Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Filibustering who won?

0 helpful
56 replies

by jkaras

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

The other day I got home and turned on my tv to see a rediculous amount of grandstanding from politicians making silly speeches over averting a "nuclear threat" in our Senate. Every third word was nuclear in a dog and pony show that "America won." What did we win? Did these so called great leaders finally do there job or just feel like they worked their butt off for a compromise? What are your feelings on a silly dog and pony show that was paraded all over the news last night?
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/ats-ap_top10may24,0,7492043.story?coll=sns-newsnation-headlines

By JIM ABRAMS | Associated Press Writer
Posted May 24, 2005, 8:07 AM EDT
WASHINGTON -- Judicial nominee Priscilla Owen gets the vote she's been awaiting for more than four years, the most immediate beneficiary of a deal worked out by Senate moderates to avoid a debilitating fight over filibusters.

The Senate was voting to end debate on Owen, currently a Texas Supreme Court justice, clearing the way for her to gain a seat on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New Orleans. With the threat of a filibuster by Democrats removed, she was nearly certain then to get the simple majority vote needed to give her the seat that long has eluded her, perhaps as early as Tuesday.

The agreement, crafted over the past several weeks by seven Republicans and seven Democrats, also opened the way for yes-or-no votes on two other of President Bush's judicial picks who have been in nomination limbo for more than two years -- William H. Pryor Jr. for the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and Janice Rogers Brown for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The agreement, which applies to Supreme Court nominees, said future judicial nominations should "only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances," with each Democratic senator holding the discretion to decide when those conditions had been met.

But of greater import, the deal on the rights of the minority party to filibuster judicial nominees avoids a showdown that could have shaken the traditions of the Senate, weakened the powers of the minority and threatened the comity the Senate needs to function.

And there were other political implications, as well, including the shape of the Supreme Court, the midterm election in 2006, Bush's legislative agenda and the next presidential race, especially the prospects for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and potential GOP rival Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

Asked Tuesday how senators would determine what "extraordinary circumstances" might warrant a filibuster threat in the future, McCain indicated on ABC's "Good Morning America" that the bipartisan group of senators who worked out the compromise would retain sufficient leverage to make such a determination.

"We're not asking all 100 senators to make that determination," he said. "We have 14 of us who are together and I am confident we will act in a way that if the circumstances are extraordinary, everyone will agree to that."

Earlier, McCain, who led the compromise effort with Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., said, "We tried to avert a crisis in the United States Senate and pull the institution back from a precipice."

Frist, who had joined with party conservatives in pressing for an end to judicial filibusters, stressed that he was not a party to the agreement. He said he hoped it would end a "miserable chapter in the history of the Senate," but said that what he called the "constitutional option" was still on the table. He said he "will monitor this agreement closely."

Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who had threatened to bog down Senate business if Republicans took away the filibuster authority, was more receptive, saying the Senate could now get back to work on the needs of the nation. He said he was willing to work with Bush on his agenda, "but he should have a little more humility."

"In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement," Republicans said they would oppose any attempt to make changes in the application of filibuster rules. But Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, said the agreement was conditional on Democrats upholding their end of the deal.

The White House said the agreement was a positive development.

"Many of these nominees have waited for quite some time to have an up or down vote and now they are going to get one. That's progress," press secretary Scott McClellan said.

A battle over judicial nominations that began in Bush's first term had been headed toward a climactic conclusion Tuesday with Frist planning to employ what both sides came to call the "nuclear option" because of its potentially disruptive effects.

Had the Democrats used their filibuster powers again to stop Owen, Frist would have sought a ruling from the chair, approvable by a simple majority, that filibusters should not be allowed to obstruct judicial nominations. Vice President Dick Cheney, as president of the Senate, was prepared to take the chair Tuesday to break a tie vote.

Unlike the House, where the majority rules, the majority in the 100-seat Senate must at times gain 60 votes to proceed on legislation over the objection of the minority. Republicans, with 55 seats have had difficulty reaching that threshold against united Democratic opposition.

Frist and most other Republicans said judicial nominees deserved a straight up-or-down vote, and accused the Democrats of unprecedented abuse of their filibuster power in blocking 10 circuit court judge nominees in Bush's first term.

Democrats countered that Frist's action would fundamentally undermine minority rights. Equally important, they worried that it would give Bush and his Republican allies free rein to place anyone of their choosing on the Supreme Court if, as expected, there are vacancies in the near future.

Under the terms of the agreement, Democrats said they would allow final confirmation votes for Owen, Brown and Pryor, three nominees all assailed by Democrats for what they say has been their conservative activism. There is "no commitment to vote for or against" the filibuster against two other conservatives named to the appeals court, Henry Saad and William Myers. Apart from the judicial nominees named in the agreement, Reid said Democrats would clear the way for votes on David McKeague, Richard Griffin and Susan Neilson, all named to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The 14 signers, while a small minority of the Senate, hold enough leverage to stop future filibusters or block any attempt to impose new procedures for judicial filibusters.

Dr. James C. Dobson, head of the Focus on the Family, one of the conservative groups that had made an end to judicial filibusters a top priority, said the agreement "represents a complete bailout and a betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats."

56 replies

by maxwell edison

Never before in history has a request for a simple yes or no vote for a judicial appointment, or any other appointed position, for that matter, been subjected to a filibuster. This was (and still is) a shameful ploy on part of the Democrats who just can't stand being the minority party, so they have to manipulate and connive to get their way.

Never before in history has a majority party (the Republicans) allowed the minority party (the Democrats) to set the rules concerning political appointments that, constitutionally, not only require, but demand, a simple yes or no vote. This is a both a shameful and cowardly display on part of the Republicans for not standing on principle -- and the Constitution -- by forcing a simple yes or no vote for these appointments.

The Democrats are scared to death that they are experiencing having to be the minority party, something that's not been their reality for the past forty or more years.

The Republicans are scared to death that, heaven forbid, they will be criticized by the Democrats for doing the very thing the Democrats have done in the past. But the idiots don't realize they'll be criticized anyway, as that's what the Democrats do best. And the Republicans are also being cowardely by showing that they don't know how to act as the majority party.

The Democrats demagogue, and the Republicans cower.

The Senate is filled with nothing but a bunch of pompous blow-hards whose inflated egos and sense of self-importance overrides any sense of principle or acting on behalf of the voters who sent them there in the first place.

The word "compromise" is oftentimes misunderstood as something noble and good, but that's not always the case -- especially when it means violating some very basic and important principles. After all, it was "compromise" that determined that some people used to only be counted as three-fifths of a person.

by firstpeter

I'm going to try and put any party affiliations I may have aside, so if they appear slap me. :)

I would agree with Mr. Edison - "compromise" is not always the right road. I was listening to some talk show and they had some Senator on there (I think it was Zel Miller) and his point really struck me. He said that on some things you compromise - if I want a $300M spending bill and you want a $100M spending bill for group X maybe we compromise and call it $150M. But when you're talking about core values and beliefs (which was the big issue in this debate) compromise CANNOT be an option. In the famous words of Aaron Tippin - "You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything."

Take these words on both sides of the political fence - there were Democrats "falling for anything" as well as Republicans.

