| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"Dana" |
| Date: |
08 Aug 2003 09:27:46 PM |
| Object: |
Filibustering Judges Has Become Democratic Specialty |
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=1476
Filibustering Judges Has Become Democratic Specialty
by Thomas L. Jipping
Posted Aug 8, 2003
Over the years, both Republican and Democratic senators have voted to
filibuster judicial nominees. But while Republicans have done it sparingly,
it has become a Democratic specialty.
Since Senate debate on legislation or nominations is ordinarily unlimited, a
filibuster occurs when attempts to limit debate fail. A single senator may
defeat the informal method of seeking unanimous consent, or 41 senators may
defeat the formal method of a motion to invoke cloture.
Either way, a filibuster keeps the Senate debating a question and thus
prevents a vote on that question. Cloture votes are always by roll call,
which allows us to examine the filibuster record.
Since 1968, the Senate has taken 26 cloture votes on 17 different judicial
nominees. In the case of 10 of those nominees, the lone cloture vote passed,
and the Senate voted to confirm. In the case of three nominees, the first
cloture vote failed, but the Senate eventually confirmed them-demonstrating
that those filibusters were not intended to defeat the nominees.
The four other nominees who faced cloture votes were Supreme Court Justice
Abe Fortas, Miguel Estrada, Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen and
Alabama Atty. Gen. Bill Pryor.
Fortas withdrew his 1968 nomination to be Supreme Court Chief Justice after
a 45-43 cloture vote. The 43 senators who opposed cloture were evenly
bi-partisan and the 45 supporting cloture were not a Senate majority.
Thus every filibuster in the past 45 years designed solely to defeat a
judicial nominee who would otherwise be confirmed by a Senate majority is
going on right now.
Seven cloture votes have failed on appeals court nominee Estrada, three on
appeals court nominee Priscilla Owen, and one on appeals court nominee Bill
Pryor. Let's examine the votes.
Thirty-eight of the 40 current senators who have never voted to filibuster a
judicial nominee are Republicans. Thirteen of the 51 current Republicans
have voted for at least one filibuster. None has voted against cloture on
judicial nominees more than 16% of the time such votes were held, and the
average for this group is 9.5% of the time. The average for all Republicans
is just 2.8%.
Only two of the current 49 Democrat senators have never supported
filibustering a judicial nominee. In fact, 33 Democrats have supported such
filibusters at least two-thirds of the time. The average for all Democrats
is 64.9%.
In October 1999, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D.-S.D.) found it
"simply baffling that a senator would vote against even voting on a judicial
nomination." Daschle has now baffled himself 12 times. In June 1998, Sen.
Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.), the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary
Committee, promised to "object and fight against any filibuster on a judge,
whether it is somebody I opposed or supported." He has broken that promise
15 times.
--
"The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our
rights, and the rights of man."
-- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), 3rd President of the United States
(1801-1809)
.
|
|
| User: "Arne Langsetmo" |
|
| Title: Re: Filibustering Judges Has Become Democratic Specialty |
10 Aug 2003 02:15:57 AM |
|
|
Dana wrote:
Now that the Democrats are in the minority again? Amazing.
When the Republicans were in the minority, it was they that
specialized in filibustering. That's real weird, "ButtMaster".
The party without a majority uses this minority tool. I'm
truly amazed that you figured out this strange behaviour.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for this brilliant insight.
Oh, yeah, I forgot. You didn't think this up yourself;
you simply snipped and copied someone else's words. Some
one with marginally more neurones than your illustrious
pair. . . .
[snip]
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Filibustering Judges Has Become Democratic Specialty |
10 Aug 2003 10:51:36 AM |
|
|
"Arne Langsetmo" <zuch@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3F35F0F5.20287932@ix.netcom.com...
Dana wrote:
Now that the Democrats are in the minority again?
And getting smaller every year.
Amazing.
When the Republicans were in the minority, it was they that
specialized in filibustering.
Wrong, not even a nice try.
-- Arne Langsetmo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arne Langsetmo" |
|
| Title: Re: Filibustering Judges Has Become Democratic Specialty |
10 Aug 2003 01:04:35 PM |
|
|
Dana wrote:
"Arne Langsetmo" <zuch@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3F35F0F5.20287932@ix.netcom.com...
Dana wrote:
Now that the Democrats are in the minority again?
And getting smaller every year.
Not on a ten year average. You have one data point.
The Democrats picked up five senate seats in 2000.
You Republicans got back two in 2002, in the midst
of "war" hysteria (and thanks to a some very convenient
plane crashes as well). Think that Dubya will try to
keep up his "banging the drums of war" for as long as
he can to try to keep his dismal ratings from plunging
through the floor? I suspect so, but sooner or later
this approach starts to become obvious and even
alarming to even a relatively credulous public.
It sucks to be a one-trick pony.
Amazing.
When the Republicans were in the minority, it was they that
specialized in filibustering.
Wrong, not even a nice try.
Right. OIC. When the Republicans did it, it was for
"just cause", not like the Democrats' reasons such as
the fact that the ERW Dubya nominations are to a person
all loony nutcases. . . .
Clue for you, Dana: Clinton picked mostly moderate judges
and the Republican even stonewalled them and slandered
them (see, e.g., the lies that Ashcroft spread about
Ronnie White). But Dubya is bound and determined to
pick the most hardcore RW judges he can find. Has
to; that's where his base is, and these people would
rip his head of (or anyone else's) should they stray
from the ERW party line.
Ideologues and "True Believers" are unsuited for the
work of government (which is, in our country, premised
on the notion of compromise). Their worst failure is
to not recognise their own mistakes (see, e.g., Dubya's
prevarications on his Iraqi claims). Thus, they are
bound and determined to continue whatever failed course
they are taking, and damn and facts that might dare to
intrude on their conscience (see, e.g., the continuing
Iraqi blunders and killings, and the disastrous tax cut
policies).
But Dubya is the penultimate "True Believer". He even
thinks that Gawd talks to him and tells him to go
smite his enemies. Good thing that Gawd doesn't know
how to pronounce "nukular". . . .
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Dare" |
|
| Title: Re: Filibustering Judges Has Become Democratic Specialty |
11 Aug 2003 10:07:19 AM |
|
|
Dana wrote:
"Arne Langsetmo" <zuch@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3F35F0F5.20287932@ix.netcom.com...
Dana wrote:
Now that the Democrats are in the minority again?
And getting smaller every year.
Amazing.
When the Republicans were in the minority, it was they that
specialized in filibustering.
Wrong, not even a nice try.
It's true though -- and it's on the record in google for you to verify,
if the truth matters to you.
--
Usenet: a nice place to visit -- but I wouldn't want to live there.
Dana Dare
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: BUTTMASTERS Tongue Has Become Democratic Specialty |
09 Aug 2003 12:41:15 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 18:27:46 -0800, "Dana" <yourname@example.com> wrote:
---------------------------------------------------
ladies use my tongue for your pleasure
</groups?q=author:danaraffaniello%40worldnet.
att.net&start=210&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT>F-8&selm=
63j187%24nji%40bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net&rnum=226>
swm very oral will orally worship any female that wishes to be worshipped.
will kiss and lick your feet and butt .
might be wiling to be your toilet paper if you
are that aggressive
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
