Gay sex is totally different than child molestation, even if attraction to children is hard wired (which I've seen little evidence to support), because gay sex is between consenting adults. Children cannot consent to anything, they have not reached the age of majority. That is a fundamental difference: having sex with a child is always, by definition, non-consensual, and thus rape.
Previous judicial controversies were settled either by committee or senate wide vote, and in no case was a nominee, who had a majority senate vote, blocked from confirmation. The use of filibuster to block a Senate majority in favor of a nomination is simply unprecedented. Thus, to date, the White House has noted that during President Bush's first two years in office, "only 53% of appeals court nominees were confirmed compared to a rate of over 90% during the same period for the last three presidencies."
1. According to all the articles floating around today about this, filibusters on judicial nominations have been attempted 35 times, a majority of them, I believe, for Clinton's appointees. They haven't been successful in the past for the most part, but "successful vs. unsuccessful filibusters" is a different comparison than "filibusters vs. no filibusters," wouldn't you say?
2. I don't have numbers on this (if anyone could find them that would be useful), but many of Clinton's appointments were never even brought to committee.* One of the powers of the majority party is that they can decide not to even bring something to vote by committee or full senate. Even a single Senator in the majority party can do this. Of course, Dems can't pull this trick at this time because they're not in the majority, but isn't this just as bad if not worse than using a filibuster?
3. I don't believe that 53% number. It just doesn't make sense, given that only 4 of 172 Bush judicial nominees that got to the Senate floor have had trouble. All 168 others have been confirmed. The best sense I can make of it is that you left off the first part of that quote, which says in "Bush's first two years in office..." and then goes on "only 53% of appeals court nominees were confirmed..." In other words, many of them were just recently nominated and the Senate hadn't gotten around to approving them yet at that time, but they eventually were. If that's the case, and I suspect that's exactly what that means, that's a pretty sleazy and deceptive statistic for the White House to use, wouldn't you say?
[edit: I found this article that states the following:
Quote:
Fifty-five Clinton judicial nominees never got a hearing and 10 more never got a vote in the Judiciary Committee.
Gay sex is totally different than child molestation, even if attraction to children is hard wired (which I've seen little evidence to support), because gay sex is between consenting adults. Children cannot consent to anything, they have not reached the age of majority. That is a fundamental difference: having sex with a child is always, by definition, non-consensual, and thus rape.
Thank you for your reply. I respect how you decided to use logic in your reply absent of insults and bigoted remarks.
This is what it is to discuss. Thanks
I will also say I believe sex between consenting adults should be no business of the government. I am a libertarian in this regard.
The quotes in question were not attributing a quote to Santorum but more of a paraphrase-description-of-the-persons-personality sort of thing. George "One Termer" Bush. Bill "I Want to Rule the World" Gates. Ronald "A Turkey for President" Reagan. Bill "I Can't Keep My Pants On" Clinton.
I never claimed that he said what was in the quotes. It is, however, a reasonable abstraction of that ball of scum's opinion towards gay Americans.
If you're trying to argue that Santorum isn't hateful and bigotted towards gays, you might as well also try to argue that Stalin only had a small problem with dissent.
That's not irony; it's your own stupidity. Irony is when you think something should happen and something unexpected happens. Stupidity is when you think Democrats support any minority for political office regardless of credentials, ideology, or other factors besides race.
I don't believe the criticism against Ashcroft was that he was being racist, I believe it was that he was being extremely conservative. If you can actually provide evidence of how the left's criticism of John Ashcroft in dealing with judges dealt with racism, then be my guest.
By the way, your post wasn't ironic.
Studying the Franken thought process again. Disagreement with Shawn = you are stupid. Nice reasoning.
On the racist issue, you couldn't be more wrong. It is an easy find and is even from a source you won't spend two dozen posts questioning.
</mocking> Sure we know he confirmed over a dozen other judges, signed MLKjr's birthday into law, and said the one black judge was weak on the death penalty, but hey it's racism.
If all the judges Republicans held up consisted of almost exclusively women or minorities, you tell me what it would be called.
I know what it was called. That is the expected. The unexpected is of course watching the same interest groups sell out their interests in the name of politics.
Of course I can understand why that isn't considered unexpected seeing how you operate.
trumptman, if Republicans played the race/bigotry card on judicial nominations as much if not more than Democrats, would you say the Republicans were wrong? Don't worry, this isn't a trick question or a set up or anything, I promise.
1. According to all the articles floating around today about this, filibusters on judicial nominations have been attempted 35 times, a majority of them, I believe, for Clinton's appointees. They haven't been successful in the past for the most part, but "successful vs. unsuccessful filibusters" is a different comparison than "filibusters vs. no filibusters," wouldn't you say?
