Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Democrats on filibustering judges

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

  • #46
    Unreal.

    Jesus tap-dancing Christ Senate Dems, you had the GOP by the f*cking balls. The population was overwhelmingly against the so-called "nuclear option" and supported the existence of the filibuster... yet you let these freak jobs through and pat yourselves on the back for it?

    The latest news and headlines from Yahoo News. Get breaking news stories and in-depth coverage with videos and photos.


    Senators Avert Showdown Over Filibusters

    By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent 1 hour, 4 minutes ago

    WASHINGTON - In a dramatic reach across party lines, Senate centrists sealed a compromise Monday night that cleared the way for confirmation of many of
    President Bush's stalled judicial nominees, left others in limbo and preserved venerable filibuster rules.

    "We have reached an agreement to try to avert a crisis in the United States Senate and pull the institution back from a precipice," said Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., adding the deal was based on "trust, respect and mutual desire to .... protect the rights of the minority.

    "We have lifted ourselves above politics," agreed Sen. Robert C. Byrd (news, bio, voting record), D-W. Va., "And we have signed this document....in the interest of freedom of speech, freedom of debate and freedom to dissent in the United States Senate.

    Under the terms, Democrats agreed to allow final confirmation votes for Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor, appeals court nominees they have long blocked. There is "no commitment to vote for or against" the filibuster against two other conservatives named to the appeals court, Henry Saad and William Myers.

    The agreement said future judicial nominees should "only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances," with each senator — presumably the Democrats — holding the discretion to decide when those conditions had been met. Officials said the pact was intended to cover the Supreme Court as well as other levels of the judicary.

    "In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement," Republicans joined Democrats in pledging to oppose any attempt to make changes in the application of filibuster rules — a commitment that Sen. Mike DeWine (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio, said at the news conference was conditional on Democrats upholding their end of the deal.

    While the agreement was signed by only 14 senators, they held the balance of power in a sharply divided Senate — able to thwart continued Democratic filibusters, on the one hand, and block GOP attempts to alter filibuster practices on the other.

    Republicans, moving quickly, said they would seek to confirm Owen as early as Tuesday, with other cleared nominees to follow quickly.

    Even so, Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., noted he had not been a party to the deal, which fell short of his stated goal of winning yes-or-no votes on each of Bush's nominees. "It has some good news and it has some disappointing news and it will require careful monitoring," he said.

    Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada seemed more receptive — although he hastened to say he remains opposed to some of the nominees who will now likely take seats on federal appeals courts.

    "Checks and balances have been protected. The integrity of the Supreme Court has been protected from the undue influence of the vocal, radical right wing," Reid said.

    The White House said the agreement was a positive development.

    "Many of these nominees have waited for quite some time to have an up-or-down vote and now they are going to get one. That's progress," presidential press secretary Scott McClellan said. "We will continue working to push for up or down votes for all the nominees."

    At the same time, even Republicans said the agreement would force a change on the White House.

    "Judges are going to get a vote that wouldn't have gotten a vote otherwise. We're going to start talking about who would be a good judge and who wouldn't. And the White House is going to get more involved and they are going to listen to us more," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), R-S.C., one of the bargainers.

    The deal was sealed around the table in McCain's office, across the street from the Capitol where senators had expected an all-night session of speech-making, prelude to Tuesday's anticipated showdown.

    Nominally, the issue at hand on the Senate floor was Bush's selection of Owen to a seat on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

    In fact, as the rhetoric suggested, the stakes were far broader, with Republicans maneuvering to strip Democrats of their right to filibuster and thus block current and future nominees to the appeals court and Supreme Court.

    There currently is no vacancy on the high court, although one or more is widely expected in Bush's term. Chief Justice
    William Rehnquist's coincidental presence in the Capitol during the day was a reminder of that. At age 80 and battling thyroid cancer, he entered the building in a wheelchair on his way to the doctor's office.

    The agreement came as Frist and Reid steered the Senate toward a showdown on Bush's nominees and historic filibuster rules, under which a minority can prevent action unless the majority gains 60 votes.

    For decades, Senate rules have permitted opponents to block votes on judicial nominees by mounting a filibuster, a parliamentary device that can be stopped only by a 60-vote majority.

    But Republicans, frustrated by Democratic filibusters that thwarted 10 of Bush's first-term appeals court nominees and prepared to block seven of them again, threatened to supersede that rule by simple majority vote.

    In classic Senate style, the agreement was followed by a rush of self-congratulatory speeches — and disagreement over what it meant.