But what gets me more than even the fact that we compromised was what one Democrat leader said before all this was reached. "Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who had threatened to bog down Senate business if Republicans took away the filibuster authority, was more receptive, saying the Senate could now get back to work on the needs of the nation." (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=785625&page=2)

Keep me honest, but don't we pay these folks to pass legislation and help guide America? I was pretty sure we didn't pay them to bicker and whine, and I KNOW my tax dollars were never intended to be paid to someone who has explicitly indicated that he is going to stall legislation NOT ON IT'S MERITS, but because he didn't get his way. My nine year-old is past that point, but apparently some of our elected officials are not.

And finally (this topic REALLY got me going last night, and I'm not usually one to discuss politics) can we can the "we saved the world from the evil Republicans" speeches? If the ultimate goal was really to end up with something that was considered "fair" and "just" in the judiciary then leave the politics out of it. Let the Senators involved pat themselves on the back and call it a day. Instead what we ended up with was a bunch of folks on TV saying how they "saved the judiciary from the radical right-wing." Those kind of speeches make me believe this was never about doing what was right for the judiciary at all, but instead was simply to undermine anything the Republicans wanted to do.

Besides, everybody knows that the definition of the "radical right-wing" for most of these folks is anything on the political scale that's at least one notch to the right of "liberal". :)

by montgomery gator

If we did not get this "compromise", it might have been a good tactic for Frist to let the Democrats filibuster, but say if they are going to do so, they would have to do it the "old fashioned" way, actually have to talk and talk, instead of just holding the cloture vote and then getting on to other manners, like they do now. The American people would then see what blowhards that Reid, Kennedy, Kerry, Byrd, et al on the left side of the Democratic party are, and how obstructionist they are. They could filibuster, but it would be at the expense of the business of the Senate, and the Democrats could easiy be portrayed as the unreasonable obstructionists they are.

Perhaps we need more "radical right-wing" judges that actually believe in the law and the US Constitution, instead of looking at the latest fads and "international law" (which has no application on the internal affairs of the USA), like the Supreme Court did in their unconstitutional restraint on the death penalty. We need more judges like Pryor, Brown, and Owen. I know about William Pryor, since I live in Alabama and had voted for him for state Attorney General, and he is a man who knows the law and respects the Constitution, and will make an excellent judge. From what I read about them, I can say the same thing about Priscilla Owen and Janie Rogers Brown. I see them being as good, honorable, and scholarly as Justices Thomas and Scalia. We need more judges like them, who interpret the law and US Constitution as written, not according to the latest fasion and nebulous concepts like "the living Constitution". What is written is what is written, nothing more, nothing less.

I would also like to add, that in a way, I am relieved we still have the filibuster, in case some day we get a president that would appoint leftist judges, and the conservatives have enough votes to filibuster, but not enough votes to prevent confirmation on a floor vote. But I am still concerned that some good judges are left out of the compromise, and I would like to see them voted on.

by deepsand

As usual, this is nothing more than a case of those whose ox in presently being gored crying foul.

The Republicans are no different from the Democrats in their desire to have the game played by their rules.

Stop acting as if your party of preference is somehow the custodian of the higher virtues.

And, just for the record, the purpose of our Constitution is to [i]prevent[/i] a (usually temporary) majority from riding roughshod over a minority.

by guggs

Filibustering is a waste of time & a waste of my tax dollars.

I say they do it the same way I've seen it done on the news in ... I think it was the Korean government. It's very entertaining to see the fists flying when the politicians are beating up on each other.

by maxwell edison

Only about 1 in 10, maybe even 1 in 100, of the people reading these discussions can accurately describe what a filibuster really is, its origins, how often it's been used, which party has used it the most, and how it's been historically applied. (Test yourselves - no looking it up.)

Therefore, anyone commenting on this will only be repeating the talking-points being spread by various spokes-persons of their party of preference (and taken through the filter of media bias, of course), or it would be a very uneducated and uninformed opinion (see anykey??? as an example).

So who wins, you ask? In my opinion, the Senate wins because it's their game and their rules, and one of the rules is that the rules get to change at the whim of whomever wishes to change them and for whatever reason they can devise.

But more importantly, who loses (in this case)? Answer: Look in the mirror.

By the way, your initial assessment of grandstanding, silly speeches, and the dog and pony show was right-on.

by firstpeter

Okay, my social studies is not coming back to me as quickly as I was hoping, so I'll only claim understanding what a filibuster is and it's purpose. No idea how often it's been used or who uses it the most. :)

However, despite my lack of knowledge on the specifics of it I am going to disagree with one of your opinions. It's clear that we (the men/women in the mirror) were the losers, but I don't think the Senate won in this instance because (I hope, anyway) they look like fools in the eyes of America.

When the grandstanding, speeches, and dog and pony shows started it became clear that the purpose of this "compromise" had nothing to do with what was fair or just or right. It was simply a good opportunity for face time on the camera, a chance to belittle what "the dark side" was doing (or trying to do), and talk about how great those fourteen Senators were for "saving America from social and economic collapse." (okay, I'm exaggerating a bit, but you get the point) Had they kept quiet and been humble about what they did they probably could have convinced some folks that it was good. But once the trash started spewing out of those Senator's mouths I realized how far that once respectable institution has fallen.

I would have much rather seen a great battle take place over what's right because at that point I actually feel like the people who represent me (for any Representatives or Senators that are reading this and aren't sure: I'M TALKING ABOUT YOU) care enough to stand up for something I believe strongly in. Folks on both sides of the aisle talked about how important this stand was (whatever stand they were preaching) and how they couldn't back down. While 86 of the Senators may still believe that, the other 14 managed to make a fool of the entire group by deciding that compromise is more important than principle.

by anykey???

and glad to see someone actually pays attention to my redneck rants.

From what I can remember about the term Filibuster, is that it is basically the same as running a defense, try your best to stop your opponent from reaching a goal.I'm ok with that people need to make a stand, uphold their beliefs, protect my rights, don't give me a tax break or whatever, that is ok by me.
What I do have a problem with is the huge VOID that has developed between our political parties.That void is not doing ANYONE any good at all,except maybe showing us what we have to expect until the next pres. election.

What they were doing recently is garbage,I don't care if it was the Dems, Reps, or even the Save The Starving Pygmys in New Guinea party it was total garbage, and it needs to stop now.

In my uneducated uninformed opinion the dems(in this case)were trying to flex their muscles and show that they don't support Bush's decisions.I am okay with that,try to sway the vote, convince others that it is not the right choice whatever,BUT DO NOT (I repeat) DO NOT talk in circles about absolutely NOTHING,get to your point and shut the hell up and hope your arguemts are strong enough to change minds.
I think the filibuster has its place and this sure as hell wasn't it.
Does that sound uneducated enough?

In all reality I am a VERY educated person and I'll prove it by demonstrating my ability to perform the complicated math function known as goesinda.(see examples)

2 goesinda 4 2 times
5 goesinda 20 4 times
7 goesinda naught naught times
3 goesinda 21 7 times

I hope my goesinda abilities prove that I am Very well educated and helps you respect my opinions.

by maxwell edison

And now it's time for me to goesinda a bar to dwell on that over a cold beer. And, of course, the beer goesinda a frosty mug. Come on over. I'm buying.

by anykey???

I will never claim to know all about goverment and how it all operates,and personally I don't care to debate about it, but I do know what irritates me, and here lately I have seen state and federal goverment do some things that really irritate me.

by anykey???

