 |
| |
|
|
Bosh
|
 |
Taehan Mingook
Jan 1970
time: 00:34
|
|
Hmmmm well isn't this just wonderful 
http://www.americanprogress.org/sit...RJ8OVF&b=281089
quote:
Frist's Hypocritical and Dishonest Attack on Democracy
January 4, 2005
Documents obtained by American Progress show Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist participated in an effort to block one of Bill Clinton's judicial nominees via filibuster, then lied about it.
In recent weeks, Frist has been relentlessly preaching about the evils of judicial filibusters. Speaking to the Federalist Society on November 12, Frist said filibustering judicial nominees is "radical. It is dangerous and it must be overcome." [1] Frist called judicial filibusters "nothing less than a formula for tyranny by the minority." When Bill Clinton was President, however, Frist engaged in the same behavior he is now condemning.
In 1996 Clinton nominated Judge Richard Paez to the 9th Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals. Conservatives in Congress held up Paez's nomination for more than four years, culminating in an attempted filibuster on March 8, 2000. Bill Frist was among those who voted to filibuster Paez. [2]
Frist was directly confronted with this vote by Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation (11/21/04). Schieffer said "Senator, a group called The American Progress Action Fund sent me a question to ask you. And here's what it says: 'Senator Frist, if you oppose the use of the filibuster for judicial nominations, why did you vote to filibuster Judge Richard Paez when President Clinton nominated him to the 9th Circuit?'" [3] Frist replied "Filibuster, cloture, it gets confusing--as a scheduling or to get more information is legitimate. But no to kill nominees."
But American Progress has obtained a document that proves Frist was not, as he suggested, voting to filibuster Paez for scheduling purposes or to get more information. He voted to filibuster Paez for the very reason he said was illegitimate – to block Paez's nomination indefinitely.
On March 9, 2000, Former Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) issued a press release describing the intent of the Paez filibuster vote the day before. The release says Senator Smith "built a coalition of several moderate and conservative Senators in an effort to block" Paez's nomination. [4] Frist was a part of that coalition. Smith did not organize the filibuster to get more information on Paez (after all his nomination had been pending for four years). He organized the filibuster because he had already decided Paez was "out of the mainstream of political though and...should [not] be on the court" [Click here to read Smith's press release].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Frist Addresses Federalist Society 2004 National Convention, 11/12/04
[2] Cloture Motion RE: Nom. of Richard Paez to be U.S. Circuit Judge, 3/8/00
[3] Face the Nation, 11/14/04
[4] Smith Leaders Effort to Block Activists Judges, 3/9/00
|
Old republican press release:
http://www.americanprogressaction.o...MITH_113004.PDF
Frist on the Senate floor:
http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=906
quote:
SEN. SCHUMER: Isn’t it correct that on March 8, 2000, my colleague [Sen. Frist] voted to uphold the filibuster of Judge Richard Paez?
|
quote:
SEN. FRIST: The president, the um, in response, uh, the Paez nomination - we’ll come back and discuss this further. … Actually I’d like to, and it really brings to what I believe - a point - and it really brings to, oddly, a point, what is the issue. The issue is we have leadership-led partisan filibusters that have, um, obstructed, not one nominee, but two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, in a routine way.
The issue is not cloture votes per se, it’s the partisan, leadership-led use of cloture votes to kill - to defeat - to assassinate these nominees. That’s the difference. Cloture has been used in the past on this floor to postpone, to get more info, to ask further questions.
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Bosh
|
|
Taehan Mingook
Jan 1970
time: 00:34
|
|
And now a little bit of Godwin...
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05140/507782.stm
quote:
Frist starts countdown to final vote on nominee
Friday, May 20, 2005
By Maeve Reston, Post-Gazette National Bureau
WASHINGTON -- Rhetorical shots continued to fly yesterday as the Senate completed a second day of debate over Priscilla R. Owen, President Bush's controversial pick for the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The fight between Republicans and Democrats inflamed passions to the point where Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, the third ranking Republican, drew parallels between the "hubris" of Democrats and that of German dictator Adolf Hitler.
This morning, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist will take an official step to proceed toward a vote on Owen's nomination, starting the clock ticking toward a showdown over whether Democrats will retain their right to block judicial nominees with the filibuster.