Yes, just as a filibuster against a nominee (who has a majority of confirmation votes needed) at the direction of the Party leadership, is different from a filibuster attempt by a few senators.[/quote] My contention is that the Partys, in modern history, have not resorted to filibuster to block confirmation votes.
Quote:
2. I don't have numbers on this (if anyone could find them that would be useful), but many of Clinton's appointments were never even brought to committee.* One of the powers of the majority party is that they can decide not to even bring something to vote by committee or full senate. Even a single Senator in the majority party can do this. Of course, Dems can't pull this trick at this time because they're not in the majority, but isn't this just as bad if not worse than using a filibuster?
Under democracy the majority party HAS the majority votes, thus can set the business agenda, as well as to vote down appointments. It may be tacky, but thats how majority rule works. However a political party's use of filibuster to thwart the nominee's majority on this kind of issue is a new development - and by requiring a super majority, undermines the intent of the consitution. It launchs a new era in political war, make no mistake.
Quote:
3. I don't believe that 53% number. It just doesn't make sense, given that only 4 of 172 Bush judicial nominees that got to the Senate floor have had trouble. All 168 others have been confirmed. The best sense I can make of it is that you left off the first part of that quote, which says in "Bush's first two years in office..." and then goes on "only 53% of appeals court nominees were confirmed..." In other words, many of them were just recently nominated and the Senate hadn't gotten around to approving them yet at that time, but they eventually were. If that's the case, and I suspect that's exactly what that means, that's a pretty sleazy and deceptive statistic for the White House to use, wouldn't you say?
If it were not clear, I believe the White House stat is/was based on appeals court nominees, and was released last May or so (this controversy has been going on for a long time). From what I understand, the district court nominations have not been the problem...its the more important appeals court that has been delayed.
I will check out your article, and would appreciate any other referals to the 35 number of any kind of judicial filibuster...till then...
</mocking> Sure we know he confirmed over a dozen other judges, signed MLKjr's birthday into law, and said the one black judge was weak on the death penalty, but hey it's racism.
If all the judges Republicans held up consisted of almost exclusively women or minorities, you tell me what it would be called.
I know what it was called. That is the expected. The unexpected is of course watching the same interest groups sell out their interests in the name of politics.
Of course I can understand why that isn't considered unexpected seeing how you operate.
Nick
No.
First, I said stupidity is when "you think Democrats support any minority for political office regardless of credentials, ideology, or other factors besides race." That's my reasoning. I guess it wasn't clear the first time. Silly me. I'll learn to speak more slowly next time for you.
Second, PLEASE TELL ME HOW THE TEXT OF THAT ARTICLE SAID JOHN ASHCROFT WAS RACIST! It's pretty ing dishonest when you have to lie about the content of your own articles. The truth is that few people think John Ashcroft is racist. The article you quoted didn't even say that. The article criticized Ashcroft for accepting an honorary degree at Bob Jones University and for giving an interview to Southern Partisan Magazine. Regardless, it doesn't even matter because you said:
Quote:
"What I think ironic is how venomous the Democrats were toward Ashcroft, declaring that he was a racist for standing against the nomination of a black judge."
Now is that what happened? Or are you plainly making things up again?
clearly Child molesters hurt a child. However the excellent point made is that those who would practice bigamy and polygamy should have the same protections as those who practice monogamy. Clearly you have consenting adults.
Yes, just as a filibuster against a nominee (who has a majority of confirmation votes needed) at the direction of the Party leadership, is different from a filibuster attempt by a few senators. My contention is that the Partys, in modern history, have not resorted to filibuster to block confirmation votes.
Well, not successfully. I just want it to be clear that Republicans can't be upset about the principle of requiring cloture to vote on a nominee. They're upset that in the very rare cases in which the Dems have used it, they have done so successfully. Dems more organized than Republicans - whodathunkit?
Quote:
Under democracy the majority party HAS the majority votes, thus can set the business agenda, as well as to vote down appointments. It may be tacky, but thats how majority rule works.
Right, but:
1. As you know, the Senate does not generally operate on majority rule.
2. My point is that Republicans have no problem with stopping nominees from getting their vote. They stopped Clinton nominees from getting their votes again and again, but they used a different technique - never even bringing the nominee up for a vote at all. The Dems can't do that because they don't have a majority, and the Repubs didn't need to use the filibuster because they have been the majority party and so had other blocking techniques available to them.
I found the following chart on Pat Leahy's Senate web site about how Bush vs. Clinton judicial nominees have been handled by the Senate. Not exactly a disinterested party in the debate, but not inaccurate, AFAIK. It's an interesting comparison, because it treats "blocked" as "blocked." It doesn't distinguish between whether the majority party is doing the blocking (including refusing to bring the nominee to a vote at all) or the minority party is doing the blocking (i.e., filibuster).
Quote:
However a political party's use of filibuster to thwart the nominee's majority on this kind of issue is a new development - and by requiring a super majority, undermines the intent of the consitution. It launchs a new era in political war, make no mistake.
