Again, Democrats block judicial 4 nominees (2%) under Bush while the Republicans blocked 38% of nominees under Clinton. You don't notice the hypocrisy?
someone said this was post of the week... too bad Fran has no idea what he's talking about. The Republicans didn't block Clinton's appointee's they just voted against them! That's the senates job - to vote on the confirmation of judges... yes or no.
Quote:
The Democrats have identified these jurists as being sufficiently to the fringe that they do not want them on the bench -- and they have the power and right to block them if they so wish.
Actually they don't have the right to "block" them - they have the right to vote against them. The advise and consent role is a part of the consitution, the filibuster is not.
And you fail to see that Republican's don't need to filibuster when they control the senate. They just vote no.
When you're not the party in control of the senate... the only way to stop an appointee is too filibuster... because the republicans already have the votes in the commitee and in the senate to get them through.
The filibuster is a procedure adopted by the Senate. And is valid for any use deemed as necessary by a senator.
The idea is that even with a majority one party would have to work with the other in order to get things done.
And you fail to see that Republican's don't need to filibuster when they control the senate. They just vote no.
Why can't the democrats simply vote no then? hmmm might it be they don't want to be seen on the record as voting no on an african american and hispanic applicant?
The fact that the democrats can't simply vote no if that is their vote as opposed to yes shows the weakness of the party today.
Why can't the democrats simply vote no then? hmmm might it be they don't want to be seen on the record as voting no on an african american and hispanic applicant?
The fact that the democrats can't simply vote no if that is their vote as opposed to yes shows the weakness of the party today.
Fellowship
The fact that the Democrats are trying to block a vote on these nominees is proof enough they don't want them. Like I said before, this is a ploy by the GOP for next year's elections, and it's a waste of time.
It's not that the party is weak. On the contrary, for once, the Democrats aren't caving to what Bush wants. He's basically had a rubber stamp for his nominees and now, with 98% of them approved, the GOP has to make a big deal about these 4. The Democrats obviously don't want these people confirmed based on their past records, and as a result, will do what is needed to make it so they can't be.
The Republicans can try their 30 hour session, and when it fails, we can only hope that they don't waste any more of the nation's time with these people and that they withdraw their nominations.
Quote:
someone said this was post of the week... too bad Fran has no idea what he's talking about. The Republicans didn't block Clinton's appointee's they just voted against them! That's the senates job - to vote on the confirmation of judges... yes or no.
My use of 'blocking' meant that the nominees were not appointed. Thus, the Republicans blocked that person. Some of them were voted on, others were not. You misinterpreted what I said. As far as I'm concerned, the Senate *is* doing it's job.
So you are saying the democrat senators are "afraid"of how they will be viewed if they vote no?
"afraid"
"afraid" little senators... Wonderful. America land of people who are afraid.
Don't you see this as a clear problem for the democrats? The fact they just cant say a simple yes or no.
I think it is silly
Fellowship
No, they just don't want them appointed. Why can't you understand that? The fact that the Democrats are blocking this at all is a clear indicator that they don't want them appointed. After looking at their records, I wouldn't want them appointed either.
Only the Republicans are making this out to be an issue of race; the Democrats are making this out to be an issue of the nominees' records, and that's why they don't want it to come to a vote. If it could come to a vote, the Republicans have the majority to push them through. It's the Democrats' responsibility to block that vote and prevent them from being appointed as they don't like their voting records. That's just the way it works.
The 30-hour debate on President Bush's judicial nominees began on a testy note Wednesday night.
After Republicans walked into the Senate chamber together to begin the extraordinary session, Democrats argued that their move was not a show of unity but rather a television stunt orchestrated for Fox News. They pointed to a memo from Manuel Miranda, a staffer for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), which said:
"It is important to double efforts to get your boss to S-230 on time ... Fox News Channel is really excited about this marathon and Brit Hume at 6 would love to open with all our 51 senators walking onto the floor -- the producer wants to know will we walk in exactly at 6:02 when the show starts so they get it live to open Brit Hume's show? Or if not, can we give them an exact time for the walk-in start?"
And FOX NEWS is not in bed with the Republican party? A producer at fox... orchestrating what's going on at the senate. Nice.
No, they just don't want them appointed. Why can't you understand that? The fact that the Democrats are blocking this at all is a clear indicator that they don't want them appointed. After looking at their records, I wouldn't want them appointed either.
Only the Republicans are making this out to be an issue of race; the Democrats are making this out to be an issue of the nominees' records, and that's why they don't want it to come to a vote. If it could come to a vote, the Republicans have the majority to push them through. It's the Democrats' responsibility to block that vote and prevent them from being appointed as they don't like their voting records. That's just the way it works.