Who will protect the American people from themselves.Apparently the goverment thinks that we no longer have enough common sense to survive without a law controlling EVERY single thing we do each day.

On second thought if they do nothing I won't need to pay taxes to covers someones salary, nothing gets my vote.

by absolutely

Somebody obviously gave them the power to govern "EVERY single thing we do each day." Whoever that was, they do not "have enough common sense to survive." The ancient Greeks had a word for people who willingly surrender all decision-making power to the State.

by anykey???

directions and a little time since I'll be coming from Ind. go ahead and goesinda bar and save me a seat.

by jdclyde

"Compromise" shows how unethical the Democrats are in the Senate.

They have been obstructing the vote for these judges because they are "too extreme".

Now they have made a compromise on some of them leading to one of two conclusion.

One, they are going to allow judges that never should have gotten blocked in the first place.

OR

Two, they are going to allow "Extremist" judges that they feel are a threat to the country get put on the high courts.

Either way, it shows a complete void in the ethics of the Democratic leaders in this county.

It will be interesting because all they agreed on was not to do anything. Hmmm, great compromise.

The Dems said they will only filibuster the extreme (which is what they claim they were doing all along) and the Repubs said it won't use the rule to change rules to change a rule.

How pathetic all the way around.

by jck

- Republicans threaten to get rid of filibustering, say how bad it is, etc...when they helped to establish it and have used it more in its history than the Democrats.

- If indeed these judges are extreme, how does it reflect on the Republicans for nominating them?

Guaranteed...if the Repubs get rid of filibustering and then want to use it, it will be back...they're just trying to control it for themselves.

Lord...I'm ready...take me to a greener pasture...preferably, somewhere overseas.

by montgomery gator

From what I remember from history, the Democrats were notorious in holding filibusters against the anti-lynching laws in the 1930s and against the civil rights laws in the 1950s and 1960s. Those laws passed only because they had a strong support by the Republicans, with eventually getting enough Democrats that opposed the other Democrats that filibustered against those laws.

Also, the judges nominated by Bush are extreme only if you consider "Strict Constructionism", or interpreting the US Constitution and laws according to their plain text as extreme. I would consider the more loose interpretation by the "liberal" judges who legislate from the bench and add things to the law that is not, or consider precedent and tradition to be more important than the plain text of the law, to be the extremists.

by jdclyde

It isn't the Republicans that said they were too extreme to let in, and then let them in.

And just because they don't believe in the same thing as the rabbid left do (the far fringe that has hijacked the Dem party) does not make them extreme.

It isn't against the rules to use the rule about changing rules to change a rule.

If the rule did get changed and there was fall-out over this and the Dems get control again they could always use the rule to change rules and put it back to show how they are better. (would NEVER happen)

There used to be a similar process in the senate, and they got rid of it a long time ago. The country went on just fine.

And no one said they were getting rid of the filibuster! Just as for the nomination and review of judges because they are NOT reviewing judged if they filibuster, now are they?

by firstpeter

jck,

I'm assuming that you would agree that the compromise left America as the loser?

I think your FIRST preference would have been for the Republicans to give in :), but that notwithstanding I gathered from your posts that you would have rather seen the Fourteen Compromised Senators actually stand up for something than sacrifice what they believed in and do what they did.

Am I on target?

by montgomery gator

although that will probably not happen. Doing nothing is not enough when we have a bloated federal beauracracy and welfare state that needs to be done away with.

by jck

1) because when most law was written, it was a different America. Most judges have not only no sense of periodism, but no sense of the intent of the law as well. Word has become loose in law so that attorneys can make more work for themselves...via loopholes.

2) I heard about Republicans having used it more on either NBC Nightly News or some other newscast I had on in the house. I'll find you a source, since you need a solid webpage to go read for proof. I'm sure there's a number somewhere out on the internet.

by maxwell edison

The minority party.

A filibuster is a tool of the minority party. A filibuster means that 41 Senators could prevent the other 59 from voting on an issue. It's been historically used to prevent a floor vote on various bills that would/could become law. It's never been used, however, to block a floor vote on a judicial nomination -- until, that is, the Democrats decided to use the tactic to undermine President Bush's choices of judicial nominations.

Some interesting reading:

http://www.nationalreview.com/kob/kob021003.asp

http://www.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru022703.asp

http://www.mrs.umn.edu/~gthorson/filibuster.pdf

by jdclyde

Too much NPR?

Here is why I say this. If the constitution does not fit, then we AMMEND the constitution. There is a process in place for getting this done! It has been done before, and will be done again.

Remember how the weasels are now sniveling about the Republicans changing the traditions of how things are done. NOTE: The Dems using the filibuster to obstruct judges was a NEW tradition STARTED just recently. A filibuster was THREATENED before, but never used by the Repubs over judges. Another of the many lies and distortions in the media.

Changing the meaning of what was legitimately put there is just an unethical work-around to force an agenda that is not supported by the majority of the citizens of the United States of America.

by jck

You do want to be like Florida.

Everything down here gets submitted as an "amendment to the state constitution".

Filibustering has been available to be used. It's not new. As for new traditions, I point again that the Republicans have attempted to filibuster. They tried to exercise it and failed. So, the Democrats weren't the first to attempt to use a filibuster against a judicial nominee this year. They didn't have the votes to hold the filibuster, but they tried. They didn't use it because they didn't get enough votes. They would have filibustered if they could have.

It wasn't just a threat...it was an attempt.

As for what the majority of Americans want...most more likely would want better leadership, lower gas prices, and cheaper plastic surgery.

I think most Americans don't worry about much in government anymore. Pretty evident by the weenies who are in DC right now...both parties included.

by jdclyde

"With the notable exceptions of the 1968 Fortas nomination and a failed Republican filibuster of H. Lee Sarokin in 1994, [b]neither party filibustered the other's judicial nominations,[/b] and virtually all nominees received a hearing unless they were sent up after the presidential nominating conventions."

Also in the next paragraph.

"Republicans decided to deny them Senate Judiciary Committee hearings."

This also happened, but it is not a filibuster. The speaker of the majority party can just refuse to address it.

So as your own article clearly shows, the Republicans have NEVER filibustered a judicial nominee, EVER.

Your begging, but it isn't differing! HAAAHAAAHAAAAA!
(now go have a cold one)

by jck

No, it's the Republicans who have nominated a judge whose opinion on policies against age discrimination is that they "don't benefit the public".

Here's part of an article from DailyKos.com that tells why Democrats were rejecting 3 of the 10.

**********************
Rejected nominations include:

William Pryor, who believes federal protections for voting rights, the environment, equal rights, education and privacy are illegal. Pryor has argued for the politicization of picking extreme Supreme Court justices, stating "Please God, no more Souters."

Janice Rogers Brown, who has likened federal protections for the elderly to "senior citizens ... cannibaliz[ing] their grandchildren" and that policies against age discrimination don't benefit the public. As a state court judge, she has worked to deny the rights of victims of discrimination, consumers and workers.

Priscilla Owen, a Texas Supreme Court justice who has been hostile to the rights of workers, women seeking to exercise their right to choose, consumers, and injured individuals. Even Attorney General Alberto Gonzales wrote that one of her opinions was "unconscionable judicial activism."

Republicans pocket-filibustered more than 60 nominees.

More than 60 judicial nominees and 200 executive branch nominees of Clinton were defeated by calculated delay by Republicans, not by votes.