Again, only the successful use is new. And although I agree it may create a war, I don't see how it undermines the intent of the Constitution. Where does the Constitution say or imply that a majority only of the Senate is the standard for advice and consent? It may be good practice to require a majority only for nominations, but I don't see it as a Constitutional issue.
Quote:
If it were not clear, I believe the White House stat is/was based on appeals court nominees, and was released last May or so (this controversy has been going on for a long time). From what I understand, the district court nominations have not been the problem...its the more important appeals court that has been delayed.
I haven't been following that distinction. Could you provide further info?
Quote:
I will check out your article, and would appreciate any other referals to the 35 number of any kind of judicial filibuster...till then...
Here's a very complete .pdf report from the Congressional research service with all the happy fun details. Turns out the 35 are not just judicial nominations; 18 of the 35 were executive branch nominations. But presumably the same principles apply, right? If I'm reading it right, 28 of the 35 filibusters were by Republicans against Democratic president's nominees; 23, or fully 2/3 of the total filibusters against all nominees since 1949, were against Clinton nominees. Those poor abused Republican nominees.
trumptman, if Republicans played the race/bigotry card on judicial nominations as much if not more than Democrats, would you say the Republicans were wrong? Don't worry, this isn't a trick question or a set up or anything, I promise.
I prefer folks to be judged on their merits as judges. That includes confirming them based off of their professional conduct and not their personal lives.
I don't like when either party plays the race card, especially with one nominee. However if it were to become a trend for someone in any party, I wouldn't be upset if someone questioned the motives.
First, I said stupidity is when "you think Democrats support any minority for political office regardless of credentials, ideology, or other factors besides race." That's my reasoning. I guess it wasn't clear the first time. Silly me. I'll learn to speak more slowly next time for you.
Are you arguing with yourself again. Clean the mirror this time. I said it was ironic because the when the REPUBLICAN do not support someone for office because of credentials, or ideology, Democrats call that racism. When the reverse occurs, it is called, advising. Double standard, as I mentioned in the first post. I hope you finally get it.
Quote:
Second, PLEASE TELL ME HOW THE TEXT OF THAT ARTICLE SAID JOHN ASHCROFT WAS RACIST! It's pretty ing dishonest when you have to lie about the content of your own articles. The truth is that few people think John Ashcroft is racist. The article you quoted didn't even say that. The article criticized Ashcroft for accepting an honorary degree at Bob Jones University and for giving an interview to Southern Partisan Magazine. Regardless, it doesn't even matter because you said:
Well Shawn, there is this little thing in school you learn to use called CONTEXT.
Now tell me Shawn what would you, being the bright lad you are, infer from the following phrases...
Quote:
THE CUDDLY, obsequious warmth between John Ashcroft and the racist right is quite up front in his 1998 interview with Southern Partisan, a journal that glorifies the Confederacy and views people of color as mosquitos swarming onto the veranda to ruin the evening's mint julep.
I suppose you are one of those that think someone isn't saying a politician is lying when they say he/she is being "disingenuous" because, hey they didn't say liar.
How about this one...
Quote:
It makes you wonder what kind of revisionist nonsense Ashcroft would attempt at Justice. He probably would look at a briefing on DWB and assume it not to be Driving While Black but instead a list of old black men who are Driving W. Bush. One has to wonder, when he fawns over a journal where articles have claimed that former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke is ''a populist spokesperson for a recapturing of the American ideal.''
or this one...
Quote:
Ashcroft is under fire most notably for his rejection of a black judge to the federal bench. He has defended himself by saying he approved of two dozen other black appointees and that he signed the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday into law when he was governor of Missouri.
Yep, you heard it here folks from Shawn the protector of John Ashcroft. None of these things make him racist or even imply racism because they didn't say the word "racist."
You are going to become a running gag around here if you keep up such "feats" of reasoning.
Quote:
Now is that what happened? Or are you plainly making things up again?
Yep.. You caught me. Because in the special Shawn-universe... none of those things implies racism or even would be considered racist.
[B]Well, not successfully. I just want it to be clear that Republicans can't be upset about the principle of requiring cloture to vote on a nominee. They're upset that in the very rare cases in which the Dems have used it, they have done so successfully. Dems more organized than Republicans - whodathunkit?
Republican party leadership has not used filibuster to block judicial appointments, successful OR unsuccessful ? period. In fact, according to your chart explanation, none of the 35 (of both parties) were related to judicial appointments.
Quote:
But presumably the same principles apply, right?
They do now! However, at one time the protocol (which is reflected in the constitution) of judicial appointments (the 3rd branch) restricted the Senate to ?advise and consent? as compared to appointments in the executive branch, the administrative branch that is supposed to execute congresses law.
