A dagger to the heart of Frist and Ried

[Bruzilla]

I'd like to add some to this conversation...hope I don't piss too many people off my comments...

First of all, two general statements. 1) I strongly support the spirit of compromise and centrism; I believe that it is vital to the development of our nation, 2) I strongly support the right of the Senate to employ the filibuster, which can only be broken with the votes of sixty members; such a supermajority requires that the majority acquire at least minimal support from the minority to ensure passage of absolutely vital pieces of legislation and nominations because this encourages that spirit of compromise I mentioned in number one.

If the Founding Fathers had felt that a supermajority was needed for approval of a judge, they would have mandated it. The use of the fillibuster to stymie judges has never been an accepted practice in the Senate until last night.

It seems like the Democrats said well we won't let Bush have all eight of the filibustered nominees...so let's pick two out of a random hat.

The two judges who are still in limbo were not picked at random. They are two judges who have ethics violation allegations made against them and who likely will not be voted for by many Republicans. The Democrats knew exactly what they were doing when they agreed to these guys being left off the list.

But thankfully the media is portraying this as being a Democratic victory (mostly due to Reid's successful manipulation of the deal), so my party looks good in this thing, though I really don't believe that that is the case. Nor, meanwhile, do I think that this makes the Republicans look good.

You are absolutely correct rr! This was a huge victory for the Dems and a huge loss for the Republicans. The Democrats gave up on fighting a couple of low-level judges in return for winning carte blanche to fillibuster every supreme court nominee to their heart's content. I was just listening to Sen Graham and Frist on Hannity, and both these dweebs thing they're going to be able to exercise the nuclear option in the future. They don't understand that by legitimizing the use of the judical fillibuster the Democrats have sliced the wire to the nuclear trigger. If the Republicans balked because 60% of Americans were opposed, what makes anyone think they would be more likely to pull the trigger when 75% or more are oppossed, which will likely be the case as the Democrats will no longer be breaking the rules or traditions.

 

[rraley]

If the Founding Fathers had felt that a supermajority was needed for approval of a judge, they would have mandated it. The use of the fillibuster to stymie judges has never been an accepted practice in the Senate until last night.

Bru, see the part of my original post where Senate Republicans voted to filibuster Abe Fortas for the Supreme Court and lower court nominees in the late 1990s. This was not unprecedented. Bill Frist in fact voted to filibuster two Clinton judicial nominees. The use of the filibuster to stymie judges has been an accepted practice; unless Democrats do it.

The founding fathers said that the Senate's role was to "advise and consent," suggesting that that institution could do so in any manner that they see fit. This part of the Constitution seems to be left purposely left vague.

 

[Bogart]

Which one was adopting cats from the shelter so he could perform hideous surgeries on them?

 

[Larry Gude]

Dear Puppy...

With affection, RR, I ask you to explain this:

A bipartisan Senate agreement on judicial appointees bore its first fruit yesterday when the chamber voted 81 to 18 to stop filibustering a nominee who has waited four years for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.

You're having great fun impuning the motives of Republicans and making claims of noble intent on the part of Democrats, so, how is it that a person who is, as you basically say, unfit to serve, who has been blocked for all this time can suddenly, over night, get 81 votes to allow her a vote on the Senate floor? A vote where her nomination will win a majority, which is why she was blocked in the first place.

Not 51. Not 51 plus the glorious 7. Not 60. Not 66.

81

If you'd like some help explaining, I'd be glad to help!

 

[Bruzilla]

Bru, see the part of my original post where Senate Republicans voted to filibuster Abe Fortas for the Supreme Court and lower court nominees in the late 1990s. This was not unprecedented. Bill Frist in fact voted to filibuster two Clinton judicial nominees. The use of the filibuster to stymie judges has been an accepted practice; unless Democrats do it.

The founding fathers said that the Senate's role was to "advise and consent," suggesting that that institution could do so in any manner that they see fit. This part of the Constitution seems to be left purposely left vague.

rr, I did read it and you're trying to mix apples and oranges. Abe Fortas was already a judge on the Supreme Court when his nomination for Chief Justice was fillibustered by a bipartisan majority of senators. That's a bit different than what's happening today, which is a minority fillibuster of judicial candidates who are not on the court they are nominated for. Nobody tried to block Fortas from being on the Supreme Court. As for the Clinton nominees, they did not get a vote because the Republicans bottled up their nominations in committee, again, that's not the same as what's happening now.

 

[rraley]

You're having great fun impuning the motives of Republicans and making claims of noble intent on the part of Democrats, so, how is it that a person who is, as you basically say, unfit to serve, who has been blocked for all this time can suddenly, over night, get 81 votes to allow her a vote on the Senate floor?

I suspect it has to do with the bipartisan deal; many Democrats felt that since this deal was in place, if all of them took part in it, the party would look better. Look, I know that many Democrats filibustered these nominees just because they wanted to stop something in the Bush agenda, but that doesn't change my opinion that Owen, Pryor, and Rogers are not fit to be on the federal bench. But I know that mere political considerations went into this.

Plus Bru...there was not a majority that filibustered Fortas. There was 45 votes against cloture, 43 for it, and the remaining 12 Democrats were not present. And you can call it "bipartisan" but those old Dixiecrats were not great examples of Democrats.

 

[Larry Gude]

I think they're...

...a perfect example of the Democratic party.

but those old Dixiecrats were not great examples of Democrats.

Obstructionist. Clinging to the past. Subservient to multiple special interests.

What's changed?

 

[Bruzilla]

Plus Bru...there was not a majority that filibustered Fortas. There was 45 votes against cloture, 43 for it, and the remaining 12 Democrats were not present. And you can call it "bipartisan" but those old Dixiecrats were not great examples of Democrats.

You're still mixing apples and oranges. The Senate wanted to prevent a highly questionable justice (who resigned about a year later) from becoming the chief justice of the Supreme Court. Now, how you can equate that effort to preventing fully-qualified appellate court judicial nominees from even getting in the courtroom door is a mystery to me.

 

[Larry Gude]

It was also understood...

You're still mixing apples and oranges. The Senate wanted to prevent a highly questionable justice (who resigned about a year later) from becoming the chief justice of the Supreme Court. Now, how you can equate that effort to preventing fully-qualified appellate court judicial nominees from even getting in the courtroom door is a mystery to me.

...that Fortas didn't have the votes anyway.

The problems arise in all this when it is common knowledge that the nominee has the votes if he/she can get out of committee. The vast majority of Clintons 60 were NOT going to be confirmed because, even though
Democrats controlled the Senate, IE majoirty, there were not 51 votes. This meant that some Demcorats were going to vote against.