Pathetic Display by Dems in Senate

[AKC]

A once great party now whining like street beggars in the hopes they can make some gain by forcing their opponents to make a rule change. A rule change that has become necessary to stop the Democratic attack on minority and women judicial nominees. The nominees being denied an opportunity represent the same Americans who have voted all the power in the country to the Republicans because most Americans are not threatened by a judge who goes to church, most Americans are not threatened by an African American nominee whose life experience has not been one of perceived biases keeping them from achieving their dreams, most Americans are not threatened by a nominee of Hispanic heritage whose only crime is that he's registered as a Republican.

 

I'm most disappointed in the Dems who I have great respect for, the honorable and decent Senators like Joe Lieberman- it's unconscionable that for the sake of a party strategy (that may prove out to have no long term benefit to the good of the Democratic Party) he's being convinced to hold the party line against qualified and decent nominees who pose no ideological threat to the majority of Americans. Unless the Democratic Party believes that it undermines them to simply allow minority Republican candidates to be brought into the judiciary (something I would hope they are not so small-minded to believe), it seems the only rational explantion for the Democratic Party position to deny these good Americans a chance to serve is that by forcing a rule change the Dems believe they can gain congressional seats in coming elections. And I can't help but think that a strategy like that could be the kind of strategy that might be a serious miscalculation in the long term.

 

A democracy is a democracy of ideas and those with ideas more appealing to the voters will enjoy the greatest power. The Democratic Party has apparently (and FINALLY) recognized that they are losing that battle of ideas within the country, evidenced perfectly by their refusal to offer a single idea on Social Security at a time when the debate is heavy on the public mind. That again might be good strategy in the short term- if you know your ideas will not play well with the public better to hide those ideas- the old axiom of better to be thought of a fool than to open your mouth and remove any doubt. At the same time the long term value of hiding your ideas is a total loser in a democracy. You simply can't get away with it and hold power for any extended period of time. The reality for the Democratic Part is they need to revise their ideas to reflect an America that less and less is beholden to their old cry of "we'll protect the little guy". That Dem ideal is currently on display as false while we watch the Democratic Party prove through their denial to minority judicial nominees that the only "little guy" they really stand for is the one who agrees with them.

[KRC]

A once great party now whining like street beggars in the hopes they can make some gain by forcing their opponents to make a rule change. A rule change that has become necessary to stop the Democratic attack on minority and women judicial nominees. The nominees being denied an opportunity represent the same Americans who have voted all the power in the country to the Republicans because most Americans are not threatened by a judge who goes to church, most Americans are not threatened by an African American nominee whose life experience has not been one of perceived biases keeping them from achieving their dreams, most Americans are not threatened by a nominee of Hispanic heritage whose only crime is that he's registered as a Republican.

 

I'm most disappointed in the Dems who I have great respect for, the honorable and decent Senators like Joe Lieberman- it's unconscionable that for the sake of a party strategy (that may prove out to have no long term benefit to the good of the Democratic Party) he's being convinced to hold the pary line against qualified and decent nominess who pose no ideoligical threat to most Americans. Unless the Democratic Party believes that it undermines them to simply allow minority Republican candidates to be brought into the judiciary (something I would hope they are not so small-minded to believe), it seems the only rational explantion for the Democratic Party position to deny these good Americans a chance to serve is that by forcing a rule change the Dems believe they can gain congressional seats in coming elections. And I can't help but think that a strategy like that could be the kind of strategy that might be a serious miscalculation in the long term.

 

A democracy is a democracy of ideas and those with ideas more appealing to the voters will enjoy the greatest power. The Democratic Party has apparently (and FINALLY) recognized that they are losing that battle of ideas within the country, evidenced perfectly by their refusal to offer a single idea on Social Security at a time when the debate is heavy on the public mind. That again might be good strategy in the short term- if you know your ideas will not play well with the public better to hide those ideas- the old axiom of better to be thought of a fool than to open your mouth and remove any doubt. At the same time the long term value of hiding your ideas is a total loser in a democracy. You simply can't get away with it and hold power. The reality for the Democratic Part is they need to revise their ideas to reflect an America that less and less is beholden to their old cry of "we'll protect the little guy". That Dem ideal is currentlyon display as false while we watch the Democratic Party prove through their denial to minority judicial nominees that the only "little guy" they really stand for is the one who agrees with them.