I recently heard the Republicans are having a difficult time getting enough votes to change the cloture rule, in part because a few Republican senators are looking at this as a wonderful new tactic when they, someday, lose Senate control. Too bad.
Quote:
Right, but:
1. As you know, the Senate does not generally operate on majority rule.
2. My point is that Republicans have no problem with stopping nominees from getting their vote through filibuster. They stopped Clinton nominees from getting their votes again and again, but they used a different technique - never even bringing the nominee up for a vote at all. The Dems can't do that because they don't have a majority, and the Repubs didn't need to use the filibuster because they have been the majority party and so had other blocking techniques available to them.
Wrong:
1) As you should know, the Senate DOES generally operate on majority rule.
2. Niether party has a problem with stopping NON-JUDICIAL nominees from getting their vote, when either party is the majority party in the Senate. In fact, as the Democrats have largely controlled the U.S. senate since 1949, the Republicans have more often used a filibuster (assuming the stats you gave are correct) for non judicial appointments. However, during that period, Senate protocol excluded them blocking of judicial appointments using the filibuster.
Quote:
And although I agree it may create a war, I don't see how it undermines the intent of the Constitution. Where does the Constitution say or imply that a majority only of the Senate is the standard for advice and consent? It may be good practice to require a majority only for nominations, but I don't see it as a Constitutional issue.
The only exceptions to the principle of majority rule is enumerated in the Constitution seven specific situations where a two-thirds vote is required. The requirements for a super-majority is high: removing an official who has been impeached, expelling a member of Congress, passing a constitutional amendment, or overriding a presidential veto. The confirmation of one of the nearly 1,000 lower federal court judges is not the sort of the action that the Framers thought or said required a super-majority.
The clause of the constitution that speaks of the confirmation of judicial nominees, which merely speaks of ?Advise and Consent?, is not included in that requirement ? nor was it intended to.
Quote:
I haven't been following that distinction. Could you provide further info?
The Republicans have never filibustered a judicial nominee, in spite of their long history as a minority party. Aside from the important distinction between appeals court appointments, the four (soon to be six) blocked appointments, at any level, are a revolutionary change in 214 years of constitutional and senate practice.
Of the 2730 judicial nominations, none have been blocked by filibuster. When setting a new precedent, it is disingenuous to claim that you?ve only started on the first four (soon to be six. It will not end, and ideology will now be criteria for lower court appointments.
I hope you all know that this has absolutely *nothing* to do with partisanship and *everything* to do with Roe v. Wade.
We, the supporters of women's rights will do anything within our power to protect those rights, including filibuster and mudslinging to oppose lifetime judicial nominies hand-picked to overturn Roe v. Wade. And you, the opponents of women's rights will do anything within your power to return us to the days of the coat hanger.
Now, before you accuse me of derailing this thread, this is the issue. Abortion is the topic of this thread. Abortion is the meaning behind the liberal opposition to irrational judicial choices. Not partisanship.
It's tooth and nail, folks. We need to get through this Bush administration with our clinics intact. It is literally a matter of life and death.
Partisanship? Just another wingnut straw-man to hide the real issue.
Huh? You'll "do anything within (your) power to protect those rights (abortion)" because "Its literally a matter of life and death" and the issue "has nothing to do with partisanship" ?
Tonton, that was really very dumb. To remedy your delayed education, please note the following definition from Websters (my emphasis in caps):
par·ti·san n.
A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, CAUSE, faction, person, or IDEA.
adj.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of a partisan or partisans.
Devoted to or biased in support of a party, GROUP, or CAUSE: partisan politics.
Of COURSE its partisanship! Your problem is you're a ONE ISSUE partisan, so inflamed by Bush's appointments and so fanatical about a single cause that you even deny that other democrats could oppose the nomination on other ideological concerns.
As you will do "anything", I hope my little lesson will help:
In the play, "A Man for All Seasons", Thomas More, Lord Chancellor, argues with his daughter Margret and son-in-law, Roper - they wish him to arrest a man they considered evil. His daughter crys "Father, that man is bad" More replies: "There is no law against that". Roper blurts out: "But there is, Gods law!", and More says "Then God can arrest him. The law Roper, the law...I'll stick to what's legal, I am not God".
Roper would not be appeased, he leveled the charge that More would give the Devil the benefit of the law.
More: "Yes, and what would you do ? Cut a great swath through the law to get after the Devil?"
Roper:"I'd cut down every law in England to do that!"
More:"Oh...and when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you Roper - where would you hide Roper, the laws all laid flat ? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast- man's laws, not Gods- and if you cut them down...d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes I'd give the Devil the benefit of the law, for my own's safety's sake."
Beware my friend, your "devil" is driveing you to "do anything", to lay the laws flat. But if you succeed we will see if you can stand in the winds that will blow then.