**********************

You can also look around and find out how many of Clinton's nominees didn't even get a hearing because Orrin Hatch, R-UT, blocked them by himself. He essentially stopped them in his committee by refusing to hold hearings.

It's also pretty sad that the guy you picked to be your attorney general has expressed previously that his opinion of one of your nominees opinions was "unconscionable judicial activism."

Of course, I'm sure good ole Dubya had a sit-down with Alberto and told him "Now listen here, son...we gotta become a team. Comprende, muchacho?"

Personally, I'd like to see farmers, steelworkers, and housewives become all the congressmen. At least they know what it's like to break a sweat outside of a fitness center.

And...btw...I'm sure if the Republicans could get rid of filibustering as part of judicial review, they'll get rid of it for anything else they want to get to without it...at least til they want it back...then they'll reinstitute it.

BTW, your beloved Republican party has been "hijacked" by aristocrats and the religious right. So, I wouldn't judge anyone too much when the Republicans aren't saints either.

by firstpeter

What has really got me is that just about everything that has gone on with regards to the good ol' compromise and the source topic of it (the judicial nominees) has been total hype and intentional deception. Things taken completely out of context and downright mischaracterizations being spread.

Take the quote on Janice Rogers Brown, for instance: "who has likened federal protections for the elderly to "senior citizens ... cannibaliz[ing] their grandchildren"" Does anyone know what that's in reference to? I do: the current Social Security system. It was in reference to the fact that as it stands currently the Social Security system is flawed (something even Clinton agreed with). Could you get that out of this intentionally-out-of-context-quote? Not by itself you couldn't. You have to do research to find out what the real context is.

Start at the top: Is Social Security broken? Nobody sane of mind would disagree that it is and it needs to be fixed. The issues all seem to resolve around how. So if we agree that the current system is flawed, why is that? Because it uses the money from the working to pay benefits to the folks who receive the benefits. If you think the dollar you put in will be the same dollar you get out you're wrong - it's the dollar of someone who's still paying in that you're taking out. So, at some point you're going to have more going out than coming in, right? And when that happens, it's kind of hard to make it work, right? (if you don't believe that, try it at home for a few months and tell me what you think then)

So, when you apply the actual context of the facts to what Ms. Brown is saying you recognize that what she's saying is NOT that federal protections for the elderly need to be abolished (which is precisely what the quote noted above WANTS you to hear) but rather that the current Social Security system is completely messed up and the recipients of it are cannibalizing the people who fund it. Is the latter true? Absolutely, without question. It's the nature of the flawed system.

Don't get me wrong - this isn't limited to liberals being intentionally deceptive (and don't anyone try lying to me by saying that any deception isn't intentional - YOU KNOW it is absolutely intentional). Conservatives do it, too. Sensationalism is not specific to either party - all parties do it because we (Americans) put up with it and many times even BELIEVE it (why, I'm not sure, but we do).

In my humble opinion many Senators (on both sides) seem to be much less concerned with getting the right thing (or heck, ANYthing productive) done as they are with making the folks on the other side of the aisle (or the administration) look bad.

Last time I checked, I did not vote Senators in to office to bicker, gripe, and stall. I put them there to stand up for what I believe in. Instead we end up with 14 Senators losing their spine and "compromising", then you have both sides characterizing it as saving the world from the brink of absolute destruction by stopping the radical right/left. One word to that, only half of which I can print here: Bull.

What happened to the days when you could respect your Senators for actually DOING THEIR JOB and for STANDING UP FOR WHAT IS RIGHT***? What happened to the days when sure, you hated what the other party stood for, but you certainly didn't spend half your career in front of a camera lambasting them; you sucked it up, dealt with it, and got stuff done?

Let's just cut the hype, drop the sensationalism, and get the job done.

*** Author note: There are many Senators still in office that are still very worthy of respect - on all sides of the party line (and no, the 14 are NOT among them). There are good men and women doing their job for us in Washington, so please don't take my comments as a condemnation of the entire Senate or any part of our great Constitution. It's really a few bad apples spoiling the American Apple Pie.

by firstpeter

Incidentally, lest anyone think my post was pointed at them, please understand the point of my post is NOT to start a flame war with someone on TR about what they put in a post. I respect the opinions of most folks around here, whether or not they agree with me.

The intent of the post was to simply point out that, unfortunately for America, much of what we're fed today is intentionally sensationalized (at best) to implore us to think one way or another. This comes from blogs (oh no!), the TV, the radio, the rest of the media, and unfortunately some of the people we have come to trust as those upholding what we believe is right.

THAT was the point of my post.

by jdclyde

The latest thing to fight GWB on SS reform is to try all of a sudden to say that there isn't a problem.

"GWB will be 105 before their is a problem, ha ha ha."

Real clever, and also what Bush has been saying. That a problem is heading this way and to do something BEFORE hand.

This mindset is from the same people that are worried that global warming will cause an ice age in a thousand years. "GWB will be One Thousand, one hundred and five by the time that happens, ha ha ha".

As for hating the other side, I remember when it wasn't rabbid, blind haterd that it is now.

the whole election for the Democrats ran on GWB hate. Hate wasn't enough.

by montgomery gator

I know about William Pryor from having voted for him as State Attorney General in Alabama. He is not extreme at all. He was a very popular Attorney General here, and has made an excellent judge with a fair mind and good judicial temperament, even putting the law ahead of his personal beliefs, when he ruled against Judge Roy Moore here in the 10 Commandments case, using the "Establisment Clause" of Amendment 1.

As far as these items about the 3 judges in question, they appear to be taken out of context, and even so, perhaps we need more judges like them to take the Federal Government out of the business of micromanaging the States and business. These judges beleive in the Rule of Law and the plain text of the laws and the US Constitution. These decisions and opinions of theirs rightfully reign in the overreaching powers of the Federal Government, powers the Federal Government is not granted in the US Constitution, and are instead left under the jurisdictions of the individual states. Read the 10th Amendment, and you will see that powers not specifically given to the Federal Government belong to the states, and that includes regulation of working conditions, age discrimination, environment, education, abortion, consumer rights, and so on. If you want the Federal Government to get involved in these in a way that is constitutional (instead of the current mess of unconstitutional laws that give too much power to the Federal Government), then petition your Senator to get Constitutional amendments passed to give that power to the Feds. Instead, it might be better to return to a proper Federalist style of government with limited powers, and let the states take care of these things.

As far as "aristocrats and religious right", I have no problem with them. It worked in 1787 when "aristocrats and religious right" organized our system of government that worked well, and would still work well if it was not distorted by years of unconstitutional laws that really are a power grab at the expense of our liberty and the sovereignty of the states.

by jdclyde

First off I know your nuts if you just now noticed the aristocrats running the country FOR BOTH PARTIES. You don't make it to the Senate if your not a millionair. Representing the common man my hinny. And as far as a sweat in the fitness center, the last time Ted Kennedy broke into a sweat was when he thought that his bar at home was empty.

Now to be almost serious here for a minute.

Can you tell me what and when all of these alledged wrong-doings on the part of the nominiees happened?

That is like when during election they say "he voted to make old people eat cat food". Just a bunch of hype and BS.

As for ruling against the common man, remember when you are the one taking someone to court the burden of proof is on YOU to prove something happened, NOT the defense to prove they didn't do it. This of course will lead to the defense having a better shot right off the bat because of the burden of proof.