341161[/snapback]

 

 

Both party's are absolutely embarrassing in this situation. Forcing a rule change in order to get a vote is a disgrace. Stopping all action in the Senate over a couple of judges is appalling. Seeing Senators saying that all nominees "deserve an up or down vote," while a few years later stopping an "up or down vote" because you do not like the candidate is hypocritical.

 

That is what people voted for, and that is what they get. It is time that people stand up to their elected officials and say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!

 

Remember, they work for you, not the reverse.

[EC-Bills]

Both party's are absolutely embarrassing in this situation. Forcing a rule change in order to get a vote is a disgrace. Stopping all action in the Senate over a couple of judges is appalling. Seeing Senators saying that all nominees "deserve an up or down vote," while a few years later stopping an "up or down vote" because you do not like the candidate is hypocritical.

 

That is what people voted for, and that is what they get. It is time that people stand up to their elected officials and say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!! 

 

Remember, they work for you, not the reverse.

341173[/snapback]

 

I agree 100%, Well said!

[VABills]

Both party's are absolutely embarrassing in this situation. Forcing a rule change in order to get a vote is a disgrace. Stopping all action in the Senate over a couple of judges is appalling. Seeing Senators saying that all nominees "deserve an up or down vote," while a few years later stopping an "up or down vote" because you do not like the candidate is hypocritical.

 

That is what people voted for, and that is what they get. It is time that people stand up to their elected officials and say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!! 

 

Remember, they work for you, not the reverse.

341173[/snapback]

Way to play both sides and offer a solution to neither.

 

Either you have got to find a way to get the judges to get a vote or you agree with the current methods. That's it. You don't have any other choices, so to tell them to get the job done and holding them both accoutable is very immature and does not provide any input on how to resolve the situation. You are just sitting there saying you don't like.

 

Personally blocking the votes is okay with me. That has been a rule forever. I believe our founding father were far more intelligent then we give them credit for. This IMHO is exactly why they set a lot of rules up that they did.

 

The people of this country are more responsible for not giving ultimate power to one party or another. The system is meant to bog down so that the people are forced to make a decision on action or lack of action.

[KRC]

Way to play both sides and offer a solution to neither. 

 

Either you have got to find a way to get the judges to get a vote or you agree with the current methods.  That's it.  You don't have any other choices, so to tell them to get the job done and holding them both accoutable is very immature and does not provide any input on how to resolve the situation.  You are just sitting there saying you don't like. 

 

Personally blocking the votes is okay with me.  That has been a rule forever.  I believe our founding father were far more intelligent then we give them credit for.  This IMHO is exactly why they set a lot of rules up that they did. 

 

The people of this country are more responsible for not giving ultimate power to one party or another.  The system is meant to bog down so that the people are forced to make a decision on action or lack of action.

341200[/snapback]

How is holding the elected officials accountable immature? They want to make new rules to get their way or obstruct things to prevent anything from getting done. Both sides have shown little room for compromise. They are both acting like petulant children. My solution: vote them out to send a message that this BS is not acceptable. It will force them to try harder to compromise. The voters need to make their voices heard.

[VABills]

How is holding the elected officials accountable immature? They want to make new rules to get their way or obstruct things to prevent anything from getting done. Both sides have shown little room for compromise. They are both acting like petulant children. My solution: vote them out to send a message that this BS is not acceptable. It will force them to try harder to compromise. The voters need to make their voices heard.

341207[/snapback]

The ability to obstruct things is in the constitution. That's the rules, and the republicans have got to deal with it. What they have to do, is ensure the hot pocket conservatives remember it and to ensure they market how the Democrats blocked and obstructed andthing from happening.

 

If the people agree, the democrats will get voted out. If they don't 6then we will get more of the same.

 

The rules are setup so that a simple majority can not mandate changes. If you want the rules changed then a majority and hence no bi-partisinship will be required.

 

Again, whether you are playing devils advocate, being ignorant of the forfathers wishes or being immature and saying things should change but not offering a valid resolution is not better.

 

I would like to see the judges get an up down vote, but not at the expense of our form of government by skirting/changing the rules set forth.

 

Again, I put a lot of father in the John Adamd, Franklins, Jeffersons, and Hancocks. More so then the Frists, Boxers, Kennedy's, etc...

[KRC]

The ability to obstruct things is in the constitution.  That's the rules, and the republicans have got to deal with it.  What they have to do, is ensure the hot pocket conservatives remember it and to ensure they market how the Democrats blocked and obstructed andthing from happening. 

 

If the people agree, the democrats will get voted out.  If they don't 6then we will get more of the same. 