Okay so now that "we" have had 30 hours to debate this can we vote on it now? The filibuster the democrats use it the one to keep the debate open, for more debate. Have we had enough now?
Comments
Would it be ok to break into someone's house if they were having anal sex BUT heterosexual AND married?
It is about criminalizing "gay' sex. Not just privacy. Although he's ok with loosening privacy laws... and limiting free-speech.
Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)
Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)
Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
Originally posted by chu_bakka
They don't call themselves gay... they ARE gay.
If Gays are "Gay" not a preference but rather born that way
are
Child molestors born as Child molestors so they too should have protection under law for their sexual activities?
This is what Santorum is asking in fewer words.
I think it is a difficult question and again to be clear I am not against Gay sex.
Fellowship
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Previous judicial controversies were settled either by committee or senate wide vote, and in no case was a nominee, who had a majority senate vote, blocked from confirmation. The use of filibuster to block a Senate majority in favor of a nomination is simply unprecedented. Thus, to date, the White House has noted that during President Bush's first two years in office, "only 53% of appeals court nominees were confirmed compared to a rate of over 90% during the same period for the last three presidencies."
1. According to all the articles floating around today about this, filibusters on judicial nominations have been attempted 35 times, a majority of them, I believe, for Clinton's appointees. They haven't been successful in the past for the most part, but "successful vs. unsuccessful filibusters" is a different comparison than "filibusters vs. no filibusters," wouldn't you say?
2. I don't have numbers on this (if anyone could find them that would be useful), but many of Clinton's appointments were never even brought to committee.* One of the powers of the majority party is that they can decide not to even bring something to vote by committee or full senate. Even a single Senator in the majority party can do this. Of course, Dems can't pull this trick at this time because they're not in the majority, but isn't this just as bad if not worse than using a filibuster?
3. I don't believe that 53% number. It just doesn't make sense, given that only 4 of 172 Bush judicial nominees that got to the Senate floor have had trouble. All 168 others have been confirmed. The best sense I can make of it is that you left off the first part of that quote, which says in "Bush's first two years in office..." and then goes on "only 53% of appeals court nominees were confirmed..." In other words, many of them were just recently nominated and the Senate hadn't gotten around to approving them yet at that time, but they eventually were. If that's the case, and I suspect that's exactly what that means, that's a pretty sleazy and deceptive statistic for the White House to use, wouldn't you say?
[edit: I found this article that states the following:
Fifty-five Clinton judicial nominees never got a hearing and 10 more never got a vote in the Judiciary Committee.
Originally posted by Kirkland
Gay sex is totally different than child molestation, even if attraction to children is hard wired (which I've seen little evidence to support), because gay sex is between consenting adults. Children cannot consent to anything, they have not reached the age of majority. That is a fundamental difference: having sex with a child is always, by definition, non-consensual, and thus rape.
Thank you for your reply. I respect how you decided to use logic in your reply absent of insults and bigoted remarks.
This is what it is to discuss. Thanks
I will also say I believe sex between consenting adults should be no business of the government. I am a libertarian in this regard.
Fellows
Originally posted by Kirkland
The quotes in question were not attributing a quote to Santorum but more of a paraphrase-description-of-the-persons-personality sort of thing. George "One Termer" Bush. Bill "I Want to Rule the World" Gates. Ronald "A Turkey for President" Reagan. Bill "I Can't Keep My Pants On" Clinton.
I never claimed that he said what was in the quotes. It is, however, a reasonable abstraction of that ball of scum's opinion towards gay Americans.
If you're trying to argue that Santorum isn't hateful and bigotted towards gays, you might as well also try to argue that Stalin only had a small problem with dissent.
Just saw this,
I agree 100% thanks for this reply
Fellows
Originally posted by ShawnJ
That's not irony; it's your own stupidity. Irony is when you think something should happen and something unexpected happens. Stupidity is when you think Democrats support any minority for political office regardless of credentials, ideology, or other factors besides race.
I don't believe the criticism against Ashcroft was that he was being racist, I believe it was that he was being extremely conservative. If you can actually provide evidence of how the left's criticism of John Ashcroft in dealing with judges dealt with racism, then be my guest.
By the way, your post wasn't ironic.
Studying the Franken thought process again. Disagreement with Shawn = you are stupid. Nice reasoning.
On the racist issue, you couldn't be more wrong. It is an easy find and is even from a source you won't spend two dozen posts questioning.
CommonDreams
</mocking> Sure we know he confirmed over a dozen other judges, signed MLKjr's birthday into law, and said the one black judge was weak on the death penalty, but hey it's racism.
If all the judges Republicans held up consisted of almost exclusively women or minorities, you tell me what it would be called.
I know what it was called. That is the expected. The unexpected is of course watching the same interest groups sell out their interests in the name of politics.
Of course I can understand why that isn't considered unexpected seeing how you operate.
