-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
The Not-So-Secret History of Filibusters
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Seems to focus a lot on Sen. Daschle (now no longer in the Senate and, arguably, one of the biggest tools the Senate's ever seen) and Sen. Leahy. I never said the Democrats didn't complain about the filibustering during Clinton's presidency. There's hypocrisy on both sides. But, now that the shoe's on the other foot you're crying foul?
Give me a break.
Give me a break.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
It focused on dashole because he was coming up on re-election in 2004.(check the date of the link)
Guess what - he lost. You know part of the reason he lost? That's right - because he was fake filibustering Judicial nominees. You'd think the other democrats would learn from that devastating loss, but also they haven't. Bodes well for 2006, no? 😀
CsG
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Please present a case against each of the fake filibustered nominees.
<- not holding his breath.
CsG
If they aren't going to stand up for what they believe and just roll over and play dead, what's the point of having them there? If Daschle lost because he stood up to Bush, as you claim, then it's better than him winning because he didn't. I would be more worried about ideologues like Santorum in 2006.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
The problem is that they didn't stand up for what they believe as evidenced in the link I provided. Either that or he was lying...
CsG
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
No they aren't. They are playing the same fake filibuster game that dashole played. If the democrats were standing up against his nominees they'd have a laundry list of "atrocities" these nominees have committed. So far they can't seem to find a pencil, let alone a pad of paper to write these atrocities down on...
As requested earlier: "Please present a case against each of the fake filibustered nominees."
<-still not holding breath
CsG
That's good. Breathing is fundamental.
Like I mentioned, I won't be participating in your double negative game.
If you want me to believe that 100% of Bush nominees should be approved for lifetime appointments, and that none out of hundreds should be blocked, I am not buying it either.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
I didn't say the democrats had to vote for them, but if they are going to bypass tradition because they claim they are "extreme" then they better have a laundry list of atrocities committed by these people.
conjur, no there has been nothing except a little on the woman from texas and that has been severely blown out of proportion(not to mention extremely hilarious that Gonzales's statements are being twisted to be used against her).
CsG
CsG,
Start reading:
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1541294&enterthread=y
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1582517&enterthread=y
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1588786&enterthread=y
And:
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=14172
Start reading:
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1541294&enterthread=y
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1582517&enterthread=y
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1588786&enterthread=y
And:
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=14172
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Nice try conjur but that doesn't even come close. What you have in those threads are DNC tidbits and no laundry list of atrocities that make them extreme. As to the pfaw site- is that what the democrats think? Is that their list? BTW it seems the pfaw site offers quite a bit of misinterpretation and flat out misrepresentation. Just taking a look at what they have on Brown - they misrepresent her opinion on the Avis case(which isn't surprising). But anyway - do the fake filibuster democrats buy into the pfaw atrocity lists? If so, why aren't they stating so in the media instead of just continually spewing their sound bite rhetoric? Why aren't they on the floor of the senate putting it on record if these nominees really are THAT bad? I mean they could always still fake filibuster after they aired these atrocities for all to see - no?
Why do the fake filibusterers keep hiding behind generic accusations of "extremism"?
CsG
This whole issue really brings out the qualifiers and the hyperbole from Bush Fans. The qualifier, of course, is that any nominee who makes it out of committee deserves an up or down vote. Which seems fine, on the surface, until we examine the recent history of the Senate. 64 Clinton nominees never made it out of committee, some were never even given hearings, thanks to the now disregarded blueslip rule, and Hatch's refusal to even have hearings for an extended period of time. During the 107th Senate, however, when dems were in the majority, they confirmed 100 Bush Nominees, blocking only 3... and they've helped to confirm 205, blocking only 10. That's 96.7%, the best confirmation rate for any president in the last 25 years. Dems have been far from obstructionist, at all. Bush came into office with ~ 250 judicial vacancies, there are only 43 left. Bush hasn't even nominated candidates for all of them, and Hatch won't schedule hearings on two nominees that are sure to pass...
So we need to ask precisely why these few rejected nominees are so important to the Whitehouse and the Repub leadership, people who are generally acknowledged to occupy the right wing of the Republican Party. What is it about these few nominees that demands breaking the Senate rules to have them confirmed? Why not withdraw these few names, offer up some others, good Republicans and fair minded conservatives every one? Because these nominees are precisely what Dems claim them to be, rightwing demagogues and party hacks, undeserving of lifetime appointments to the federal appeals courts.
Priscilla Owen is a little bit of both, and is widely opposed for a variety of reasons-
http://www.deal-with-it.org/hearts/owen.htm
There's more, of course, nothing that a quick google won't substantiate. Her support, outside of corporate headquarters and rightwing thinktanks, is virtually non-existent... She's the kind of Activist Judge that Repubs are so fond of criticizing, when they're on the other side of an issue, that is... The rest follow a similar pattern.
So we need to ask precisely why these few rejected nominees are so important to the Whitehouse and the Repub leadership, people who are generally acknowledged to occupy the right wing of the Republican Party. What is it about these few nominees that demands breaking the Senate rules to have them confirmed? Why not withdraw these few names, offer up some others, good Republicans and fair minded conservatives every one? Because these nominees are precisely what Dems claim them to be, rightwing demagogues and party hacks, undeserving of lifetime appointments to the federal appeals courts.
Priscilla Owen is a little bit of both, and is widely opposed for a variety of reasons-
http://www.deal-with-it.org/hearts/owen.htm
There's more, of course, nothing that a quick google won't substantiate. Her support, outside of corporate headquarters and rightwing thinktanks, is virtually non-existent... She's the kind of Activist Judge that Repubs are so fond of criticizing, when they're on the other side of an issue, that is... The rest follow a similar pattern.
gallivanter
Member
I was tired of typing, but I did answer that question for you.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Actually the tradition regarding Judicial nomonees has been non-filibuster. But twist what I said if you wish. ...and you have the nerve to claim I was dishonest :roll:
CsG
If the Republicans were exercising their responsibilities and not just rubberstamping whatever the administration sends them, and the Democrats would not need to resort to filibusters.
Show me in the Constitution that one has a right to be an appeals court judge for a lifetime unless he or she has committed atrocities.
<- Not holding my breath.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
wtf? The Constitution clearly lays out the proceedure for judicial nominations. A simple majority is needed to confirm them regardless of atrocities. So why are the democrats not allowing the Constitutionally mandated vote?
CsG
Senators have the right, under the rules of the Senate, to filibuster any measure before the body. For example, Repubs tried to "fake filibuster" (as you'd call it) the Paez nomination and failed- but I'm sure you already knew that, making your assertion transparently dishonest.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
nope. try again. The constitution clearly states that judicial nominees are confirmed with a simple majority - not a simple majority unless a filibuster is in place.
CsG
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