 

The rules are setup so that a simple majority can not mandate changes.  If you want the rules changed then a majority and hence no bi-partisinship will be required. 

 

Again, whether you are playing devils advocate, being ignorant of the forfathers wishes or being immature and saying things should change but not offering a valid resolution is not better. 

 

I would like to see the judges get an up down vote, but not at the expense of our form of government by skirting/changing the rules set forth. 

 

Again, I put a lot of father in the John Adamd, Franklins, Jeffersons, and Hancocks.  More so then the Frists, Boxers, Kennedy's, etc...

341227[/snapback]

 

 

What the hell is your problem today? I told you exactly what I thought should be done. I would say it again, but you have already made up your mind that you want to be pissed off and are trying desperately to justify it. I want to make sure that things never reach the obstructionist stage.

 

Working together for the benefit of the country. Novel concept.

[VABills]

What the hell is your problem today? I told you exactly what I thought should be done. I would say it again, but you have already made up your mind that you want to be pissed off and are trying desperately to justify it. I want to make sure that things never reach the obstructionist stage.

 

Working together for the benefit of the country. Novel concept.

341234[/snapback]

Okay, I will try again. What should they compromise?

 

And I don't have a problem today. I actually agree the dems are doing the right thing in this case. I think they are doing it for the wrong reason. But it is within the rules and part of the senate rules.

[UConn James]

Personally blocking the votes is okay with me.  That has been a rule forever.  I believe our founding father were far more intelligent then we give them credit for.  This IMHO is exactly why they set a lot of rules up that they did.

341200[/snapback]

 

<handclap for someone who gets it>. Name a president who hasn't had a judicial appointment blocked or seriously rangled by the other party(ies). The vast majority are approved, some are not. That's the nature of the beast. Not everything is meant to have complete compromise. The filibuster was created for a reason. If it's improper usage, there are consequences in elections.

 

This is all about a looming battle over a SC nominee in the short term. Stupid reason to change the rules and compromise the checks-and-balances system. Funny how none of the justices, a few of them getting up there in age and in declining health (esp. Renquist), have shown an inkling of hanging up their robe. Maybe for their own reasons of wanting to stay on for a true lifetime appointment, maybe b/c they don't like the idea of who a likely successor will be....

[RkFast]

In my typical simplistic manner, I have to say that I truly dont mind this wrangling over this issue. While it may seen petty and annoying, the debate and discussion over how the terms of the Consititution are to be carried out and how the government will go about making decisions is EXACTLY the type of work they were elected to do. As far as Im concerned, this is a GOOD example of our government structure working properly.

[AKC]

Okay, I will try again.  What should they compromise?

 

And I don't have a problem today.  I actually agree the dems are doing the right thing in this case.  I think they are doing it for the wrong reason.  But it is within the rules and part of the senate rules.

341239[/snapback]

 

So you do, of course, offer equal support to the Senate's right to amend their rules?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

In my typical simplistic manner, I have to say that I truly dont mind this wrangling over this issue. While it may seen petty and annoying, the debate and discussion over how the terms of the Consititution are to be carried out and how the government will go about making decisions is EXACTLY the type of work they were elected to do. As far as Im concerned, this is a GOOD example of our government structure working properly.

341270[/snapback]

 

...if one conveniently ignores a couple hundred years of precedent.

[VABills]

<handclap for someone who gets it>. Name a president who hasn't had a judicial appointment blocked or seriously rangled by the other party(ies). The vast majority are approved, some are not. That's the nature of the beast. Not everything is meant to have complete compromise. The filibuster was created for a reason. If it's improper usage, there are consequences in elections.

 

This is all about a looming battle over a SC nominee in the short term. Stupid reason to change the rules and compromise the checks-and-balances system. Funny how none of the justices, a few of them getting up there in age and in declining health (esp. Renquist), have shown an inkling of hanging up their robe. Maybe for their own reasons of wanting to stay on for a true lifetime appointment, maybe b/c they don't like the idea of who a likely successor will be....

341242[/snapback]

You will of course continue your support when a democrat president get's elected (although it may not be in your lifetime, the way things are going) and his/her appointments are blocked as well. Or were you one who felt Clinton's appointees were unfairly blocked but now that it is happening to Bush it is okay?

[KRC]

Okay, I will try again.  What should they compromise?

 

And I don't have a problem today.  I actually agree the dems are doing the right thing in this case.  I think they are doing it for the wrong reason.  But it is within the rules and part of the senate rules.