Nick
Originally posted by BRussell
1. According to all the articles floating around today about this, filibusters on judicial nominations have been attempted 35 times, a majority of them, I believe, for Clinton's appointees. They haven't been successful in the past for the most part, but "successful vs. unsuccessful filibusters" is a different comparison than "filibusters vs. no filibusters," wouldn't you say?
Yes, just as a filibuster against a nominee (who has a majority of confirmation votes needed) at the direction of the Party leadership, is different from a filibuster attempt by a few senators.[/quote] My contention is that the Partys, in modern history, have not resorted to filibuster to block confirmation votes.
2. I don't have numbers on this (if anyone could find them that would be useful), but many of Clinton's appointments were never even brought to committee.* One of the powers of the majority party is that they can decide not to even bring something to vote by committee or full senate. Even a single Senator in the majority party can do this. Of course, Dems can't pull this trick at this time because they're not in the majority, but isn't this just as bad if not worse than using a filibuster?
Under democracy the majority party HAS the majority votes, thus can set the business agenda, as well as to vote down appointments. It may be tacky, but thats how majority rule works. However a political party's use of filibuster to thwart the nominee's majority on this kind of issue is a new development - and by requiring a super majority, undermines the intent of the consitution. It launchs a new era in political war, make no mistake.
3. I don't believe that 53% number. It just doesn't make sense, given that only 4 of 172 Bush judicial nominees that got to the Senate floor have had trouble. All 168 others have been confirmed. The best sense I can make of it is that you left off the first part of that quote, which says in "Bush's first two years in office..." and then goes on "only 53% of appeals court nominees were confirmed..." In other words, many of them were just recently nominated and the Senate hadn't gotten around to approving them yet at that time, but they eventually were. If that's the case, and I suspect that's exactly what that means, that's a pretty sleazy and deceptive statistic for the White House to use, wouldn't you say?
If it were not clear, I believe the White House stat is/was based on appeals court nominees, and was released last May or so (this controversy has been going on for a long time). From what I understand, the district court nominations have not been the problem...its the more important appeals court that has been delayed.
I will check out your article, and would appreciate any other referals to the 35 number of any kind of judicial filibuster...till then...
Originally posted by trumptman
Studying the Franken thought process again. Disagreement with Shawn = you are stupid. Nice reasoning.
On the racist issue, you couldn't be more wrong. It is an easy find and is even from a source you won't spend two dozen posts questioning.
CommonDreams
</mocking> Sure we know he confirmed over a dozen other judges, signed MLKjr's birthday into law, and said the one black judge was weak on the death penalty, but hey it's racism.
If all the judges Republicans held up consisted of almost exclusively women or minorities, you tell me what it would be called.
I know what it was called. That is the expected. The unexpected is of course watching the same interest groups sell out their interests in the name of politics.
Of course I can understand why that isn't considered unexpected seeing how you operate.
Nick
No.
First, I said stupidity is when "you think Democrats support any minority for political office regardless of credentials, ideology, or other factors besides race." That's my reasoning. I guess it wasn't clear the first time. Silly me. I'll learn to speak more slowly next time for you.
Second, PLEASE TELL ME HOW THE TEXT OF THAT ARTICLE SAID JOHN ASHCROFT WAS RACIST! It's pretty
"What I think ironic is how venomous the Democrats were toward Ashcroft, declaring that he was a racist for standing against the nomination of a black judge."
Now is that what happened? Or are you plainly making things up again?
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Yes, just as a filibuster against a nominee (who has a majority of confirmation votes needed) at the direction of the Party leadership, is different from a filibuster attempt by a few senators. My contention is that the Partys, in modern history, have not resorted to filibuster to block confirmation votes.
Well, not successfully. I just want it to be clear that Republicans can't be upset about the principle of requiring cloture to vote on a nominee. They're upset that in the very rare cases in which the Dems have used it, they have done so successfully. Dems more organized than Republicans - whodathunkit?
Under democracy the majority party HAS the majority votes, thus can set the business agenda, as well as to vote down appointments. It may be tacky, but thats how majority rule works.
Right, but:
1. As you know, the Senate does not generally operate on majority rule.
2. My point is that Republicans have no problem with stopping nominees from getting their vote. They stopped Clinton nominees from getting their votes again and again, but they used a different technique - never even bringing the nominee up for a vote at all. The Dems can't do that because they don't have a majority, and the Repubs didn't need to use the filibuster because they have been the majority party and so had other blocking techniques available to them.
I found the following chart on Pat Leahy's Senate web site about how Bush vs. Clinton judicial nominees have been handled by the Senate. Not exactly a disinterested party in the debate, but not inaccurate, AFAIK. It's an interesting comparison, because it treats "blocked" as "blocked." It doesn't distinguish between whether the majority party is doing the blocking (including refusing to bring the nominee to a vote at all) or the minority party is doing the blocking (i.e., filibuster).