If the judges REALLY had ruled inapropreatly, it would be overturned in appeals.

What is the overturn rate of these "extreme" judges compaired to the rest of the bench?

I know you FEEL this way because you care. But I THINK this way because I stop to question and evaluate.

Emotion is not what will get us through the day.

by jck

Anytime a judge expresses their legal opinion in such a manner that it puts back the rights under law for *any* part of the American populous, I get worried.

And as for providing every little bit of proof: If giving you a link to CBS News or a website isn't good enough, then I won't provide anything anymore. I'm not going to fly to Austin, Texas to the University Law Library to get the legal renderings of a state circuit court judge just to appease anyone here.

If someone (a source in print or media) is misquoting a judge, then they are passing on false information for which they should be held accountable to uphold...not me.

As for stopping and evaluating...have you wondered why it is, to you, so wrong for the Democrats in the Senate to gather and to stop via filibuster 10 of 218 Bush nominees for court hearings...yet, it's alright for Republicans to stop the nomination process of 60 of Clinton's nominees via holding them in committee or refusing to allow a vote on the Senate floor??

The use of the filibuster at least gets to be voted on by all parties of the entire Senate.

The decision of Orrin Hatch kill nominees in his committee or disallow votes on the floor for hearings on judicial nominees didn't give every Senator the duly appointed right to represent the vote of his constituency.

Therefore, the Republicans in doing that took away the right of Americans to be represented by their duly elected Senatorial representative by refusing them the right to hold hearings and vote on the matter.

No emotion there, eh?

Emotion isn't what will get us through the day? Tell Dubya that when he gets straight-faced if someone asks him a question he doesn't like. ;)

I'm going home to have my beer...and ponder if that other job will come through in about 6 months...so I can go somewhere the people hold their elected officials to do what is right

by jck

your boys tried to filibuster...and couldn't do it. They've used the option...unsuccessfully.

Jesus man...if you shoot at someone and miss...you still fired the gun.

by maxwell edison

Do you not live up to the same expectations that you expect and demand of others?

In another message from you to me, you said, "BTW, nice of you to leave out what you do not want it to say...here's the full paragraph."

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=173860&messageID=1770054

The circumstance was exactly the same, where I took a blurb from an article and posted the link so others could read the whole thing. (Except yours was misleading, while mine was not.)

You blasted me for it, and now you did it yourself.

It's kinda like the Democrats who are on the record of once being in favor of what they called, "Action Not Gridlock", which was an effort to end filibusters. Senators Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Joe Lieberman (D-Connecticut) proposed reforming the filibuster. Under their reform, the number of votes required to end debate would steadily decline as the debate proceeded. At first it would take 60, then 57, then 54, and finally 51 votes to end a filibuster. Tom Harkin said, " The filibuster process is used as blackmail for one Senator to get his or her way on something that they could not rightfully win through the normal processes.?

Now he says, "...the long-term, destructive consequences of triggering the nuclear option (ending the filibuster, in this case) would be profound for our system of government....Senate rules and traditions have respected the rights of the minority. That would be destroyed.......This will be the end of the Senate as we know it."

Which is it, Senator, respecting the rights of the minority or blackmail? And what do you want, Senator, action (a full floor vote) or gridlock? And what do you want, Senator, to reform the filibuster rules or expand them?

But that was then, this is now. And now that it suits their purpose, I suppose they reconsidered -- kinda' like you just did.

by jck

Did you not quote something, yet use an ellipses to leave out content of that quote you chose not to include?

I relayed content. I did not quote content. Here's the paragraph I was relaying. Note, it specifically states that Republicans failed to filibuster whom I said and when.

"Prior to 1996, when the Senate majority and the president were from opposing parties, senators usually deferred to the president with respect to lower-court judicial nominations. With the notable exceptions of the 1968 Fortas nomination and a failed Republican filibuster of H. Lee Sarokin in 1994, neither party filibustered the other's judicial nominations, and virtually all nominees received a hearing unless they were sent up after the presidential nominating conventions. "

The Republicans *attempted* to filibuster and failed.

Like I've expressed to jdclyde...they tried...they failed. They have exercised the process and didn't get the votes to start a filibuster on the floor. Just because they failed to filibuster doesn't mean they didn't try.

by maxwell edison

.
"....President Bill Clinton nominated two judges to the federal bench - H. Lee Sarokin and Rosemary Barkett - whose records, especially in criminal law, were particularly troubling to me and my Republican colleagues. Despite my misgivings, both received an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor and were confirmed. In fact, joined by 32 other Republicans, I voted to end debate on the nomination of Judge Sarokin. Then, in the very next roll call, I exercised my constitutional duty to offer "advice and consent" by voting against his nomination.

When I was a leader in the Senate, a judicial filibuster was not part of my procedural playbook. Asking a senator to filibuster a judicial nomination was considered an abrogation of some 200 years of Senate tradition."

- Former Senate Majority Leader, Bob Dole

http://www.progressforamerica.org/1101-361.1101-042705B.html

Let the Democrats do exactly what the Republicans did, and I'll concede your point. Otherwise, it's leftist spin and misrepresentation as usual.

And how about commenting on the Tom Harkin hypocrisy?

by jdclyde

If a rule does not fit anymore, that is what you do in America. Vote to change the rule.

That is how the system is setup.

Not to let a few judges change the meaning as they see fit.

Congress passes laws.
Judges enforce or strike down laws.
Congress passes more laws.

That is the checks and balances of the system.

by jck

I was always taught the Constitution of our country was "a framework", not the precedent and implement of legal code.

I do understand democracy, jdclyde. Trust me, I vote more often than most people and make sure to communicate to my representatives.

But, you do bring up a good point...about checks and balances.

How is gonna be balanced when the court system can render legal decisions...legislate law...and approve law...from one philisophical aspect?

Not much checking to be done...

BTW, you forgot presidential veto in that triangle of checks and balances...not to mention the 3/4 vote to override presidential veto.

Wait...that's what it was when I was a kid...I better go to the Library of Congress and look that up so that you all have proof! ;)

by jck

1) That's the writings of *one* senator, Bob Dole. I'm gonna need links to all the Republicans from that vote for proof none of them were for the filibuster.

2) I would like you to also reference who the main backers for Progress For America are.

lovely group of "grass roots" folks lead that organization. They're so proud of them, they don't list one of their names on the website.

http://www.factcheck.org/article313.html

Little blurb there about how Progress For America also likes to overstate things so Bush can be a bigger saviour.

As for Harkin...I think he's about as reputable and honest as Delay is...and I never put Harkin on a pedestal like you have with the ability of the Republicans to do what is "right".

my new prayer will be this tonight:

"Dear God, please help this country. We have a bunch of car salesmen and snake oil vendors up there on Capital Hill. Can we just send the barbers and fishing boat captains up there with really big guns to clear em out? Please? I beg of you. We'd be better off with the Gorton's fisherman and Floyd the Barber from Mayberry up there. Thank you. Amen."

