| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"C. Pangus" |
| Date: |
14 Nov 2003 02:28:28 AM |
| Object: |
Senate Filibusters Bush! |
Now somewhere around 34 hours and into the second night of the dems
filibuster of Bush judicial nominees in the Senate the repubs are busy
whining that judicial nominees have never been successfully filibustered in
the Senate. Previously 60 votes for closure have always been found to force
a vote on the Senate floor. The repubs claim this shows how partisan the
dems are being.
What this more likely means, considering the unilateral and highly
partisan manner in which Bush & Co. have operated, is that there have never
been such partisan and radical nominees. Never before have there been such
poor choices to judicial office that there were enough votes to prevent
their nomination from even coming to the Senate floor for a vote. Never
before have the choices of the President been so potentially harmful to the
country the advice and consent of the Senate is that these people don't even
warrant a vote.
What the dems are telling US is that some of the judicial nominees of
Bush are so bad that even if it brings all other business of the Senate to a
halt they will not allow these nominations to be confirmed.
.
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Filibusters Bush! |
14 Nov 2003 07:23:20 AM |
|
|
"C. Pangus" <craigpangus@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:Mm0tb.24$Rk5.1@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Now somewhere around 34 hours and into the second night of the dems
filibuster of Bush judicial nominees in the Senate the repubs are busy
whining that judicial nominees have never been successfully filibustered
in
the Senate. Previously 60 votes for closure have always been found to
force
a vote on the Senate floor. The repubs claim this shows how partisan the
dems are being.
What this more likely means, considering the unilateral and highly
partisan manner in which Bush & Co. have operated, is that there have
never
been such partisan and radical nominees. Never before have there been
such
poor choices to judicial office that there were enough votes to prevent
their nomination from even coming to the Senate floor for a vote. Never
before have the choices of the President been so potentially harmful to
the
country the advice and consent of the Senate is that these people don't
even
warrant a vote.
What the dems are telling US is that some of the judicial nominees of
Bush are so bad that even if it brings all other business of the Senate to
a
halt they will not allow these nominations to be confirmed.
The republicans are handing you ***** ---claiming it's ground
meat ---------and bitching like all hell when you refuse to eat it!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "T.Carr" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Filibusters Bush! |
14 Nov 2003 10:36:34 AM |
|
|
"C. Pangus" <craigpangus@sprintmail.com> wrote in message news:<Mm0tb.24$Rk5.1@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
Now somewhere around 34 hours and into the second night of the dems
filibuster of Bush judicial nominees in the Senate the repubs are busy
whining that judicial nominees have never been successfully filibustered in
the Senate.
The GOP is making a very public point about the 'dems tactics
Previously 60 votes for closure have always been found to force
a vote on the Senate floor. The repubs claim this shows how partisan the
dems are being.
Actually Mr Pangus..60 votes are still required to force a end to
debate.
The 'dems have supported 3 (soon to be 4) filibusters to stop votes
on Bush nominees.
This is a new record by the minority party in the Senate
What this more likely means, considering the unilateral and highly
partisan manner in which Bush & Co. have operated, is that there have never
been such partisan and radical nominees. Never before have there been such
poor choices to judicial office that there were enough votes to prevent
their nomination from even coming to the Senate floor for a vote.
Ok Mr Pangus..How about you support your BS with a few specifics?
Tell us how Mr Estrada is "partisan" or "radical"
"He is a man I have named, nominated for the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals. When confirmed he'll be the first Hispanic to serve on what
they call "the second most important court in America". His story is
the American story. His story -- it's what makes this country so
profound and so hopeful and so promising. After all, he came to the
country from Honduras. He could barely speak English. He came as a
teenage boy, had trouble with our native language and, yet, ends up
shortly thereafter in Harvard Law School as one of the top students.
Note..Estrada was a editor of the Harvard law review
It speaks about a man who has a dream and works hard to achieve that
dream; understands the value of education; overcame difficulties and
became one of the top law students out of Harvard. He has argued 15
cases before the Supreme Court. He has taken his knowledge and
capacity and argued before the highest court of our land. He has
served in the Justice Department under Presidents from both political
parties. He is a incredibly bright mind.
Yet, his nomination is being delayed and stalled by Democratic
senators. His nomination has been stalled for two years. They're
blocking the vote on this good man for purely political reasons. The
senators are applying a double standard to Miguel Estrada by requiring
him to answer questions that other judicial nominees, over time, have
not been forced to answer. And that is not right, and that is not
fair.
Btw..Mr Pangus..7 previous solicitor generals (of both parties)
agreed that the testimony was indeed confidential
By blocking a vote on Miguel Estrada, some Democrats in the Senate are
flaunting the intention of the United States Constitution and the
tradition of the United States Senate, itself. Alexander Hamilton
wrote that, the purpose of the Senate confirmation was to prevent the
appointment of unfit characters. No one can possibly call Miguel
Estrada "unfit." (Applause.)