I do see it. They know they can't block them with a vote. I just think it is strange that this is the first time in 214 years where by democrats in the senate take this measure to evade a vote.
No, they just don't want them appointed. Why can't you understand that? The fact that the Democrats are blocking this at all is a clear indicator that they don't want them appointed. After looking at their records, I wouldn't want them appointed either.
The Senate doesn't get to decide if they "want" them on the bench - the president nominates who HE wants on the bench. Their job is simply to determine whether the person is qualified.
No. Not to evade the actual casting of a vote. But the inevitable result.
They've only threatened a fillibuster. So they haven't actaully done it yet.
I don't really get what the Republican's are doing... a pseudo-fillibuster... a 30 hour bitch fest... why? To make the Democrats look bad if they force them into a fillibuster?
It's lame. Find 4 new appointees and get on with business.
The Senate doesn't get to decide if they "want" them on the bench - the president nominates who HE wants on the bench. Their job is simply to determine whether the person is qualified.
Oh! I thought the Constitution said the nominees were appointed with the "Advice and consent" of the Senate. I didn't know it said anything about "simply determining whether the candidate is qualified." Duh. Silly me.
And FOX NEWS is not in bed with the Republican party? A producer at fox... orchestrating what's going on at the senate. Nice.
Wow! I didn't know this. The more I find out about Fox News the less I watch. I admit that I used to watch Fox News about 60% of the time, CNN 20% and the rest to local news. But, I have to admit that I'm watching the Communist News Network almost exclusively the more I found out about Roger Ailes' past and the ideologies of their anchor-people.
Geedub and the GOP got NINETY EIGHT PERCENT of their nominees and they're wasting important time to do the people's business by BITCHING!
Fellows, if anything, the Republicans are the repugnant ones. I don't care how you try to spin it. In earlier threads you found it disgusting that Howard Dean would say anything to get elected (of which I disagree). Yet, you don't see how this is THE REAL PROBLEM:
Bitch about appointees = RE-ELECTION
Frame "Bush Hatred" = RE-ELECTION
Step up activities in Iraq = RE-ELECTION
Bury the Plame scandal = RE-ELECTION
But, bring up race discussions amongst poor white in the South and "it's absolutely disgusting attempt to get attention and votes". Whatever.
I think the constitution says "put the vote off with a pseudo-filibuster where you don't really filibuster but say you are and then move on to other business" or something like that. What ever you do don't vote on it.
I do see it. They know they can't block them with a vote. I just think it is strange that this is the first time in 214 years where by democrats in the senate take this measure to evade a vote.
What the hell are you talking about?!? The entire point of every filibuster in history was to "evade" as in not let come to the floor a vote.
The Senate doesn't get to decide if they "want" them on the bench - the president nominates who HE wants on the bench. Their job is simply to determine whether the person is qualified.
Tell that to the Republican party. They started the politicization of the judicial appointee process back in '68, and have never backed down from it since. Only now are they crying foul. Well too bad.
Judicial nominees are now political issues and are dealt with using the tools of politics, including the Filibuster.
My post was very clear Kirkland. In 214 years of history this is the first filibuster used during judicial nominations.
That is what I am talking about. Understand now?
Fellowship
Your source on this? From the salon.com article posted earlier in this thread:
Quote:
Notwithstanding the finger-pointing by the Republicans for filibustering four Bush nominees, this practice started in 1968 with Republicans, with the help of Southern Democrats (who now come to the Senate as Republicans), filibustering President Lyndon Johnson's nominee for Chief Justice, Abe Fortas. Republicans blocked Fortas so Nixon could get the chief justice appointment, assuming, correctly, he would be elected.
Comments
Again, Democrats block judicial 4 nominees (2%) under Bush while the Republicans blocked 38% of nominees under Clinton. You don't notice the hypocrisy?
someone said this was post of the week... too bad Fran has no idea what he's talking about. The Republicans didn't block Clinton's appointee's they just voted against them! That's the senates job - to vote on the confirmation of judges... yes or no.
The Democrats have identified these jurists as being sufficiently to the fringe that they do not want them on the bench -- and they have the power and right to block them if they so wish.
Actually they don't have the right to "block" them - they have the right to vote against them. The advise and consent role is a part of the consitution, the filibuster is not.
When you're not the party in control of the senate... the only way to stop an appointee is too filibuster... because the republicans already have the votes in the commitee and in the senate to get them through.
