Shumer vs Frist today

[Chilly]

*grin* I saw this transcript at some site and thought it was funny enough to share.

 

SEN. SCHUMER: Isn’t it correct that on March 8, 2000, my colleague [sen. Frist] voted to uphold the filibuster of Judge Richard Paez?

 

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.

 

I'm confused, isn't that what happened in the Paez incident?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

*grin* I saw this transcript at some site and thought it was funny enough to share.

 

SEN. SCHUMER: Isn’t it correct that on March 8, 2000, my colleague [sen. Frist] voted to uphold the filibuster of Judge Richard Paez?

 

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.

 

I'm confused, isn't that what happened in the Paez incident? 

339734[/snapback]

 

The short version is: Clinton nominated Paez to the 9th Circuit, Trent Lott got whiny and fillibustered, Barbara Boxer went into overbearing harpy mode and blocked every single thing Lott brought to the Senate until he relented and lifted the fillibuster, a bunch of crybaby Republicans mutinied and tried to keep the fillibuster going, and lost.

 

That, at least, is the story as I can discern it from relatively unbiased sources. Obviously biased sources (commondreams.org, for example) add details such as Frist was in (or led) the mini-mutiny, and a bunch of other stuff I discount as unconfirmed by a truly reliable source.

 

But basically...this current Charlie Fox is just business as usual: party leadership being party leadership the only way they can, by being two-faced. And we elect them...

[Chilly]

The short version is: Clinton nominated Paez to the 9th Circuit, Trent Lott got whiny and fillibustered, Barbara Boxer went into overbearing harpy mode and blocked every single thing Lott brought to the Senate until he relented and lifted the fillibuster, a bunch of crybaby Republicans mutinied and tried to keep the fillibuster going, and lost. 

 

That, at least, is the story as I can discern it from relatively unbiased sources.  Obviously biased sources (commondreams.org, for example) add details such as Frist was in (or led) the mini-mutiny, and a bunch of other stuff I discount as unconfirmed by a truly reliable source. 

 

But basically...this current Charlie Fox is just business as usual: party leadership being party leadership the only way they can, by being two-faced.  And we elect them... 

339759[/snapback]

 

Haha yeah. Its always nice when senators point out other senators hypocrisy though. Too bad we don't have a member of the senate that all of a sudden started pointing out his own parties' hypocrisy. That would be truely awesome.

[JimBob2232]

Too bad we don't have a member of the senate that all of a sudden started pointing out his own parties' hypocrisy.

 

We had one...his name was zell miller...

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

We had one...his name was zell miller...

339846[/snapback]

 

And he was roundly labelled as nuts.

 

Ain't that a kick in the teeth? Our leaders are either hypocrites, or insane. And we choose these people...

[Wacka]

It's just the democrats that are nuts!

[blzrul]

What is SO FUNNY is how soon the stupid GOP forgets how their crap catches up with them. After FDR's four terms they pushed for term limits for the presidency, only to have it bite them when the balance of power changed 30+ years later they wanted Saint Ronnie to stick around for awhile.

 

Get rid of filibuster - the Democrats WILL be back in power someday, and the GOP will be powerless to stop them.

 

Those who fail to learn from history...etc.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

And he was roundly labelled as nuts.

 

Ain't that a kick in the teeth?  Our leaders are either hypocrites, or insane.  And we choose these people... 

339882[/snapback]

 

WE don't. The uneducated, ignorant, ill-informed people who never lifted a finger to protect this nation do.

 

I have voted for precisely ONE major party candidate in every election I've voted in and that was the last presidential race. And ONLY because the other guy sucked worse.

[Chilly]

WE don't. The uneducated, ignorant, ill-informed people who never lifted a finger to protect this nation do.

 

I have voted for precisely ONE major party candidate in every election I've voted in and that was the last presidential race. And ONLY because the other guy sucked worse.

340249[/snapback]

 

Vote in the primaries man, thats what determines if the idiot candidates get on the ballot or not.

[JimBob2232]

What is SO FUNNY is how soon the stupid GOP forgets how their crap catches up with them. After FDR's four terms they pushed for term limits for the presidency, only to have it bite them when the balance of power changed 30+ years later they wanted Saint Ronnie to stick around for awhile.

 

Get rid of filibuster - the Democrats WILL be back in power someday, and the GOP will be powerless to stop them.

 

Those who fail to learn from history...etc.

 

Well, when the day comes and americans get fed up with the republican party, and decide that they want a democrat president, a democratic senate and a democrattic house of representitives, then the democrat president has every right to nominate Justices he sees fit, and they have every right to get an up or down vote on the senate floor, just like these justices do. The republicans will have every right to complain and whine about it, but they should be powerless to do anything about it. THEY LOST. They are not who the american people want running the government.