    Democrats, pointing to a slight change in wording from an earlier draft, said the deal would preclude Republicans from attempting to deny them the right to filibuster. Republicans said that was not ironclad, but valid only as long as Democrats did not go back on their word to filibuster only in extraordinary circumstances.

    One official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the issue had been discussed at the meeting in McCain's office, and was "clearly understood" by those in attendance.

    Apart from the judicial nominees named in the agreement, Reid said Democrats would clear the way for votes on David McKeague, Richard Griffin and Susan Neilson, all named to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Democratic officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, suggested that two other appeals court nominees whose named were omitted from the written agreement — White House staff secretary Brett Kavanaugh and
    Pentagon lawyer William Haynes — might be jettisoned. Republicans said they knew of no such understanding.

    Some Democrats dissented.

    Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., issued a statement saying that "Confirming unacceptable judicial nominations is simply a green light for the Bush administration to send more nominees who lack the judicial temperament or record to serve in these lifetime positions."

    Sen. Byron Dorgan (news, bio, voting record), D-N.D., called the agreement "legislative castor oil. It averts the showdown vote tomorrow, but I doubt it's over," he said.
    The cake is NOT a lie. It's so delicious and moist.

    The Weighted Companion Cube is cheating on you, that slut.

    Comment


    • #47
      A bipartisan deal is good. The Christian Coalition showed their true colors and declared anyone who attempted to reach a bipartisan deal would be attacked in the next election so most of the Republican far right dropped out of the bipartisan effort instead of facing down the raving Christian extremists. I'm sorry that so many ideologues and extremists will now be allowed to pack the courts but at least this will preserve the filibuster as the founding fathers intended. All along Frist and Lott have been claiming they knew better then the founding father's but I am glade to see their arrogance has been checked by their ever sinking poll numbers.
      Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

      Comment


      • #48
        the filibuster as the founding fathers intended.


        KH FOR OWNER!
        ASHER FOR CEO!!
        GUYNEMER FOR OT MOD!!!

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Oerdin
          at least this will preserve the filibuster as the founding fathers intended.
          Are we bringing the filibuster back to the House or just killing the modern version of it in the Senate? FYI: The filibuster didn't exist during the time of the founding fathers. So how could they have intended it?
          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


          • #50
            Great victory for the Dems in one fell swoop the peel off of 7 repubs has ensured

            a) Frist is damaged goods who is powerless in the eyes of the base

            b) The 7 with possible exception of McCain are in jeapordy of losing their senatorial seats from reaction from the base.

            c) McCain is now permanently damaged goods in the event he was considering a 2008 presedenital go.
            "Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson

            “In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Oerdin
              A bipartisan deal is good.
              No it isn't. All bipartisan means is that the Democrats, once again, surrendered. The GOP doesn't compromise. It either wins or loses. The Democrats just like to call surrendering a bipartisan compromise. This deal is a travesty. Confirming Owens is beyond a travesty. She is beyond incompetant. She is a feircely partisan hack who uses the bench to create her own ideas of what the law should say. She is the ultimate expression of what the GOP calls activist judges.
              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


              • #52
                Originally posted by DinoDoc
                Are we bringing the filibuster back to the House or just killing the modern version of it in the Senate? FYI: The filibuster didn't exist during the time of the founding fathers. So how could they have intended it?
                There has always been closure votes in the history of the senate.
                Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                Comment


                • #53
                  If you want to know what bipartisan means to the Congressional Democrats, I suggest looking up goatsee.
                  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


                  • #54
                    Che, this saves the filibuster for supreme court nominees which is key since Bush loves extremists. The alternative was to have the Republicans arrogantly grab total power. Although such blazing arrogance would have resulted in many Republicans losing the next election, if poll numbers are to be believed, it is better to preserve the institution the way the founding fathers intended rather then trade it for a few seats next November.
                    Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Ogie, McCain is already hated by the extremist right so he has nothing to lose plus his district is majority Democratic voters. That's why McCain stays centrist on most things other then abortion. Democrats still value working together even if most Republicans always demand they get everything or nothing. Next, Frist never stood a chance of winning the nomination so he doesn't really matter.
                      Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Admiral


                        I'm telling myself that I shouldn't, but I will reply against my better judgement.

