Democrats and temper tantrums

[Lindaloo]

The Senate Democrats politics of obstruction has reached unprecedented levels. Time and time again, they have sought to grind the Senate to a standstill to block our efforts to provide tax cuts that promote job creation, deliver a comprehensive energy plan that will reduce our country's dependency on foreign oil and pass class action reform to save jobs and defend against junk lawsuits.

Last night we kicked off our Justice for Judges effort in the United States Senate. The Senate Democrats' obstruction has left our country with a dangerously high level of judicial vacancies. Our goal is based on Constitutional responsibilities -- we want President Bush's judicial nominees to receive a fair up or down vote from the entire Senate -- "yes" or "no," that's all we ask.

For the next fourteen hours we will continue to focus the country's attention on this vital debate. Our historic efforts are being broadcast across the nation on C-Span 2, and will be the topic on talk radio programs as well as lead the national news. Our website, http://www.nrsc.org, will have all the latest information throughout this marathon.

This debate comes down to three main issues: our sacred Constitution, accountability and fairness.

The Constitution, which protects our God given rights, accords the President the authority and responsibility to propose nominees to fill vacancies in our federal courts. It's one of the most important duties and obligations of any President. President Bush has performed his duty by sending the United States Senate outstanding judicial nominees of integrity who adhere to proper judicial philosophy. Senate Democrats are breaking with 214 years of responsible governing by stopping a majority in the Senate from taking an up or down vote on judicial nominees that have been approved by the Senate Judicial Committee.

Every American has the right to hold their Senators accountable. They have a right to know where they stand. Senators have a sacred duty to vote for or vote against any nominee that makes it to the floor of the Senate. Hiding behind obscure Senate rules and tricky parliamentary procedures to keep qualified judicial nominees off the federal bench is politics at its worst. Politics has no place in our courts!

Finally, as a matter of principle -- as a matter of fairness -- judicial nominees deserve a simple up or down vote. At least two of the President's current judicial nominees have been waiting for over 900 days without a fair up or down vote! Miguel Estrada put his and his family's life on hold for nearly 850 days before withdrawing his nomination -- even though over 55 Senators supported his nomination. This is neither fair, nor just -- it's an affront to freedom loving individuals everywhere.

Together we can send a clear message to Senate Democrats that we won't tolerate their abuse of the Constitution, their unfair treatment of President Bush's judicial nominees and the abdication of their responsibility to the people of America.

Log onto http://www.nrsc.org to get the latest update on our efforts to force the Senate Democrats to give these judicial nominees a fair up or down vote. Check out our Obstruction page (http://www.nrsc.org/nrscweb/daschle_watch/) and download the latest NRSC Research judicial briefing to read the appalling duplicity and hypocrisy on the part of Senate Democrats.

Republicans have shown that we have positive, constructive solutions and ideas that move America forward. The Senate Democrats offer nothing more than shrill negativity and obstruction. The current state of debate proves once and for all that we must Strengthen our Majority, so we can work with President Bush to move America forward!

[ameriwx2003]

Yes.. this story has been played out before .. the Dems have accused the Repbulicans of the same thing:):).. I have no doubt this scenario will play out several times more in the future by both sides:):)

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/sto ... .nominees/

Mike

[opera ghost]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3266239.stm

Democrats respond that they have helped approve 168 Bush nominees, blocking only four.

Democrat Senate staffers printed t-shirts that read "We confirmed 98% of Bush's judges and all we got were these lousy t-shirts."

The Democrats also argue that Republicans refused to confirm 63 judges nominated by former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat.

The debate began at 1800 Washington time (2300GMT) on Wednesday and is scheduled to run for 30 hours.

[Lindaloo]

Maybe so OG but the Dems are going above and beyond by filibusters. HISTORICAL ones at that!! If we do not get some Conservative judges on those benches the United States and all we stand for is OVER!! GOOD for the Republicans for blocking slant from the bench.

[opera ghost]

Maybe so OG but the Dems are going above and beyond by filibusters. HISTORICAL ones at that!! If we do not get some Conservative judges on those benches the United States and all we stand for is OVER!! GOOD for the Republicans for blocking slant from the bench.

I think we got some conservative judges on the benches- or was Bush appointing 168 liberals (and if he was why are the conservatives still loving him?) somehow I doubt it.