 

Its called advise and consent. Lets let the senate actually do their job.

[Chilly]

Well, when the day comes and americans get fed up with the republican party, and decide that they want a democrat president, a democratic senate and a democrattic house of representitives, then the democrat president has every right to nominate Justices he sees fit, and they have every right to get an up or down vote on the senate floor, just like these justices do.  The republicans will have every right to complain and whine about it, but they should be powerless to do anything about it.  THEY LOST.  They are not who the american people want running the government.

 

Its called advise and consent.  Lets let the senate actually do their job.

340806[/snapback]

 

So one party should have absolute power with judges?

 

Hmmmmmm, doesn't seem like what the founding fathers intended to me.

 

THen again, maybe I just forget that there isn't a way to stop a fillibuster with a vote.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

So one party should have absolute power with judges?

 

Hmmmmmm, doesn't seem like what the founding fathers intended to me.

 

341619[/snapback]

 

Actually, given that they didn't write anything in to the Constitution to insure otherwise when a single party controls the executive and legislative branches, I'd argue it's precisely what they intended.

[MichFan]

Actually, given that they didn't write anything in to the Constitution to insure otherwise when a single party controls the executive and legislative branches, I'd argue it's precisely what they intended.

341706[/snapback]

Which is why the Dems last gasp argument of protecting the minority party is landing with a collective thud. It may not matter in another 18 months. The Democratic party has not changed one iota from the last 2 elections. 60 Republicans in the Senate is looking more and more possible.

[JimBob2232]

Which is why the Dems last gasp argument of protecting the minority party is landing with a collective thud. It may not matter in another 18 months. The Democratic party has not changed one iota from the last 2 elections. 60 Republicans in the Senate is looking more and more possible.

 

Here are the senators up for re-election in 06

 

Arizona—Jon Kyl ® Safe

California—Dianne Feinstein (D) Safe

Connecticut—Joe Lieberman (D) Safe

Delaware—Thomas Carper (D) Safe

Florida—Bill Nelson (D) Toss-Up

Hawaii—Daniel Akaka (D) Safe

Indiana—Dick Lugar ® Safe

Maine—Olympia Snowe ® Safe if she makes it through a primary

Maryland—OPEN

Massachusetts—Ted Kennedy (D) Safe if he doesnt retire

Michigan—Debbie Stabenow (D) Close Race

Minnesota—OPEN

Mississippi—Trent Lott ® Safe if lott doesnt retire

Missouri—Jim Talent ® Safe

Montana—Conrad Burns ® Competitive

Nebraska—Ben Nelson (D) Competitive

Nevada—John Ensign ® Safe

New Jersey—Jon Corzine (D) Depends on what happing with him running for gov.

New Mexico—Jeff Bingaman (D) Safe

New York—Hillary Clinton (D) Safe

North Dakota—Kent Conrad (D) Safe

Ohio—Mike DeWine ® Safe

Pennsylvania—Rick Santorum ® Close

Rhode Island—Lincoln Chafee ® Close

Tennessee—OPEN

Texas—Kay Bailey Hutchinson ® Safe as long as she doesnt run for gov.

Utah—Orrin Hatch ® Safe

Vermont—OPEN Should be close.

Virginia—George Allen ® Safe

Washington—Maria Cantwell (D) Close

West Virginia—Robert Byrd (D) Safe if he doesnt retire

Wisconsin—Herb Kohl (D) Safe

Wyoming—Craig Thomas ® Safe

 

Current status of seats up for election in 2006:

15 Dem 14 Rep 4 Open seats

 

Of the 14 republican seats, 11 appear safe. Santorum, Chafee and Conrad Burns are the only ones in play at the moment.

 

Of the 15 democrat seats up for election, 11 appear safe (assume corzine is safe). Nelson (FL), Nelson (Neb), Stabenow, Cantwell are in play.

 

The 4 open seats (Ten, Vt, Mayrland and Minnesota) are currently occupied by 1 Rep. 2 Democrats and 1 democrat leaning independent.

 

Tennessee could be a seat gained by democrats. Ford will be tough, but its too close to call at the moment.

Vermont is a toss up. Bernie Sanders is the likely frontrunner, but he is an independent, and the republicans will throw a strong former governor at him.

Maryland - Toss Up

Minnesota - Toss up.

 

So the bottom line is that the republicans have 4 seats they are in jeopardy of losing (Frist, Santorum, Chafee and Burns) Possibly add Mississippi if lott does not run.

 

The democrats have 7 seats that they are in jeopardy of losing (Nelson, FL, Nelson, Neb, Stabenow, Cantwell, Jeffords, Dayton, MN and Sarbanes, MD.) Add NJ if corzine wins governor and WV if byrd retires.