However a political party's use of filibuster to thwart the nominee's majority on this kind of issue is a new development - and by requiring a super majority, undermines the intent of the consitution. It launchs a new era in political war, make no mistake.
Again, only the successful use is new. And although I agree it may create a war, I don't see how it undermines the intent of the Constitution. Where does the Constitution say or imply that a majority only of the Senate is the standard for advice and consent? It may be good practice to require a majority only for nominations, but I don't see it as a Constitutional issue.
If it were not clear, I believe the White House stat is/was based on appeals court nominees, and was released last May or so (this controversy has been going on for a long time). From what I understand, the district court nominations have not been the problem...its the more important appeals court that has been delayed.
I haven't been following that distinction. Could you provide further info?
I will check out your article, and would appreciate any other referals to the 35 number of any kind of judicial filibuster...till then...
Here's a very complete .pdf report from the Congressional research service with all the happy fun details. Turns out the 35 are not just judicial nominations; 18 of the 35 were executive branch nominations. But presumably the same principles apply, right? If I'm reading it right, 28 of the 35 filibusters were by Republicans against Democratic president's nominees; 23, or fully 2/3 of the total filibusters against all nominees since 1949, were against Clinton nominees. Those poor abused Republican nominees.
Originally posted by BRussell
trumptman, if Republicans played the race/bigotry card on judicial nominations as much if not more than Democrats, would you say the Republicans were wrong? Don't worry, this isn't a trick question or a set up or anything, I promise.
I prefer folks to be judged on their merits as judges. That includes confirming them based off of their professional conduct and not their personal lives.
I don't like when either party plays the race card, especially with one nominee. However if it were to become a trend for someone in any party, I wouldn't be upset if someone questioned the motives.
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnJ
No.
First, I said stupidity is when "you think Democrats support any minority for political office regardless of credentials, ideology, or other factors besides race." That's my reasoning. I guess it wasn't clear the first time. Silly me. I'll learn to speak more slowly next time for you.
Are you arguing with yourself again. Clean the mirror this time. I said it was ironic because the when the REPUBLICAN do not support someone for office because of credentials, or ideology, Democrats call that racism. When the reverse occurs, it is called, advising. Double standard, as I mentioned in the first post. I hope you finally get it.
Second, PLEASE TELL ME HOW THE TEXT OF THAT ARTICLE SAID JOHN ASHCROFT WAS RACIST! It's pretty ing dishonest when you have to lie about the content of your own articles. The truth is that few people think John Ashcroft is racist. The article you quoted didn't even say that. The article criticized Ashcroft for accepting an honorary degree at Bob Jones University and for giving an interview to Southern Partisan Magazine. Regardless, it doesn't even matter because you said:
Well Shawn, there is this little thing in school you learn to use called CONTEXT.
Now tell me Shawn what would you, being the bright lad you are, infer from the following phrases...
THE CUDDLY, obsequious warmth between John Ashcroft and the racist right is quite up front in his 1998 interview with Southern Partisan, a journal that glorifies the Confederacy and views people of color as mosquitos swarming onto the veranda to ruin the evening's mint julep.
I suppose you are one of those that think someone isn't saying a politician is lying when they say he/she is being "disingenuous" because, hey they didn't say liar.
How about this one...
It makes you wonder what kind of revisionist nonsense Ashcroft would attempt at Justice. He probably would look at a briefing on DWB and assume it not to be Driving While Black but instead a list of old black men who are Driving W. Bush. One has to wonder, when he fawns over a journal where articles have claimed that former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke is ''a populist spokesperson for a recapturing of the American ideal.''
or this one...
Ashcroft is under fire most notably for his rejection of a black judge to the federal bench. He has defended himself by saying he approved of two dozen other black appointees and that he signed the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday into law when he was governor of Missouri.
Yep, you heard it here folks from Shawn the protector of John Ashcroft. None of these things make him racist or even imply racism because they didn't say the word "racist."
You are going to become a running gag around here if you keep up such "feats" of reasoning.
Now is that what happened? Or are you plainly making things up again?
Yep..
I needed that laugh... thanks...
Nick
Originally posted by BRussell
[B]Well, not successfully. I just want it to be clear that Republicans can't be upset about the principle of requiring cloture to vote on a nominee. They're upset that in the very rare cases in which the Dems have used it, they have done so successfully. Dems more organized than Republicans - whodathunkit?
Republican party leadership has not used filibuster to block judicial appointments, successful OR unsuccessful ? period. In fact, according to your chart explanation, none of the 35 (of both parties) were related to judicial appointments.
But presumably the same principles apply, right?
They do now! However, at one time the protocol (which is reflected in the constitution) of judicial appointments (the 3rd branch) restricted the Senate to ?advise and consent? as compared to appointments in the executive branch, the administrative branch that is supposed to execute congresses law.