:)

by maxwell edison

For Pete's sake, jck. That article was reprinted - verbatim and in its entirety - exactly as it was written by Senator Dole, and as it originally appeared in the New York Times, certainly a left of center publication in its own rights. It doesn't matter to which site I linked to provide it.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00F10FA38550C748EDDAD0894DD404482&incamp=archive:search

When you guys can't debate substance, you divert the attention to the source. A typical ploy, to say the least. And I don't hold the Republicans on a pedestal -- another ploy to divert attention from the substance of a message. To the contrary, I've disagreed plenty with them, even going so far as calling them baby-Democrats.

But in this case, the Democrats are way out of line filibustering the president's judicial nominees, holding up a floor vote for years, something that's NEVER been done before. It's tantamount to throwing a pitiful little temper tantrum because they can't get their way.

I disagree with that tactic, and I consider it dishonest, disingenuous, and, in this case and for this length of time, quite harmful to the judiciary -- especially considering the activist state of the current judiciary. If you disagree with that opinion, just say so, and we can agree to disagree.

by jdclyde

I didn't go into the whole thing, that is true. We were talking about the senate and the courts so that is what I stayed with.

The check the senate has on the courts is they are the ones that aprove or deny all funding. Get out of line, no funding.

checkmate.

by jdclyde

even if you are goofy! lol!

What I asked for was about the out of context reasons that these evil judges should not recieve a vote.

I am not looking to justify someone doing something wrong on the grounds someone else did something wrong and I am surprised that you would either.

About comparing number of Clinton blocked verses Bush blocked is first of all, not relevant. This is supose to be a case by case review of judges, not a game where we keep score. Maybe Clinton nominated worse judges? Maybe the American people in their great wisdom didn't have a majority of democrats in the senate? Lots of factors that make the number of aproved and denied something that can't be compared from year to year.

During the non-filibuster (hehe) blocking of the Clinton judges, I wasn't paying that close of attention to politics (not as OLD as you I guess, again lol!) but I don't remember it making the headlines like this.

There is a lot of BS from and for each side. I am not making excused for past behavior and am not exception lame excuses for present behaviour.

As for looks, remember the angry look on Wild Bills face when he looked into that camera with the ice maiden at his side and said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". Oh the jaw was locked and he was pissed.

Happens to everyone, even you I would bet. (not the sexual relations, the pissed part)

Well, I AM home and enjoying my beer very much. Probably why I am such a bundle of joy right about now! Have a grand one.

Don't worry, you will come around. I have faith in you to see the light. (go to the light, go to the light)

by jck

I don't think they could get away with passing no funding. They'd have to re-write law not to include the federal court system, then shut it down.

To do that, they'd have to amend revise law not to include the right for people to have due process in the federal court system as well.

Of course if the Supreme Court got wind of it, they could establish that the act which enacted Congress was legally invalid and unconstitutional. That would be enough that they could require the President, under law, to remove the Congress from Capital Hill via use of force if necessary.

Plus, can you imagine all the high-profile lawyers that would lose millions in not getting cases before the Supreme Court? They'd go postal.

It's checkmate...if you can do it in less than 80 moves, oh would-be-grandmaster. ;)

If that ever happens, I hope I'm not here by then...hope I'm somewhere sitting...sipping a Guinness...and watching the sunset

by jck

If Dole wasn't into filibustering, that's fine. However, you are backing the entirety of Republicans. I simply asked for proof that none of the Republicans who, at the time of the 1994 filibuster attempt, you so adamantly back didn't back it either.

I wasn't steering the topic. I was giving you the opportunity to show me that Dole wasn't the "exception to the rule".

Think what you want. It's no ploy. It's called questioning your motives for backing a party that's rebuilding an entire country it had no part in running into the ground, allowing soldiers to go into military harm without all of them being equipped with body armor or armor-plated vehicles, and why they should be immune to ridicule for chastising the Democrats for wanting to filibuster when they *tried* to filibuster a judicial nominee a little over 10 years prior.

Trust me...I don't trust either side...but, wasn't it someone that said "Absolute power corrupts absolutely"?

I didn't trust Foley...or Hatch...or O'Neill. They were all career politicians. And, Foley was the most crooked I've seen yet. $3.2M allocated to a rebuild a single pool in his district. Pork pork pork. Abuse abuse abouse.

Think of me what you want. But the reality of it is, there can not be a true balance of government power when one party controls all 3 branches of government.

That's what your boy Dubya is trying to do. That's why he's put 210 nominees forward. He's got the White House. He's got the Congress. Now, he's cornering the market by loading the federal court system.

My questioning the motives of a Republican party who threatens to take away process that, in previous years, they have tried to exercise seems rather questionable to me. If it wasn't a proper option, they should have tried to remove it years ago. They're only trying to remove it from the judicial review process now for political advantage, not the advantage of their constituency.

It's simply the Republican party trying to pick and choose what rule of process they want to have in the Senate.

I questioned Democrats when they were a majority when I was in college. So, my critical views aren't simply partisan. They are a watch on who holds power and if they are abusing it.

So far, the Republicans are doing a good job of abusing the system for party reasons.

I hope they lose their majority next year in the House and Senate. That would make for an interesting final 2 years of Bush's last term and establish a balance again.

by maxwell edison

Whether or not the Republicans tried to filibuster one or two judges ten years ago isn't comparable -- not even close. The Democrats are blocking votes on dozens, maybe hundreds, of judges, and they have been doing it for years. Moreover, whether or not the Republicans tried to filibuster one or two judges ten years ago isn't comparable again because those insignificant TWO judges were indeed allowed to have a floor vote in a very timely manner, and they were both confirmed. If you want to compare those two to today's two hundred, you have to present a little more than you have and/or make the same concessions that were made ten years ago.

Your military and body-armor comments are just stupid. It's political grand-standing; it's nothing but walking the Democrat party-line; and it's contrary to what you would probably hear from the military leaders in the field. And for you to bring it up in this context is a diversion tactic, and only shows your true intention of simply looking for reasons to criticize a particular administration or a particular party -- regardless of how far something has to be stretched and/or regardless of how far out of the context of the current discussion you have to wander.

On Tom Foley - We agree. He was one of the worst.

On your "Dubya" reference - Geesh, come on, jck. It's those kinds of comments that show your blatant bias against the guy. Regardless of what he does or thinks, you'll find a way to be against it. Argue substance, not rhetoric. The blatant "Dubya" people on the left are no better than the blatant "Slick Willie" people were on the right. How many times have you seen people on these threads call others to task for attacking the person, not the message? You've probably even done it yourself. And again, it only serves to get a person off-track from addressing the substance of a discussion.

On the 210 nominees that you said were presented to the Senate for confirmation, will you please provide a comparison number for previous administrations? On average, how many judges are presented for confirmation per year and/or per presidential term? How many did President Clinton appoint? How many of his nominees were confirmed, either by number or percentage (or both)? What about the first President Bush? President Reagan? Please put YOUR 210 number in the context of the norm, and compare President Bush's confirmation percentage to the norm as well. Otherwise, your 210 number is absolutely meaningless. (And provide proof of the numbers.)