 

It will be interesting, and there is a long way to go, but I wouldnt be suprised to see the republicans pick up an additional 1-3 seats in 2006.

[Chilly]

Actually, given that they didn't write anything in to the Constitution to insure otherwise when a single party controls the executive and legislative branches, I'd argue it's precisely what they intended.

341706[/snapback]

 

I don't believe that the Constitution meant to allow the controlling party to pass through legislation/nominees that were harmful ot the country. Whether the dems are or not on each individual case is another story, but I don't think they wanted it to go unchecked give the other multitudes of checks and balances.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I don't believe that the Constitution meant to allow the controlling party to pass through legislation/nominees that were harmful ot the country.  Whether the dems are or not on each individual case is another story, but I don't think they wanted it to go unchecked give the other multitudes of checks and balances.

341800[/snapback]

 

What does "checks and balances" have to do with "harmful to the country"? The Constitution was meant to insure as much as possible that the duly elected representatives of the people act as representative of the electorate considered on a state-by-state basis. If the electorate chooses to give to one group of mouth-breathing Pez-heads control of the government...the Constitution allows for it. It makes it difficult, to be sure, but it does allow for it. "Harmful" doesn't even begin to enter into consideration.

[Ghost of BiB]

Harmful?

 

Harmful in what way? Because you don't like them?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Harmful? 

 

Harmful in what way? Because you don't like them?

341816[/snapback]

 

I don't even think that matters. Even if you were to stipulate that a course of action is "harmful"...that doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. Not even remotely. Even beyond the discussion of what is and isn't harmful, Bluefire's invocation of the founding fathers' intent doesn't hold water on that point.

[Chilly]

What does "checks and balances" have to do with "harmful to the country"?  The Constitution was meant to insure as much as possible that the duly elected representatives of the people act as representative of the electorate considered on a state-by-state basis.  If the electorate chooses to give to one group of mouth-breathing Pez-heads control of the government...the Constitution allows for it.  It makes it difficult, to be sure, but it does allow for it.  "Harmful" doesn't even begin to enter into consideration.

341810[/snapback]

 

 

Harmful? 

 

Harmful in what way? Because you don't like them?

341816[/snapback]

 

Harmful in the judiciary sense of making rulings that aren't consistent with our laws. Harmful in the legislative sense of making legislation that isn't consistent with the constitution.

 

If one party gets control of the judiciary, legislature, and presidency that would become a constitutional crisis and nightmare. Thats what I mean by harmful.

 

A fillibuster on judiciary nominees is another check/balance to make sure that people aren't appointed who won't follow the constitution and should not be allowed an up or down vote.

 

It could be that I don't totally understand what the Republicans want right now. To me they want to totally abolish the fillibuster when it comes to judges, something I don't feel is a good idea. Maybe its my severe mistrust of governmental parties or my 1984-like ideas. I would support a much tougher fillibuster though (like you mentioned earlier monkey - make them read from the phone book if they don't want hte nomination to happen, haha).

 

I was a little bit drunk and tired when I wrote that earlier post so I can see it didn't completely make sense, lol. What I meant by "Whether the dems are or not on each individual case is another story" was that I don't think the Dems are justified in these cases (although I don't know all 10 nominees well enough) to make a fillibuster, but if a judge was appointed who wouldn't follow the constitution but what the party wanted instead then I think the Dems should have the fillibuster option to fall back on.

 

Basically, make the fillibuster harder to achieve (like what you were saying monkey) - if the time comes where we need it, then use it. Don't totally throw it out the window, thats not a good thing, constitutionally or otherwise.

[JimBob2232]

If one party gets control of the judiciary, legislature, and presidency that would become a constitutional crisis and nightmare. Thats what I mean by harmful.

 

A fillibuster on judiciary nominees is another check/balance to make sure that people aren't appointed who won't follow the constitution and should not be allowed an up or down vote.

.

 

So lets say (hypothetically) 2006 comes and republicans control 60 seats in the senate. They can now break a fillibuster. Would this create a "constitutional crisis"?

 

The constitution is set up so that the government acts as a representitive of the people. If the people elect their representatives, then this is the will of the people. Its not a constitutional crisis. In fact it is proof the constitution works. If the democratic party wasnt so anti EVERYTHING, and actually put forth a positive vision for the country perhaps they would win back some of the support they have lost over the last decade.

 

A fillibuster on judiciary nominees is another check/balance to make sure that people aren't appointed who won't follow the constitution and should not be allowed an up or down vote.

 

The senates job (and constitutional duty) is to vote on these nominees. The constitution SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES only a majority of senators to approve a nomination. Any fillibuster of a judicial nominee, regardless of political party is unconstitutional.