The filibuster is a procedure adopted by the Senate. And is valid for any use deemed as necessary by a senator.
The idea is that even with a majority one party would have to work with the other in order to get things done.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
And you fail to see that Republican's don't need to filibuster when they control the senate. They just vote no.
Why can't the democrats simply vote no then? hmmm might it be they don't want to be seen on the record as voting no on an african american and hispanic applicant?
The fact that the democrats can't simply vote no if that is their vote as opposed to yes shows the weakness of the party today.
Fellowship
It's like voting to stop cancer. It's a nice idea... but it won't work.
168 of 172 appointees... is it a coincidence that the most conservative were/are minorities? It's a nice attempt at triangulation... and cynical.
"Hey if they try and stop it... we'll call them racist..."
I wonder how many of the 168 that were appointed were minorities or women.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Why can't the democrats simply vote no then? hmmm might it be they don't want to be seen on the record as voting no on an african american and hispanic applicant?
The fact that the democrats can't simply vote no if that is their vote as opposed to yes shows the weakness of the party today.
Fellowship
The fact that the Democrats are trying to block a vote on these nominees is proof enough they don't want them. Like I said before, this is a ploy by the GOP for next year's elections, and it's a waste of time.
It's not that the party is weak. On the contrary, for once, the Democrats aren't caving to what Bush wants. He's basically had a rubber stamp for his nominees and now, with 98% of them approved, the GOP has to make a big deal about these 4. The Democrats obviously don't want these people confirmed based on their past records, and as a result, will do what is needed to make it so they can't be.
The Republicans can try their 30 hour session, and when it fails, we can only hope that they don't waste any more of the nation's time with these people and that they withdraw their nominations.
someone said this was post of the week... too bad Fran has no idea what he's talking about. The Republicans didn't block Clinton's appointee's they just voted against them! That's the senates job - to vote on the confirmation of judges... yes or no.
My use of 'blocking' meant that the nominees were not appointed. Thus, the Republicans blocked that person. Some of them were voted on, others were not. You misinterpreted what I said. As far as I'm concerned, the Senate *is* doing it's job.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
But the democrats' vote would not stop the appointee.
It's like voting to stop cancer. It's a nice idea... but it won't work.
168 of 172 appointees... is it a coincidence that the most conservative were/are minorities? It's a nice attempt at triangulation... and cynical.
"Hey if they try and stop it... we'll call them racist..."
I wonder how many of the 168 that were appointed were minorities or women.
So you are saying the democrat senators are "afraid"of how they will be viewed if they vote no?
"afraid"
"afraid" little senators... Wonderful. America land of people who are afraid.
Don't you see this as a clear problem for the democrats? The fact they just cant say a simple yes or no.
I think it is silly
Fellowship
The democrats do not have the majority... they would lose the vote.
To stop the appointee... which the NO vote would NOT do... they threatened a fillibuster.
They're obviously not AFRAID of opposing the nominee... in fact they'll do what it takes to see that they are NOT appointed.
Should ALL appointees just get the bench for life because the President wants them?
uh.... no.
The party in power hates to not get their way 100% of the time.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
So you are saying the democrat senators are "afraid"of how they will be viewed if they vote no?
"afraid"
"afraid" little senators... Wonderful. America land of people who are afraid.
Don't you see this as a clear problem for the democrats? The fact they just cant say a simple yes or no.
I think it is silly
Fellowship
No, they just don't want them appointed. Why can't you understand that? The fact that the Democrats are blocking this at all is a clear indicator that they don't want them appointed. After looking at their records, I wouldn't want them appointed either.
Only the Republicans are making this out to be an issue of race; the Democrats are making this out to be an issue of the nominees' records, and that's why they don't want it to come to a vote. If it could come to a vote, the Republicans have the majority to push them through. It's the Democrats' responsibility to block that vote and prevent them from being appointed as they don't like their voting records. That's just the way it works.
The 30-hour debate on President Bush's judicial nominees began on a testy note Wednesday night.
After Republicans walked into the Senate chamber together to begin the extraordinary session, Democrats argued that their move was not a show of unity but rather a television stunt orchestrated for Fox News. They pointed to a memo from Manuel Miranda, a staffer for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), which said:
"It is important to double efforts to get your boss to S-230 on time ... Fox News Channel is really excited about this marathon and Brit Hume at 6 would love to open with all our 51 senators walking onto the floor -- the producer wants to know will we walk in exactly at 6:02 when the show starts so they get it live to open Brit Hume's show? Or if not, can we give them an exact time for the walk-in start?"
And FOX NEWS is not in bed with the Republican party? A producer at fox... orchestrating what's going on at the senate. Nice.
