 |
| |
|
|
Sprayber
|
 |
Dixie
Oct 2000
time: 23:32
|
|
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ss_judges_dc_26
quote:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats blocked two more of President Bush (news - web sites)'s federal appeals court nominees on Friday after a nonstop U.S. Senate debate of nearly 40 hours, boosting to six the number stonewalled so far.
On each of two votes, Republicans fell seven short of the 60 votes needed in the 100-member chamber to stop delaying tactics against California jurists Carolyn Kuhl and Janice Rogers Brown and clear the way for their confirmation.
Democrats also sustained, by the same margin, a procedural hurdle known as a filibuster against another nominee, Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, first blocked in May.
The three votes followed the Senate's longest nonstop debate since a 57-hour, 24-minute marathon in 1988 over campaign legislation.
The talkathon began on Wednesday night and focused on Bush's stalled judicial nominees and what Republicans called unprecedented and unconstitutional Democratic obstructionism.
Republicans decided to hold the around-the-clock debate following criticism from conservative activists that they were not doing enough to take on Democrats.
Democrats said they had simply exercised a constitutional right to "advise and consent" to stop Bush from packing the courts with what they called right-wing ideologues who could not be trusted to uphold civil rights, abortion rights, worker rights and environmental protections.
They also noted they had joined Republicans in confirming 168 of Bush's other judicial nominees, to reduce the vacancy rate on the federal bench to less than 5 percent, its lowest level in more than a decade.
Republicans argued, however, that Democrats had entered new and dangerous territory by blocking judicial nominees on the Senate floor who were backed by a majority of lawmakers.
"STOP NOW"
"Stop now," said Sen. Rick Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican. "You have a chance to save this country and this judiciary. Stop now."
Democrats countered that Republicans had themselves blocked 63 of Democratic President Bill Clinton's judicial nominees, preventing most of them from even getting a hearing.
"I find it incredibly remarkable ... that the very people who lament not getting a vote for (the blocked Bush's nominees) were participants in the effort" to stop Clinton's candidates, said Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota.
But Democrats figured the Republican maneuvering made them look good with their political base as well.
"This debate, make no mistake about it, strengthened our side," said Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat. "We are energized. So I think this has boomeranged."
Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, noting the approach of the Thanksgiving holiday, said: "My suggestion is that this president release all of his right-wing turkeys."
James Thurber of American University's Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies said he believes both sides hurt themselves, as well as the Senate, with the debate, saying the public sees "them all as too partisan."
Republicans had planned to vote on Friday on a proposed rule change to effectively eliminate filibusters on judicial nominees. But they later postponed a vote indefinitely.
They conceded Democrats could defeat it, and some admitted they would also like to be able retaliate by using such filibusters in any future Democratic-led Senate.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said he plans to challenge the constitutionality of filibusters on judicial nominations. "It is time for the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) to give us their view about what is going on here," Graham said. |
I feel sad when I read stuff like this. I respect the right of Senators to debate and it's good that nominees are approved by the Senate, but are the Democrats doing it because they disagree with the nominees or is it out of spite. Daschle points his finger and says they did it first. Reminds me of how a child would act. But mommy he did it first. Shouldnt they at least have a vote?
Last edited by Sprayber on 15-11-2003 at 00:26
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
If che thinks they are radical right wingers they are probably moderates. That is a good rule of thumb. Too bad though that the Democrates are so racist that they oppose these minorities and women because they are not liberals like them. Hypocrites!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sprayber
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ss_judges_dc_26
I feel sad when I read stuff like this. I respect the right of Senators to debate and it's good that nominees are approved by the Senate, but are the Democrats doing it because they disagree with the nominees or is it out of spite. Daschle points his finger and says they did it first. Reminds me of how a child would act. But mommy he did it first. Shouldnt they at least have a vote? |
The Senate rules have been designed from the beginning to prevent a narrow majority from doing anything over the objections of a vocal minority. Remember, the Senate was originally not a popular body, but the direct representative of the states themselves, with Senators elected by State legislatures. Part of the idea was to weaken the power of the Federal goverment vis a vis the states, and part of the idea was to weaken the common rabble (who could vote for Representatives in Federal elections, even though state property ownership requirements might disenfranchise them completely for state elections (hence Dorr's rebellion). The Senate is designed to stifle highly controversial measures that might pass by a bare majority.
It's not just judges - Republican members of the Armed Services committees in the last few years have delayed promotion votes for generals in the Air Force (more than other services) unless and until USAF procurement types agreed to fund and purchase equipment the USAF didn't want or need, as pork projects for those Senator's home states.
You could go back to the beginning of the US and find by now thousands of examples of Senate filibusters that couldn't be ended by a cloture vote, and other rules games to either block something entirely, or to coerce pork barrel concessions.
And che is right about the judicial records of these judges. The fact that there are some woman and minority types is more guided by strategy and pandering than it is guided by either their ethnicity or gender, or by their qualifications. It's their ideologies, and the fact that a minority can be spun whether the vote is up or down, or stalled.
Just like Clarence Thomas - could anyone really say with a straight face that a 39 year old with no trial bench experience, 18 months at the appellate bench and less than 20 opinions authored was the single most qualified judge in the entiire US for promotion to SCOTUS? There were even plenty of judge as conservative as Thomas who were far more qualified, but they were also far older, so there was no way to guarantee an ideological slot to fill one SCOTUS seat for 40 years - and to eventually reach the senior AJ position.
The problem is with BOTH parties - the tendency to want to pack Article III appointees with friendly ideologues to whichever side is in power, regardless of qualfication. IMO, the 9th Circuit should have far more conservative judges appointed, as it is truly a frootloop circuit. The 4th and 5th Circuits are already several steps to the right of Judge Roy Bean, so there's really nothing wrong with appointing centrist moderates to those judicial slots. There should be two goals: Appointing appellate judges nominees with the highest objective qualifications, and seeking judicial balance as much as possible between difference appellate circuits. Neither of those is done now, because after all, the important thing is for both political parties to try to put spray ideological imprint wherever they can make it stick the longest.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-11-2003 23:45
|