The American Bar Association has given him its highest ratings --
highest ratings. And he has the qualifications and the experience and
the temperament to make an outstanding judge. The partisans in the
Senate are subjecting Miguel Estrada to an unfair double standard.
Failing to allow an up or down vote -- a vote which will pass -- on
Miguel Estrada's nomination is a travesty, an injustice being carried
out by those responsible for helping to uphold justice in this
country. "
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030226-3.html
Never
before have the choices of the President been so potentially harmful to the
country the advice and consent of the Senate is that these people don't even
warrant a vote.
Show the evidence that Estrada was potentially harmful.
Cite the rulings or writings that back that position
What the dems are telling US is that some of the judicial nominees of
Bush are so bad that even if it brings all other business of the Senate to a
halt they will not allow these nominations to be confirmed.
While you are at it, feel free to explain Sen Stabenow's and Levins
abuse of "Blue Slip" privledges.
The best excuse they can come up with is "the gop didnt confirm all
of Clintons nominees"
T.Carr
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Doe" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Filibusters Bush! |
14 Nov 2003 02:48:00 PM |
|
|
(T.Carr) wrote
"C. Pangus" <craigpangus@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
Now somewhere around 34 hours and into the second night of the dems
filibuster of Bush judicial nominees
Actually, the talk athon was scheduled by Republicans.
in the Senate the repubs are busy whining that judicial nominees have
never been successfully filibustered in the Senate.
Republicans have lots of power now and some of them can't play by the
rules.
The GOP is making a very public point about the 'dems tactics
They should be complaining in court instead of whining on the senate floor.
The republican argument:
"Note..Estrada was a editor of the Harvard law review ...
By blocking a vote on Miguel Estrada, some Democrats in the Senate ..."
The democrat counter argument.
"White House lawyer Elena Kagan was denied even a hearing in the GOP-
controlled Judiciary Committee. She has since become dean of Harvard Law
School."
If Republicans really think "consent" means a simple majority, then they
should stop arguing with other lawyers in the Senate which will get them
nowhere while wasting taxpayer money.
I wonder if maybe Republicans at one time cared about saving taxpayer money
simply because they weren't in control of how taxpayer money was being
spent.
.
|
|
|
| User: "C. Pangus" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Filibusters Bush! |
15 Nov 2003 03:50:19 AM |
|
|
"John Doe" <Usenet@Rocks.com> wrote in message
news:Xns943396CC97CEBwisdomandfolly@207.115.63.158...
TCarr13397@aol.com (T.Carr) wrote
"C. Pangus" <craigpangus@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
Now somewhere around 34 hours and into the second night of the dems
filibuster of Bush judicial nominees
Actually, the talk athon was scheduled by Republicans.
In hopes that enough Senators willing to stay up for advice and consent,
dems in this instance, would leave to allow them to call for votes on
nominations.
in the Senate the repubs are busy whining that judicial nominees have
never been successfully filibustered in the Senate.
Republicans have lots of power now and some of them can't play by the
rules.
The GOP is making a very public point about the 'dems tactics
They should be complaining in court instead of whining on the senate
floor.
The republican argument:
"Note..Estrada was a editor of the Harvard law review ...
By blocking a vote on Miguel Estrada, some Democrats in the Senate ..."
The democrat counter argument.
"White House lawyer Elena Kagan was denied even a hearing in the GOP-
controlled Judiciary Committee. She has since become dean of Harvard Law
School."
If Republicans really think "consent" means a simple majority, then they
should stop arguing with other lawyers in the Senate which will get them
nowhere while wasting taxpayer money.
I wonder if maybe Republicans at one time cared about saving taxpayer
money
simply because they weren't in control of how taxpayer money was being
spent.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "COCO$4me" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Filibusters Bush! |
14 Nov 2003 02:42:08 AM |
|
|
I REALLY NEVER GET TO BE AMAZED AT THE THINGS REPUBS SAY
Never has a judge been filibusted.......................SOOOOOOOOO
Never has anyone been on the moon, or ETC.
REPUBS,,, It is "2003".....Not the "ragooooon" days
..
"C. Pangus" <craigpangus@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:Mm0tb.24$Rk5.1@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Now somewhere around 34 hours and into the second night of the dems
filibuster of Bush judicial nominees in the Senate the repubs are busy
whining that judicial nominees have never been successfully filibustered
in
the Senate. Previously 60 votes for closure have always been found to
force
a vote on the Senate floor. The repubs claim this shows how partisan the
dems are being.
What this more likely means, considering the unilateral and highly
partisan manner in which Bush & Co. have operated, is that there have
never
been such partisan and radical nominees. Never before have there been
such
poor choices to judicial office that there were enough votes to prevent
their nomination from even coming to the Senate floor for a vote. Never
before have the choices of the President been so potentially harmful to
the
country the advice and consent of the Senate is that these people don't
even
warrant a vote.
What the dems are telling US is that some of the judicial nominees of
Bush are so bad that even if it brings all other business of the Senate to
a
halt they will not allow these nominations to be confirmed.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