341239[/snapback]

 

What the Reps are doing is also within the rules. The procedure for this rule change is legal. Not saying that it is right to do it, but they are not breaking any rules in using this tactic. So, they have the right to do this to stop the Dems. Both options are within the rules, but what makes one OK and the other not?

 

In fact, since you brought up the Constitutional argument before, it can be argued that this filibuster is unconstitutional. The specific article and clause mentioning advise and consent does not require a supermajority on judicial nominations, but only on treaties. The Senate cannot make rules which are unconstitutional. Therefore, this rule should not even be in place.

 

In the words of Ted Kennedy, "The filibuster rule is not enshrined in the Constitution. Instead, it is a rule that was made by the Senate, and it is a rule that can be unmade by the Senate." He also said, "The Constitution is clear that only individuals acceptable to both the President and the Senate should be confirmed. The President and the Senate do not always agree. But we should resolve these disagreements by voting on these nominees – yes or no." Boys and girls...this is what we call a hypocrite.

 

Now, as far as the compromise thingy, let me explain it to you again. The voters pressure the senators to work it out. If you are looking for a specific plan from me, then I say follow the Constitution and bring them up for a vote. Simple enough?

[VABills]

So you do, of course, offer equal support to the Senate's right to amend their rules?

341280[/snapback]

That's why I said what I did. I takes more than a simple majority to change the rules. If you want to change them so be it, but you are going to need I think 60%. Once you change them just remember that if you lose the Senate it may cause you major greif at that point. Again, I think the forfathers were a lot smarter then the current group of morons.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

That's why I said what I did.  I takes more than a simple majority to change the rules.  If you want to change them so be it, but you are going to need I think 60%.  Once you change them just remember that if you lose the Senate it may cause you major greif at that point.  Again, I think the forfathers were a lot smarter then the current group of morons.

341294[/snapback]

 

IF they do manage to change the rules regarding fillibusters, you all know what the next step is, right? If they can't block action by monopolizing the floor..then the Democrats walk out of the Senate en masse so as to preclude the establishment of a quorum, and block action that way.

 

And won't THAT resulting mess be fun to watch...

[VABills]

IF they do manage to change the rules regarding fillibusters, you all know what the next step is, right?  If they can't block action by monopolizing the floor..then the Democrats walk out of the Senate en masse so as to preclude the establishment of a quorum, and block action that way.

 

And won't THAT resulting mess be fun to watch...

341300[/snapback]

But again, I believe you need 60% to change the rule and oh 60% to get a quorum. So I suspect if they change the rule, they get the quorum as well. Be pretty shortsighted to vote for the change and then sit the vote out.

 

And again I reitterate, if they change the rules, they sure the hell had better understand the long term consequences.

[Yard Monkey]

And again I reitterate, if they change the rules, they sure the hell had better understand the long term consequences.

341306[/snapback]

I think based on the last few election results, they believe that the Dems can be crushed and they will not have to worry about long-term consequences.

[VABills]

I think based on the last few election results, they believe that the Dems can be crushed and they will not have to worry about long-term consequences.

341313[/snapback]

I think that is stupid. But they we will live with what ever seed we allow them to sow.

[AKC]

That's why I said what I did.  I takes more than a simple majority to change the rules.  If you want to change them so be it, but you are going to need I think 60%.  Once you change them just remember that if you lose the Senate it may cause you major greif at that point.  Again, I think the forfathers were a lot smarter then the current group of morons.

341294[/snapback]

 

That's incorrect from my understanding- the change regarding adoption of (the requirements to pass) cloture will require a simple majority of the Senate. It's something the Republicans may not have been able to hold before the shameful hypocrisy displayed today by Patrick Leahy and his Democratic cohorts who in the past publicly decried the use of judicial filibusters when they held control of the Senate. I believe Leahy's specific statement was "a filibuster should under no circumstances be used to deny an up or down vote to a judicial nominee". After today's display of Democratic Senator after Democratic Senator standing up and directly contradicting their publicly recorded positions from the past, the Republicans may just have developed the votes to do it.

 

For example:

 

“I plead with my colleagues to move judges with alacrity, vote them up or down,” Dem. Sen. Charles Schumer 2000

 

"It defies the clear constitutional prerogatives of the duly elected president to choose nominees to the bench and the duty of the Senate to say yes or no."

Dem. Sen. Russ Feingold 2000

 

These are three of the Senators leading the blocking tactic against minority judicial nominees.