And before you try to claim that President Bush is trying to take over the court system (and my comments above apply to this as well), will you please share with us your current assessment of that court system and the judiciary in general. For example, do you like the notion of federal judges (in Massachusetts, for example) dictating to that state's legislature that they must pass a law in favor of gay marriage? Personally speaking, I thought it was the judiciary's role to interpret the law, not create it. And will you please tell us what you think about federal judges (in any number of states) who rule in favor of illegal aliens, or others acting on their behalf, who bring suit against those states demanding that our tax dollars pay for the medical care, education expenses and housing expenses of those illegal aliens. And consider this, hundreds -- or thousands -- of those illegal aliens could actually be terrorists who wish to inflict harm to the USA. (But most are from Mexico.) What do you think of a federal judge who dictates to the military how they must treat foreign combatants? Should the military adhere to the rules established by the Geneva Convention, or by the whim of some federal judge? And why should a federal judge presume to represent a POW? What do you think of a federal judge who cites world opinion as justification for a ruling instead of constitutional authority? I could go on and on citing judicial rulings that just don't make much sense; we've all heard them. But in general, what do you think of judges who loosely interpret the Constitution versus those who strictly interpret it? And which would you prefer (and why)?

It seems to me that you claim to be against those who are just "playing politics", but that's exactly what you're doing yourself. Start with principle, build from there, and just let the chips fall where they may. When a person's chips constantly fall into favor with one party or the other, as yours apparently are (as evidenced by your "dubya" sentiments), it's generally not based on principle, but rather a desired conclusion in search of justification. (And no, I'm not in-line with all things Republican and/or Bush -- and if you've read my various discussion comments, you would know that.)

by jck

It's a slow friday again...you want stats...here they come:

****************************************
http://www.factcheck.org/article325.html

Article outlining nominee Owen specific examples (and cited references at the bottom) of her ultra-conservative agenda and how Alberto Gonzales who was a co-judge on the Texas supreme court (now attorney general for bush) was even critical of the side she took in certain cases.
*************************************

If you want a source that gives information on how Republicans used the filibuster before the Democrats in a judicial nomination process:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200505180004

This article lines out the misnomers about, among other things, the Republicans claim that the Democrats using the filibuster was "unprecedented", when in fact they initiated one to stop Johnson's nomination of Abe Fortis to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

************************************
If you wish to compare numbers, that's another issue.

As I said, 10 of Bush's 210 nominees for federal court appointments have been filibustered to stop their progress.

The last article I gave you also mentions that Republicans block approximately 60 of Clinton's nominees by "forgetting" to submit the paperwork (called 'blue-slipping' because of the blue paperwork) required in the nomination process.

if you want statistical analysis and breakdown, go here and get out your own calculator:

http://www.gao.gov

and

http://www.senate.gov

Facts are facts. Clinton had about 60 shot down in 8 years by Republicans. Bush so far only 10 in 5 years by Democrats.

BTW...Hatch, being the bipartisan guy he is, made sure all of Bush's nominees got their paperwork in (their "blue-slip"). He didn't do the same for the almost 60 of Clinton's.

Tell me that's fair? At least the Republicans get a chance to convince others to vote to end a filibuster on Bush's nominees. No one got the chance to consider Clinton's nominees.

As for my military body armor comments being stupid, I'm glad you think it's stupid to think a government, president and his military advisors are negligent and inconsiderate to send our soldiers over without proper protective gear and equipment.

BTW, my friends husband is over in Iraq. She had to buy and send to him a flack jacket. And, their humvee they're using isn't armor-plated so if they hit a landmine they go poof.

I'm glad you think I'm stupid for criticizing a military who'd do that and a president who'd let it happen. It shows that you're not only as partisan as me, but how important it is that the men and women over there have that gear.

BTW, it's not political...it's not grandstanding...it's caring about my friends and their loved ones and not wanting to see my friend cry cause her husband comes back in a box or home with a leg blown off cause the humvee wasn't equipped properly for a military situation he was sent to.

And yeah, I think Dubya is a dork...especially for things like the body armor thing. That is just irresponsible. 300 billion on Iraq...can't outfit soldiers with flak jackets for $700 a piece. What a guy.

As far as me bringing it up only to attack the Republicans and not the Democrats...well, in the same post I criticized Foley for being a pork barrel politician and spending money wrong as well. So, I don't only attack Republicans.

But if you need praise for a Republican, here it is:

George Herbert Walker Bush didn't send soldiers to Iraq ill-equipped for combat, and that makes him thorough and as President considerate of the well-being of our Armed Forces.

As for his son, I can not say the same.

By the way, you know how he got the "Dubya" tag? It came from how he pronounces his own his middle initial, and originated in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in 1995 when he was Governor of Texas.

BTW, his own campaign even used it at one time on bumperstickers and campaign signs in yards...so, it can't be too derrogatory if they embraced it. Source: Me, because I lived in Oklahoma and went to Texas regularly and saw it.

Finally...and...I really gotta hear what you have to say on this:

What the heck do the actions of current judges have to do with Bush trying to load the court system only with ultra-conservative judges?

You talk about me turning the topic. You didn't even address that one. Touch?, eh?

As for judges mandating state legislatures:
The Federal Courts have the right to render a verdict on how laws can be worded and interpreted by legislative, executive, and lower judicial bodies, so long as it is not under the umbrella of powers reserved for the states.

A broad statement such as requiring that they "must pass a law in favor of gay marriage" could mean anything. I would have to see what the case entails what you say, or if you are misinterpreting the basis of the item put before the court.

I would venture a guess that the federal court is going to require the state not to pass a law that restricts the right of an adult to marry another adult on the basis of gender, because that would be a violation of rights which falls under the federal court system's duty to protect the rights of all people for equal process.

However again, that is just a guess.

Before I give you any definitive assessment of a case in a federal court, I'd need you to cite me the case so that I can attempt to read about it.

As for illegal aliens: I have mentioned before in other threads...I think if an alien comes here illegally, they should be shipped back right away. If the woman's preggers and drops the baby here in the states, the child is an unwilling accessory to the crime of illegal immigration and should be shipped back as well without the benefit of automatic citizenship.

BTW...it would be illegal for a federal court judge to "represent" a POW or illegal immigrant. That's their attorney's job. The court renders a decision.

As for strict interpretation vs loose interpretation: in either case of them being extreme, they are both bad. Nothing is absolute in this life. Nothing.

As for what I fall in line with, you seriously misinterpret me.

Personally, I do think George Walker Bush (said that since you take such offense to Dubya...OOPS!) is not a good leader, he is inarticulate, self-important, righteous to a fault, and an example of someone who is running this country in the interest of himself and his political party, rather than the interest of the people.

By the Way, I called Clinton "Slick Willie" too. Basically, cause he thought he'd been slick and gotten around on his wife. And also, I think Clinton was a pig for cheating. But, I think final judgement of his action didn't belong in the political arena...it belonged to Hillary. Personal fidelity has nothing to do with how you run a country. It has to do with how good you are at being a spouse.

And...I said often after it was published...I think Hillary should have had the right to tear his penis off if she liked.

As for what you're in line with: If you'd read *my* other discussions you'd know my agenda is neither exclusive to conservative or liberal.
I'm critical of anyone who I think is negligent or simply incapable of serving this country in their capacity in the system in a way that best benefits the people of this country. Bush, Hatch, O'Neill, LBJ, Foley, Rostenkowski, etc.

It's not bias I hate...I just hate all the dorks.

Dubya is just the most public dork of all of them in Washington. There are probably around 525 more on capital hill, plus a lot more in the Pentagon, US Treasury, etc.

Trust me...I'm not a "left wing liberal nut" just because I batter on Bush and what a faulty figurehead leader he is. I'm an American who thinks we deserve better than a guy who barely made it through college, failed at half of the businesses he ran, can't keep control of his own daughters (even though he was President when they were out underage getting drunk in Austin...refer to many articles in the national press), and couldn't control his own drinking habit for years.

