Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Democrats on filibustering judges

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Democrats on filibustering judges

    Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Delaware) March 19, 1997: “But I also respectfully suggest that everyone who is nominated is entitled to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor.”

    Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Illinois)September 28, 1998: “We should meet our responsibility. I think that responsibility requires us to act in a timely fashion on nominees sent before us. ... Vote the person up or down.”

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) September 11, 1997: “Let’s bring their nominations up, debate them if necessary, and vote them up or down.”

    Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)February 3, 1998: “We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don’t like them, vote against them. But give them a vote.”

    Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) May 10, 2000: “The Founding Fathers certainly intended that the Senate advise as to judicial nominations, i.e., consider, debate, and vote up or down. They surely did not intend that the Senate, for partisan or factional reasons, would remain silent and simply refuse to give any advice or consider and vote at all.”

    Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) 5/14/97 : “It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.”

    Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD): “I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination.” (Congressional Record, 10/5/99)

    Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD): “Hispanic or non-Hispanic, African American or non-African American, woman or man, it is wrong not to have a vote on the Senate floor.” (Congressional Record, 10/28/99)

    Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): “My expectation is that we’re not going to hold up judicial nominations. …You will not see us do what was done to us in recent years in the Senate with judicial nominations.” (Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume,” 6/4/01)

    Richard Durbin (D-IL) "If, after 150 days languishing on the Executive Calendar that name has not been called for a vote, it should be. Vote the person up or down." (Cong. Rec., 9/28/98, S11021)

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “Let’s bring their nominations up, debate them if necessary, and vote them up or down.” (Congressional Record, 9/11/97)

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “It is our job to confirm these judges. If we don’t like them, we can vote against them.” (Congressional Record, 9/16/99)

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “Our institutional integrity requires an up-or-down vote.” (Congressional Record, 10/4/99)

    Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA): “[The filibuster process] is used … as blackmail for one Senator to get his or her way on something that they could not rightfully win through the normal processes.” (Congressional Record, 1/4/95)

    Tom Harkin (D-IA) "Have the guts to come out and vote up or down….And once and for all, put behind us this filibuster procedure on nominations." (Cong. Rec., 6/22/95, S8861)

    Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA): “I urge the Republican leadership to take the steps necessary to allow the full Senate to vote up or down on these important nominations.” (Congressional Record, 9/11/00)

    Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don’t like them, vote against them. But give them a vote.” (Congressional Record, 2/3/98)

    Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “It is true that some Senators have voiced concerns about these nominations. But that should not prevent a roll call vote which gives every Senator the opportunity to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ ... Parties with cases, waiting to be heard by the federal courts deserve a decision by the Senate.” (Congressional Record, 9/21/99)

    Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI): “These nominees, who have to put their lives on hold waiting for us to act, deserve an ‘up or down’ vote.” (Congressional Record, 9/21/99)

    Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “I hope we … will accept our responsibility and vote people up or vote them down. … If we want to vote against them, vote against them.” (Congressional Record, 10/22/97)

    Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “Now, every Senator can vote against any nominee. … But it is the responsibility of the U.S. Senate to at least bring them to a vote.” (Congressional Record, 10/22/97)

    Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “ "I have stated over and over again … that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported …” (Congressional Record, 6/18/98)

    Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “[E]arlier this year … I noted how improper it would be to filibuster a judicial nomination.” (Congressional Record, 10/14/98)

    Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “[I]f the person is otherwise qualified, he or she gets the vote. … Vote them up, vote them down.” (Congressional Record, 9/21/99)

    Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): “[W]e should have up-or-down votes in the committee and on the floor.” (CNN’s “Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields,” 6/9/01)

    Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): “[W]e are charged with voting on the nominees. The Constitution does not say if the Congress is controlled by a different party than the President there shall be no judges chosen.” (Congressional Record, 3/7/00)

    Carl Levin (D-MI) "If a bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate is prepared to vote to confirm the President's appointment, that vote should occur." (Cong. Rec., 6/21/95, S8806)
    "I'm moving to the Left" - Lancer

    "I imagine the neighbors on your right are estatic." - Slowwhand

  • #2
    Hmmmmm, most comprehensive list that I thought existed I'll give you that. I knew that a lot of Dems used to oppose the filibuster but I didn't know it was so much of the past and current leadership.