Originally posted by Fran441
No, they just don't want them appointed. Why can't you understand that? The fact that the Democrats are blocking this at all is a clear indicator that they don't want them appointed. After looking at their records, I wouldn't want them appointed either.
Only the Republicans are making this out to be an issue of race; the Democrats are making this out to be an issue of the nominees' records, and that's why they don't want it to come to a vote. If it could come to a vote, the Republicans have the majority to push them through. It's the Democrats' responsibility to block that vote and prevent them from being appointed as they don't like their voting records. That's just the way it works.
I do see it. They know they can't block them with a vote. I just think it is strange that this is the first time in 214 years where by democrats in the senate take this measure to evade a vote.
Fellowship
Originally posted by Fran441
No, they just don't want them appointed. Why can't you understand that? The fact that the Democrats are blocking this at all is a clear indicator that they don't want them appointed. After looking at their records, I wouldn't want them appointed either.
The Senate doesn't get to decide if they "want" them on the bench - the president nominates who HE wants on the bench. Their job is simply to determine whether the person is qualified.
They've only threatened a fillibuster. So they haven't actaully done it yet.
I don't really get what the Republican's are doing... a pseudo-fillibuster... a 30 hour bitch fest... why? To make the Democrats look bad if they force them into a fillibuster?
It's lame. Find 4 new appointees and get on with business.
Originally posted by OBJRA10
The Senate doesn't get to decide if they "want" them on the bench - the president nominates who HE wants on the bench. Their job is simply to determine whether the person is qualified.
Oh! I thought the Constitution said the nominees were appointed with the "Advice and consent" of the Senate. I didn't know it said anything about "simply determining whether the candidate is qualified." Duh. Silly me.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
And FOX NEWS is not in bed with the Republican party? A producer at fox... orchestrating what's going on at the senate. Nice.
Wow! I didn't know this. The more I find out about Fox News the less I watch. I admit that I used to watch Fox News about 60% of the time, CNN 20% and the rest to local news. But, I have to admit that I'm watching the Communist News Network almost exclusively the more I found out about Roger Ailes' past and the ideologies of their anchor-people.
Geedub and the GOP got NINETY EIGHT PERCENT of their nominees and they're wasting important time to do the people's business by BITCHING!
Fellows, if anything, the Republicans are the repugnant ones. I don't care how you try to spin it. In earlier threads you found it disgusting that Howard Dean would say anything to get elected (of which I disagree). Yet, you don't see how this is THE REAL PROBLEM:
Bitch about appointees = RE-ELECTION
Frame "Bush Hatred" = RE-ELECTION
Step up activities in Iraq = RE-ELECTION
Bury the Plame scandal = RE-ELECTION
But, bring up race discussions amongst poor white in the South and "it's absolutely disgusting attempt to get attention and votes". Whatever.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I do see it. They know they can't block them with a vote. I just think it is strange that this is the first time in 214 years where by democrats in the senate take this measure to evade a vote.
What the hell are you talking about?!? The entire point of every filibuster in history was to "evade" as in not let come to the floor a vote.
Originally posted by OBJRA10
The Senate doesn't get to decide if they "want" them on the bench - the president nominates who HE wants on the bench. Their job is simply to determine whether the person is qualified.
Tell that to the Republican party. They started the politicization of the judicial appointee process back in '68, and have never backed down from it since. Only now are they crying foul. Well too bad.
Judicial nominees are now political issues and are dealt with using the tools of politics, including the Filibuster.
Originally posted by Kirkland
What the hell are you talking about?!? The entire point of every filibuster in history was to "evade" as in not let come to the floor a vote.
My post was very clear Kirkland. In 214 years of history this is the first filibuster used during judicial nominations.
That is what I am talking about. Understand now?
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
My post was very clear Kirkland. In 214 years of history this is the first filibuster used during judicial nominations.
That is what I am talking about. Understand now?
Fellowship
Your source on this? From the salon.com article posted earlier in this thread:
Notwithstanding the finger-pointing by the Republicans for filibustering four Bush nominees, this practice started in 1968 with Republicans, with the help of Southern Democrats (who now come to the Senate as Republicans), filibustering President Lyndon Johnson's nominee for Chief Justice, Abe Fortas. Republicans blocked Fortas so Nixon could get the chief justice appointment, assuming, correctly, he would be elected.
First filibuster ever, eh?
Originally posted by Fran441
Your source on this? From the salon.com article posted earlier in this thread:
First filibuster ever, eh?
I retract my statement. I was mistaken.
Fellowship