                        First, your argument basically is that the Democrats must be filibustering for a reason, and that they have been opposed to certain blacks, and that therefore, the filibuster is racist. Democrats are opposed to arch-conservatives, and thomas and owen are archconservatives. You cannot deny this. Most on the right do not deny this. As to the anita hill affair, my understanding is that the real personal attacks were directed against her, and her concerns were never granted the consideration that they deserved. His reputation, as I understand it, is that of an archconservative, which he is, so i really don't know what you're talking about regarding his reputation never "recovering." The opposition to Rice, architect of the Bush foreign policy, is based upon the fact that she deliberately contributed to lying to the American people. It has recently come to light that Bush was definitely planning to go to war before the UN resolutions, so there really isn't that much room for doubt her. Why attribute to racism what is better attributed to common-sense anger and resentment?

                        But I will go further. Ned, and a couple of far right wing blogs have been trying to characterize the Democratic party as racist. They do this either from a complete lack of understanding of politics, an inability to look at events that have happened since 1964, or a deliberate and gleeful attempt to attack the Democrats for faults that are actually their own.

                        Tell me, why do black people vote overwhelmingly for Democrats? Is it because the Democrats are racist, and all black people are masochistic? Why is it that Republicans, before elections, try to get innocent black people added to felon lists in state where felons can't vote? It can't be because they know that these people will vote Democratic, and they can be safely eliminated from the voting pool. It must be that 80% of blacks are so stupid that they don't know that they're voting for a party that hates them.

                        I can't say I'm really surprised at you, Ned. But I do long for the day when you question your assumptions, and see beyond your fictionalized universe.
                        Admiral, assuming for the moment that Thomas was filisbustered because he was an archconservative, why did the Dems attack him on a very personal level and never on the basis of his judicial views? The attacks, had they been made by Republicans, would have been labelled racist by all the liberal media, as they were. But they were made by Dems.

                        Now, the opposition to Rice by some was based on the Bush foreign policy. But the way she was attacked, showing her in cartoons with exaggerated lips, etc., and being a stupid house n*gg*er,, etc., etc., was beyond the pale. Again, had these attacks and slurs been made by Republicans, they would have been labelled as racist, as they were. But they were made by Dems.

                        Now, you ask about Black and why they support the party of slavery instead of the party of anti-slavery, simple: The Dems lie, lie, lie and lie some more. They are constantly demonizing the Republicans for being elitist and racist. The pity is that Republicans never seem to effectively respond to this. But it is also true that the liberal media portrays the Republicans in this manner as well.

                        For example, Nixon invented affirmative action to combat racism and the effect that welfare had in walling the blacks off in their ghettos like we once walled off the Indians. But do the press or historians give Nixon any credit whatsoever for advancing the cause of blacks? No. What we hear about is that Nixon inaugurated the so-called Southern Strategy that eventually removed the Southern States from the Democrat camp.

                        Today Republicans favor vouchers. One benefit of vouchers for blacks is that they too can now attend private schools in the cities. But rather than see the benefits to them of breaking down the barrier of separate white private education, the Dems villify the voucher effort as a means of destroying public schools.

                        And the beat goes on.

                        On every issue, it seems, the better position for blacks is with the Republican Party. But they are villified as racists by the party that has no problem in smearing the likes of Thomas, Rice and other Republican blacks on personal grounds that have everything to do with their race.

                        No, the Dems were the party of racism from its very beginnings. It remains such today.
                        http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Ned, Thomas caused such a controversy because creditable witnesses came forward saying Thomas sexually harrassed her. For coming forward and telling the truth about Thomas Anita Hill got attacked, called a whore, and had fanatical extremists throw mud at her.

                          BTW 80%+ of the black population and around 60%+ of the latino population disagree with you about which party is racist.

                          Edit: Name changed
                          Last edited by Dinner; May 24, 2005, 13:25.
                          Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Oerdin
                            Che, this saves the filibuster for supreme court nominees which is key since Bush loves extremists.
                            It's a Munich's Pact. It would have been much better for the Dem's to go down fighting, rather than surrender yet again. They are still at the mercy of the GOP. Who's gonna vote for surrender loving Democrats?
                            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


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Oerdin
                              Che,...
                              You mean, Ned.

                              You should also attack Ned for his racist argument, since it assumes Blacks and Latinos are too stupid to realize that the Democrats are lying to them and that the GOP really isn't racist.
                              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


                              • #60
                                You have to keep your eye on the main prize. With one SCOTUS member dying of cancer it seems likely a new person will take the open seat with in the next three years. That means the filibuster will be needed to prevent Bush from naming a radical extremist to the SCOTUS.
                                Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X