now is "insanity" - then you'd also agree that using a filibuster (threat) which takes a super-majority to break - is prohibiting the Senate from doing their Constitutional duty to vote on these nominees. Yeah...talk about "insanity"

CkG

So is this fulfilling their Constitutional duty?

While the Republicans do not expect any of the judges to be confirmed during the marathon session, they say they are prepared to take advantage of any lapses by the Democrats, such as dozing off, wandering away or not simply paying attention and thus allowing the Republicans to call for confirmation by "unanimous consent." That means the Democrats will have to stay on their toes, keeping somebody in the Senate chamber -- and alert -- at all times.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
just remember the gop rejected something like 68 of clintons judges

Right, but they did get to actually vote on them and followed the laws and voting procedures.

CkG

THIS IS A LIE.

The fact is the majority of those 68 nominees weren't even given the respect of a committee consideration.

Well, they didn't make it out of commitee. Seems the rules were followed.

CkG

no, it sounds like games were played. lunar ray explained it best