I recently heard the Republicans are having a difficult time getting enough votes to change the cloture rule, in part because a few Republican senators are looking at this as a wonderful new tactic when they, someday, lose Senate control. Too bad.
Right, but:
1. As you know, the Senate does not generally operate on majority rule.
2. My point is that Republicans have no problem with stopping nominees from getting their vote through filibuster. They stopped Clinton nominees from getting their votes again and again, but they used a different technique - never even bringing the nominee up for a vote at all. The Dems can't do that because they don't have a majority, and the Repubs didn't need to use the filibuster because they have been the majority party and so had other blocking techniques available to them.
Wrong:
1) As you should know, the Senate DOES generally operate on majority rule.
2. Niether party has a problem with stopping NON-JUDICIAL nominees from getting their vote, when either party is the majority party in the Senate. In fact, as the Democrats have largely controlled the U.S. senate since 1949, the Republicans have more often used a filibuster (assuming the stats you gave are correct) for non judicial appointments. However, during that period, Senate protocol excluded them blocking of judicial appointments using the filibuster.
And although I agree it may create a war, I don't see how it undermines the intent of the Constitution. Where does the Constitution say or imply that a majority only of the Senate is the standard for advice and consent? It may be good practice to require a majority only for nominations, but I don't see it as a Constitutional issue.
The only exceptions to the principle of majority rule is enumerated in the Constitution seven specific situations where a two-thirds vote is required. The requirements for a super-majority is high: removing an official who has been impeached, expelling a member of Congress, passing a constitutional amendment, or overriding a presidential veto. The confirmation of one of the nearly 1,000 lower federal court judges is not the sort of the action that the Framers thought or said required a super-majority.
The clause of the constitution that speaks of the confirmation of judicial nominees, which merely speaks of ?Advise and Consent?, is not included in that requirement ? nor was it intended to.
I haven't been following that distinction. Could you provide further info?
The Republicans have never filibustered a judicial nominee, in spite of their long history as a minority party. Aside from the important distinction between appeals court appointments, the four (soon to be six) blocked appointments, at any level, are a revolutionary change in 214 years of constitutional and senate practice.
Of the 2730 judicial nominations, none have been blocked by filibuster. When setting a new precedent, it is disingenuous to claim that you?ve only started on the first four (soon to be six. It will not end, and ideology will now be criteria for lower court appointments.
Originally posted by tonton
I hope you all know that this has absolutely *nothing* to do with partisanship and *everything* to do with Roe v. Wade.
We, the supporters of women's rights will do anything within our power to protect those rights, including filibuster and mudslinging to oppose lifetime judicial nominies hand-picked to overturn Roe v. Wade. And you, the opponents of women's rights will do anything within your power to return us to the days of the coat hanger.
Now, before you accuse me of derailing this thread, this is the issue. Abortion is the topic of this thread. Abortion is the meaning behind the liberal opposition to irrational judicial choices. Not partisanship.
It's tooth and nail, folks. We need to get through this Bush administration with our clinics intact. It is literally a matter of life and death.
Partisanship? Just another wingnut straw-man to hide the real issue.
Huh? You'll "do anything within (your) power to protect those rights (abortion)" because "Its literally a matter of life and death" and the issue "has nothing to do with partisanship" ?
Tonton, that was really very dumb. To remedy your delayed education, please note the following definition from Websters (my emphasis in caps):
par·ti·san n.
A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, CAUSE, faction, person, or IDEA.
adj.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of a partisan or partisans.
Devoted to or biased in support of a party, GROUP, or CAUSE: partisan politics.
Of COURSE its partisanship! Your problem is you're a ONE ISSUE partisan, so inflamed by Bush's appointments and so fanatical about a single cause that you even deny that other democrats could oppose the nomination on other ideological concerns.
As you will do "anything", I hope my little lesson will help:
In the play, "A Man for All Seasons", Thomas More, Lord Chancellor, argues with his daughter Margret and son-in-law, Roper - they wish him to arrest a man they considered evil. His daughter crys "Father, that man is bad" More replies: "There is no law against that". Roper blurts out: "But there is, Gods law!", and More says "Then God can arrest him. The law Roper, the law...I'll stick to what's legal, I am not God".
Roper would not be appeased, he leveled the charge that More would give the Devil the benefit of the law.
More: "Yes, and what would you do ? Cut a great swath through the law to get after the Devil?"
Roper:"I'd cut down every law in England to do that!"
More:"Oh...and when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you Roper - where would you hide Roper, the laws all laid flat ? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast- man's laws, not Gods- and if you cut them down...d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes I'd give the Devil the benefit of the law, for my own's safety's sake."
Beware my friend, your "devil" is driveing you to "do anything", to lay the laws flat. But if you succeed we will see if you can stand in the winds that will blow then.
Nick