    HOWEVER, the Republicans aren't any better (see my thread on Frist actively engaging in a filibuster) and perhaps marginally worse since the Democrats seem to be mostly just hot air (as usual) while the Republicans ACTUALLY filibustered judges in the past and ACTUALLY are try to do something about getting rid of the filibuster now. In any case, anyone who swollows the BS justifications that EITHER side of the current fight are taking a stand out of principle is an idiot...
    Stop Quoting Ben

    Comment


    • #3
      Both sides apparently switched positions on this during the last decade or so, so its great.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Bosh
        Hmmmmm, most comprehensive list that I thought existed I'll give you that. I knew that a lot of Dems used to oppose the filibuster but I didn't know it was so much of the past and current leadership.
        Usually it was not even something as extreme as a philibuster they were opposing (there was just one of those on a judge, who was vaguely connected to a financial scandal), usually it was nominees being killed by majority votes in the judiciary committee.
        Gaius Mucius Scaevola Sinistra
        Japher: "crap, did I just post in this thread?"
        "Bloody hell, Lefty.....number one in my list of persons I have no intention of annoying, ever." Bugs ****ing Bunny
        From a 6th grader who readily adpated to internet culture: "Pay attention now, because your opinions suck"

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
          Usually it was not even something as extreme as a philibuster they were opposing (there was just one of those on a judge, who was vaguely connected to a financial scandal), usually it was nominees being killed by majority votes in the judiciary committee.
          Well that was mostly Orin Hatch's "blue slip" rule that if a Senator from the Judge's home state didn't like the judge his nomination would be killed no questions asked. For some strange reason that rule disappeared once Bush became Presdient...
          Stop Quoting Ben

          Comment


          • #6
            Here's something interesting I just found out. It appears that at one point, James "Father of the Constitution" Madison wanted to require a 2/3rds majority in the Senate to reject the President's judicial appointments.

            Did you know that the Constitution's Framers considered requiring a supermajority vote in the Senate to reject the President's judicial no...
            KH FOR OWNER!
            ASHER FOR CEO!!
            GUYNEMER FOR OT MOD!!!

            Comment


            • #7
              So? Should be the other way around, requiring a 2/3rd majority to assent. No more of these extremists like Priscilla Owen who argue that a law actually means the exact opposite of the words in it.
              Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

              Comment


              • #8
                Holy cow, politicians being partisan?!? I've never heard of such a thing. This whole time I was thinking Democrats were the paramount of detatched neutrality at all times. Thanks for showing me the error of my ways.
                Captain of Team Apolyton - ISDG 2012

                When I was younger I thought curfews were silly, but now as the daughter of a young woman, I appreciate them. - Rah

                Comment


                • #9
                  If the republicans want to change the rules, fine, as long as they do so according to the existing rules in the Senate. So, if they can get 2/3 of the Senators to agree to a rules change if a fillibuster is in place (which is the current Senate rule regarding the matter) then let them. To do otherwise is a naked grab at power.
                  If you don't like reality, change it! me
                  "Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
                  "it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
                  "Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by OzzyKP
                    Holy cow, politicians being partisan?!? I've never heard of such a thing. This whole time I was thinking Democrats were the paramount of detatched neutrality at all times. Thanks for showing me the error of my ways.
                    And both parties appear to be changing their views according to whether they are in power or not!

                    HOW CAN THIS BE?????
                    "Spirit merges with matter to sanctify the universe. Matter transcends to return to spirit. The interchangeability of matter and spirit means the starlit magic of the outermost life of our universe becomes the soul-light magic of the innermost life of our self." - Dennis Kucinich, candidate for the U. S. presidency
                    "That’s the future of the Democratic Party: providing Republicans with a number of cute (but not that bright) comfort women." - Adam Yoshida, Canada's gift to the world

                    Comment


                    • #11


                      I love college students.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by finkian


                        I love college students.

                        ...especially female college students in wet T-shirts.

                        Yipes did I say that out loud??

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by chegitz guevara
                          Priscilla Owen who argue that a law actually means the exact opposite of the words in it.
                          How would she be different from what we have now?
                          I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
                          For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Zkribbler


                            ...especially female college students in wet T-shirts.

                            Yipes did I say that out loud??

                            now, isn't that nice.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Bosh
                              Well that was mostly Orin Hatch's "blue slip" rule that if a Senator from the Judge's home state didn't like the judge his nomination would be killed no questions asked. For some strange reason that rule disappeared once Bush became Presdient...
                              "Senatorial Curstesy" (rejection by home state senator of the party in power) had been around in various forms for many decades.
                              Gaius Mucius Scaevola Sinistra
                              Japher: "crap, did I just post in this thread?"
                              "Bloody hell, Lefty.....number one in my list of persons I have no intention of annoying, ever." Bugs ****ing Bunny
                              From a 6th grader who readily adpated to internet culture: "Pay attention now, because your opinions suck"

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X