98% guys.... 98%. Excuse me- 97.67% of the appointies went through. 4 are being argued against.

[Lindaloo]

Because the Dems are playing the race card against those 4 judges. It is not just Supreme Court justices, it is all courts.

[Lindaloo]

Senate Republicans failed on Thursday to overcome a filibuster blocking the vote on Charles W. Pickering's nomination to a federal appeals court seat. Judge Pickering, who is a trial judge in Hattiesburg, Miss., thus becomes the fourth of President Bush's judicial candidates to be blocked by Democrats. The filibuster, or extended debate, prevents the Republicans from using their slim majority to confirm nominees. A 60-vote majority is required to break a filibuster, so Republicans, who number 51 in the Senate, needed to get at least 9 other votes. They got 3... Senate Democrats said they believed that the vote was timed to help Haley Barbour, a former Republican national chairman, prevail in his effort to unseat the Democratic incumbent, Ronnie Musgrove. Republicans insisted that was not so but were quick to paint the failure to win approval of Mr. Pickering as an insult to Mississippi and the South. Senator Trent Lott, the Mississippi Republican who has been Judge Pickering's principal sponsor, said that 'we're going to do everything we can to dramatize' what he said was the unfairness with which Judge Pickering was treated. The effort to do so, Mr. Lott said, 'could well have an effect on the race.'"

[streetsoldier]

And, may I add that the 60-vote rule was laid out by Democrats in the last session after the 2000 election, knowing that the GOP would be unable to fill enough seats in the Senate to reinstitute more equitable rules (51%)...a partisan ruling, NOT Constitutional at all, but at the pleasure of the majority party AT THAT TIME.

[ColdFront77]

I turned on C-Span2 (18 on my cable system).....

4:15 am EST: South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham is still talking to practically an empty senate chambers.

They 35th hour of their "Marathon Session" is approaching.


Graham just wrapped up and Kansas Senator Sam Brownback apparently responded and going on to speak.

[stormchazer]

Maybe so OG but the Dems are going above and beyond by filibusters. HISTORICAL ones at that!! If we do not get some Conservative judges on those benches the United States and all we stand for is OVER!! GOOD for the Republicans for blocking slant from the bench.

I think we got some conservative judges on the benches- or was Bush appointing 168 liberals (and if he was why are the conservatives still loving him?) somehow I doubt it.

98% guys.... 98%. Excuse me- 97.67% of the appointees went through. 4 are being argued against.

Not the point. This is about another streching and twisting of the Constitution. It calls for advise and consent by majority vote not 60-40. Also. the judges being blocked are going to courts which are breeding grounds for future Supreme Court judges. The Dems know if they confirm here, they will have no basis to block future Supreme Court nomination. They do not want any of this group on the Supreme Court.

If this continues, look for some future filibuster on the confirmation of the Sec. of State. Perhaps then the politick will care.

[rainstorm]

linda is right. but i feel pres bush need to get out and make the dems pay for blocking a highly qualified hispanic and black woman. the dem party has become the party of apartheid and racism.

[blizzard]

Because the Dems are playing the race card against those 4 judges. It is not just Supreme Court justices, it is all courts.

President Bush made his attack on the marathon session in an appearance with three of his nominees - judges Priscilla Owen of Texas and Carolyn Kuhl and Janice Rogers Brown, both from California.

Are these women black or hispanic? I'm asking because I have not seen them? What about the fourth nominee? Is he/she black or Hispanic? And for the life of me I cannot understand why it is that whenever something isn't going the way of the Republicans, all of a sudden race is somehow said to be involved. Sounds kind of like grasping at straws.

[GalvestonDuck]

Let's not forget the Texas Democrat's temper tantrum, when they ran away out of state (twice!) to avoid the redistricting issue.

[wx247]

Let's not forget the Texas Democrat's temper tantrum, when they ran away out of state (twice!) to avoid the redistricting issue.

That in my opinion is more serious than what is happening in the Senate. And if I hear that Dems are racist one more time I am going to scream.

[blizzard]

Let's not forget the Texas Democrat's temper tantrum, when they ran away out of state (twice!) to avoid the redistricting issue.