He's not excellent at anything he does, hence why I think this country has been screwed both internally and externally, by his presence in the Oval Office. Our diplomacy has gone down. Our economy has gone down. His public rating of his job performance in all assessment polls is down. I see a definite trend here.

BTW, Tipp O'Neill and Ted Kennedy have been two of the biggest drinkers in the Senate. So, don't go saying I'm only attacking Republicans...here's your unbiasedness.

So...get me those specific cases and I'll go see if they're online where I can read the cases and judgements and give my opinion.

BTW, I tried to find something on Tom Harkin on CNN and a couple other sites, and there was no big hullabaloo on there about him. I need a reference to what he's done wrong so I can read about it.

See...I'll try to give you informed answers.

BTW...you gotta lighten up...all that praying and church going and Bush rallies have really gotten to your head. ;)

Despite what you think of me or call me...I'd still buy you a beer...you're obviously intelligent, although I think a bit misguided.

Know any good jokes? :)

"LOSER!! LOSER!!!! AHH!!! AAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!" - Sam Kinison

by maxwell edison

You said, "That's what your boy Dubya is trying to do. That's why he's put 210 nominees forward. He's got the White House. He's got the Congress. Now, he's cornering the market by loading the federal court system."

Now you say, "As I said, 10 of Bush's 210 nominees for federal court appointments have been filibustered to stop their progress."

Hold the phone, there, bucko!

The tone and structure of your first comment suggested that you thought 210 was an exorbitant number, and one designed to "load the federal court system"; you said nothing of "10"; and you drew a false conclusion. And then I asked you to compare Bush's 210 nominees with previous administrations.

Do you think I asked you such a question without knowing the answer myself? Nominating 210 judges is nothing, and it's nothing out of the ordinary.

First you say something wrong and misleading; then I call you to task on it; and now you say that you said something different.

Sorry, dude. That hound won't hunt. (A little hillbilly lingo, there, for our "enlightened" friends.)

By the way, "Dubya" was bestowed upon him by the ultimate Bush hater, Molly Ivans. And yes, she is a socialist writer for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. (Socialist is quite accurate, by the way, and not rhetoric.)

On your "load the court system only with ultra-conservative judges" question, I would say a couple of things. "Loading the court" with a handful of nominees is somewhat of an embellishment on your part. Liberals (like Clinton) appoint liberal judges, and conservatives (like Bush) appoint conservative judges. If you want to use the modifier "ultra", you're simply buying into the Democrat party-line, as you have no idea as to their judicial record. (You won't admit it, but you know that to be true.)

But if you'd like, I will indeed go on the record and say that I do prefer conservative judges on the bench because they usually fall into the strict constitutional interpretation category, while more liberal judges interpret the constitution more loosely to advance a liberal political agenda. I WANT conservative judges, and I'll openly admit it. Do you want liberal ones?

Maybe I'll answer some more of your message, but that all for now.

by maxwell edison

I suppose we agree on what you said. However, I will do more than just say it, I will support people who will be more likely to bring it about. It's the liberal end of the spectrum that usually caters to the illegal aliens. It's the liberal judges that rule in favor of giving illegal aliens tax-payer health care, education, and housing. And by shooting down the "ultra conservative judges" (your words, not mine), you're shooting down the very thing you say you want. At least I'll stand on my principle and support the person and/or the party that will attempt to advance that particular agenda. Why won't you?

As far as interpreting the constitution strictly versus loosely, I say the former is preferred, but you say both are bad. Hey, you know the old saying, either s**t or get off the pot. Be bold, man. Take a stand. The constitution should either be interpreted "strictly" or not -- and I say strictly. And for anyone who thinks the rules, i.e. the constitution, should be interpreted any way other than strictly, let's play poker the same way and let me interpret those rules "loosely". Sorry dude, I would say; according to the way I interpret the rules, at last this time around, my two pair beats your full house.

Come to papa, the illegal aliens are saying as they pull all those chips -- your chips -- into their pile. And thank you liberal judges for ruling that two pair beats a full house.

by jck

Here's a little excerpt (including the headline) for you, from the Seattle times as of 2003 of an LA Times print story:
************************************
Approval of 168 Bush judges a record

By David G. Savage
Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON ? The vacancy rate on the federal bench is at its lowest point in 13 years, due to a recent surge of judges nominated by President Bush and confirmed by the Senate.
The intense partisan battle over a handful of judges aside, Bush has won approval of 168 new judges, more than President Reagan achieved in his first term in the White House. And with 68 nominees winning confirmation as of yesterday, Bush has had a better record this year than President Clinton achieved in seven of his eight years in office.

*********************************

OK...168 judges placed in seats...out of 859 Federal Court Judicial positions. In less than 3 years, Bush had (at that time) placed already almost 20% of the judges in the system. Hm...that number doesn't seem high?

Well...here's the granddaddy for ya (figured since you like southern talk, I'd give you some):

If you think nothing about how many he's put forward is out of the ordinary, I invite you to examine this document, Table 2(b), which shows that G.W. Bush has indeed nominated for review between 2001 and 2003 almost as many as his father did in 4 years and Jimmy Carter did in 4 years.

Nothing out of the ordinary about that, eh? And, those numbers come from your Republican controlled U.S. Senate.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL31635.pdf

Refute the Senate's numbers. You wanted hard facts. There it is. And there is more data that shows in 2 years he'd worked at an accelerated pace, which is out of the ordinary.

Don't fool yourself, Max. He's loading the bench with people who will carry out his ultra-conservative agenda.

So, don't call me a liar, or someone who stretches the truth, or a left-wing liberal anymore because of me giving you the judge submission and nomination information without a "valid source". You've got your valid source now: A Republican-controlled Senate report. Call the Senate liars now. I gave you cold hard numbers now, so go chew on them and have a nice Memorial Day weekend.

"WHAT! WHAT! WHAAAAAAAT!!!!!" -Sheila Brovlovsky

by jck

I said that:

"As for strict interpretation vs loose interpretation: in either case of them being extreme, they are both bad."

Keywords, man: *EXTREME CASE*

I'm sending you a damn gift certificate to LensCrafters for an eyecheck.

And hey...stop misquoting me, damn you!! :)

by jdclyde

A few points and then I have to go rent some movies.

First, Bush is not going to nominate more judges than there are openings for. There is a big back log because there aren't enough judges to handle the case load. If there is an opening that doesn't get filled, he didn't do his job.

Second, who do you expect a conservative to nominate? Al Franklin? That is what the majority party has always done and will always continue to do. You try to twist this into something new and evil? That is what the voting people put them there to do, represent the policies of the party.

What do you honestly think they should do, say "oh sure, we have the two houses and the presidency. Isn't that enough?" Get real. They are there to put into action what they were put there to do. Push the concervative agenda. EXACTLY like every politician has done as soon as they get into office. The Democrats didn't try to push a Democratic agenda?

oooo, sounds so evil and devious if you pick the right wording, doesn't it?

Go back and check the powers of the court and show me where it says they are free to change the meaning of laws any time they want, if you would be so kind.

Well, off to the video store. Just got done with the beer bratts and dog nabit wuz they gooooood!

This discussion is closed to new replies.