Shortly after the Senate convenes this morning, Frist, R-Tenn., will file a cloture petition, which requires the approval of 60 of 100 senators, to end debate on Owen's nomination. Last session, Democrats blocked Owen and nine other appellate court nominees. He has renominated seven of them this year.
Under Senate rules that petition must "ripen" for two days while the Senate is in session -- today and Monday -- before a vote.
If five Democrats do not join with the Senate's 55 Republicans to give Frist the 60 votes he needs to proceed to an up-or-down vote for Owen, Frist plans to carry through his threat to lower the threshold needed to cut off judicial filibusters from 60 to 51. That vote -- known alternately as the 'nuclear' or 'constitutional' option -- is likely to occur on Tuesday.
As moderate senators from both sides continued to negotiate a potential deal that would give up or down votes for at least some of the seven previously blocked nominees and prevent a vote barring judicial filibusters, heated debate over minority rights continued into the night yesterday.
Republicans argued for votes on all judicial nominees and Democrats argued that Republicans were hellbent on doing away with the last check on their power.
Santorum and other Republicans charged that the Democrats' use of the filibuster to block judicial nominees had radically altered the traditions of the Senate and that their plan to bar filibusters of judicial nominees would merely restore the traditions of the last 200 years.
Santorum said the suggestion that Republicans were trying to break the rules was "remarkable hubris."
"The audacity of some members to stand up and say 'How dare you break this rule' -- it's the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying 'I'm in Paris, how dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city. It's mine.' This is no more the rule of the Senate than it was the rule of the Senate before not to filibuster. It was an understanding and agreement, and it has been abused."
In early March, Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W. Va., linked the threat by Republicans to use the majority to bar judicial filibusters to the Nazi's use of majority power to push through their agenda in the 1930s.
Santorum called on Byrd to retract his remarks at that time, stating that the words lessened "the credibility of the senator and the decorum of the Senate" and that he should ask for pardon. (yay! hypocrisy!)
Santorum issued his own clarification yesterday evening, stating that the reference to Hitler was "meant to dramatize the principle of an argument, not to characterize my Democratic colleagues."
"My point was that it is preposterous for someone to trample a well-established principle, and then accuse his opponents of acting unlawfully when they try to reestablish that principle," Santorum said. "Nevertheless, it was a mistake and I meant no offense."  (how could anyone possibly interpret being compared to Hitler as being offensive?)
In the midst of their defense of minority rights yesterday, Democrats tried several times yesterday to shift the debate from Owen to previously blocked judicial nominees that they were willing to confirm -- including Thomas B. Griffin for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and three Michigan nominees to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
By forcing Republicans to once again reject their offer on the Senate floor, they tried to argue that Republicans are unbending in their desire to clear the way for all Republicans nominees in the future.
"The attempt to do away with the filibuster is nothing short of clearing the trees for the confirmation of an unacceptable nominee to the Supreme Court," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid.
If the negotiations of moderates are unsuccessful, Republicans are likely to call for the rule change as early as Tuesday afternoon.
Senior Frist aides say the Majority Leader plans to carry out the following scenario:
After the two-day ripening period ends on the cloture petition -- in this scenario on Tuesday -- senators must vote on the cloture motion one hour after the Senate comes into session for the day (as long as enough senators are present for a quorum).
The cloture vote determines whether Frist will call for the vote to bar judicial filibusters. Sixty of 100 senators must vote to end debate on Owen's nomination.
If the cloture vote fails, Frist would direct an inquiry known as a "point of order" to the Senate's presiding officer, who is likely to be Vice President Dick Cheney. In the inquiry, Frist would argue that after extensive debate on a nominee like Owen, filibusters of judicial nominees are out of order.
Cheney or the presiding officer would presumably rule that Democratic filibusters of nominees are indeed out of order and that only the votes of a simple majority of senators should be required to end debate on a judicial nominee.
The Democrats would object to the ruling by Cheney or the presiding officer.
Republicans would move to table -- or set aside -- the Democrat's objection. Tabling the objection would require a simple majority vote and Cheney could cast the tie-breaking vote.
If the Republicans succeed in tabling the motion, they will have set a new precedent. From that point forward only a simple majority vote will be needed to end debate on judicial nominees. The Senate would then move to a vote on Owen's nomination.
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-05-2005 08:18
|