And, may I add that the 60-vote rule was laid out by Democrats in the last session after the 2000 election, knowing that the GOP would be unable to fill enough seats in the Senate to reinstitute more equitable rules (51%)...a partisan ruling, NOT Constitutional at all, but at the pleasure of the majority party AT THAT TIME.

So, why was it OK for the Republicans to re-district the state to give them the numbers advantage in Texas, but its not OK for the Dems to change the number of votes needed to break a filibuster. Each party, when they are in a majority tries to change things to the way that benefits their party. But it seems that it is wrong when the Dems do it, but perfectly fine when the GOP does it. I don't get it. Just a reminder, I am of no party affiliation (Independent), I just don't understand the thinking of some people. Doesn't seem to be much logic at all. If someone can explain this to me better, I am all ears.

[j]

Maybe so OG but the Dems are going above and beyond by filibusters. HISTORICAL ones at that!! If we do not get some Conservative judges on those benches the United States and all we stand for is OVER!! GOOD for the Republicans for blocking slant from the bench.

Linda is correct! Throughout history, there have always been difference of opinions in the Senate..this is nothing new. However, this is the first time in the history of the Senate, that a party has fillibustered Presidential Judicial nominations. Is it any surprise that it comes from the Democratic side?

Not to me.

[blizzard]

Would you be surprised if it came from the GOP, Not me. I am not surprised by anything the politicians do. Neither side is right all of the time, or even most of the time for that matter.

[j]

Blizzard...yes..I would be surprised if it came from the GOP. History does not lie, and read again..this is the FIRST time either political party has fillibustered Presidential Judicial Nominations.

Lets just cut to the chase here. We all know what this is about. The Liberals are hanging on for dear life for control of the Supreme Court.

Why? So we can continue to kill babies.

[stormchazer]

Let's not forget the Texas Democrat's temper tantrum, when they ran away out of state (twice!) to avoid the redistricting issue.

And, may I add that the 60-vote rule was laid out by Democrats in the last session after the 2000 election, knowing that the GOP would be unable to fill enough seats in the Senate to reinstitute more equitable rules (51%)...a partisan ruling, NOT Constitutional at all, but at the pleasure of the majority party AT THAT TIME.

So, why was it OK for the Republicans to re-district the state to give them the numbers advantage in Texas, but its not OK for the Dems to change the number of votes needed to break a filibuster. Each party, when they are in a majority tries to change things to the way that benefits their party. But it seems that it is wrong when the Dems do it, but perfectly fine when the GOP does it. I don't get it. Just a reminder, I am of no party affiliation (Independent), I just don't understand the thinking of some people. Doesn't seem to be much logic at all. If someone can explain this to me better, I am all ears.

Don't let Political tit-for-tat cloud the issue. The government is not allowed to make a law that infringes on or restrict that which is laid out in the Constitution. The Constitution allows that the Congress should "advise and consent" on Judicial and Cabinet level appointments. The only time a 2/3 majority is required by the Constitution is in the Ratifying of Treaties. The Democrats in the Senate have effectively applied the same standard to Judicial nominees in violation of the Constitution.

The Constitution is vague in regards to districting. Those laws are derived from each state and is subject to those rules. Each majority will for lets face it, their own political gain, handle re-districting. The minority can file petition in State and Federal Court if they can provide proof of disenfranchising of a party or the electorate. The Democrats chose to run for the border. I find it childish but not an illegal or unconstitutional maneuver. See, if Democrats don't like something or a rule, they simply ignore it. Even if it is a rule they enacted, but now works against them.

I find the same people here arguing for Democrats on other post arguing for an Alabama Judge who violating a law for principal. The law is not suppose to be subject to your own feelings. It just is. In the case of Judicial nominees, the Constitution is clear on the procedure, but the Dems can't get there way so they have made and emotional and unconstitutional stand. Instead of presenting an argument to the people and winning by the opinion of their constituency, they decided to play a game. They know they can't win any other way, just like in Texas. I am a little PO'd its taken this long for Republicans to call their bluff.

[ameriwx2003]

wx247..:) I hear ya... this game has been going on back and forth. The Republicans blocked some Clinton Nominees by refusing to process nominations. The Dems are using the Fillibuster now to block nominees. :):) Some Dems screamed racism then and some Republicans are screaming racism now. :):)