Tweet
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats blocked two more of President Bush (news - web sites)'s federal appeals court nominees on Friday after a nonstop U.S. Senate debate of nearly 40 hours, boosting to six the number stonewalled so far.
On each of two votes, Republicans fell seven short of the 60 votes needed in the 100-member chamber to stop delaying tactics against California jurists Carolyn Kuhl and Janice Rogers Brown and clear the way for their confirmation.
Democrats also sustained, by the same margin, a procedural hurdle known as a filibuster against another nominee, Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, first blocked in May.
The three votes followed the Senate's longest nonstop debate since a 57-hour, 24-minute marathon in 1988 over campaign legislation.
The talkathon began on Wednesday night and focused on Bush's stalled judicial nominees and what Republicans called unprecedented and unconstitutional Democratic obstructionism.
Republicans decided to hold the around-the-clock debate following criticism from conservative activists that they were not doing enough to take on Democrats.
Democrats said they had simply exercised a constitutional right to "advise and consent" to stop Bush from packing the courts with what they called right-wing ideologues who could not be trusted to uphold civil rights, abortion rights, worker rights and environmental protections.
They also noted they had joined Republicans in confirming 168 of Bush's other judicial nominees, to reduce the vacancy rate on the federal bench to less than 5 percent, its lowest level in more than a decade.
Republicans argued, however, that Democrats had entered new and dangerous territory by blocking judicial nominees on the Senate floor who were backed by a majority of lawmakers.
"STOP NOW"
"Stop now," said Sen. Rick Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican. "You have a chance to save this country and this judiciary. Stop now."
Democrats countered that Republicans had themselves blocked 63 of Democratic President Bill Clinton's judicial nominees, preventing most of them from even getting a hearing.
"I find it incredibly remarkable ... that the very people who lament not getting a vote for (the blocked Bush's nominees) were participants in the effort" to stop Clinton's candidates, said Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota.
But Democrats figured the Republican maneuvering made them look good with their political base as well.
"This debate, make no mistake about it, strengthened our side," said Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat. "We are energized. So I think this has boomeranged."
Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, noting the approach of the Thanksgiving holiday, said: "My suggestion is that this president release all of his right-wing turkeys."
James Thurber of American University's Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies said he believes both sides hurt themselves, as well as the Senate, with the debate, saying the public sees "them all as too partisan."
Republicans had planned to vote on Friday on a proposed rule change to effectively eliminate filibusters on judicial nominees. But they later postponed a vote indefinitely.
They conceded Democrats could defeat it, and some admitted they would also like to be able retaliate by using such filibusters in any future Democratic-led Senate.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said he plans to challenge the constitutionality of filibusters on judicial nominations. "It is time for the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) to give us their view about what is going on here," Graham said.
On each of two votes, Republicans fell seven short of the 60 votes needed in the 100-member chamber to stop delaying tactics against California jurists Carolyn Kuhl and Janice Rogers Brown and clear the way for their confirmation.
Democrats also sustained, by the same margin, a procedural hurdle known as a filibuster against another nominee, Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, first blocked in May.
The three votes followed the Senate's longest nonstop debate since a 57-hour, 24-minute marathon in 1988 over campaign legislation.
The talkathon began on Wednesday night and focused on Bush's stalled judicial nominees and what Republicans called unprecedented and unconstitutional Democratic obstructionism.
Republicans decided to hold the around-the-clock debate following criticism from conservative activists that they were not doing enough to take on Democrats.
Democrats said they had simply exercised a constitutional right to "advise and consent" to stop Bush from packing the courts with what they called right-wing ideologues who could not be trusted to uphold civil rights, abortion rights, worker rights and environmental protections.
They also noted they had joined Republicans in confirming 168 of Bush's other judicial nominees, to reduce the vacancy rate on the federal bench to less than 5 percent, its lowest level in more than a decade.
Republicans argued, however, that Democrats had entered new and dangerous territory by blocking judicial nominees on the Senate floor who were backed by a majority of lawmakers.
"STOP NOW"
"Stop now," said Sen. Rick Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican. "You have a chance to save this country and this judiciary. Stop now."
Democrats countered that Republicans had themselves blocked 63 of Democratic President Bill Clinton's judicial nominees, preventing most of them from even getting a hearing.
"I find it incredibly remarkable ... that the very people who lament not getting a vote for (the blocked Bush's nominees) were participants in the effort" to stop Clinton's candidates, said Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota.
But Democrats figured the Republican maneuvering made them look good with their political base as well.
"This debate, make no mistake about it, strengthened our side," said Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat. "We are energized. So I think this has boomeranged."
Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, noting the approach of the Thanksgiving holiday, said: "My suggestion is that this president release all of his right-wing turkeys."
James Thurber of American University's Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies said he believes both sides hurt themselves, as well as the Senate, with the debate, saying the public sees "them all as too partisan."
Republicans had planned to vote on Friday on a proposed rule change to effectively eliminate filibusters on judicial nominees. But they later postponed a vote indefinitely.
They conceded Democrats could defeat it, and some admitted they would also like to be able retaliate by using such filibusters in any future Democratic-led Senate.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said he plans to challenge the constitutionality of filibusters on judicial nominations. "It is time for the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) to give us their view about what is going on here," Graham said.
I feel sad when I read stuff like this. I respect the right of Senators to debate and it's good that nominees are approved by the Senate, but are the Democrats doing it because they disagree with the nominees or is it out of spite. Daschle points his finger and says they did it first. Reminds me of how a child would act. But mommy he did it first. Shouldnt they at least have a vote?
Comment