Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 1 May 2005 14:15:18 -0700, wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 1 May 2005 02:46:25 -0700, "Charlie Self"
wrote:
Frist is eager to modify the Constitution and
hundreds of years of tradition to satisfy his power lust.
Actually, Frist is attempting to restore the principles of the
Constitution and hundreds of years of tradition to *deny* the
power
lust of
the other side who are still attempting to run things despite
being
in the
minority. Never, ever, has the minority in the Senate
filibustered
the
confirmation of judges.
A damn lie:
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/...ppointment.htm
I stand corrected on that part. However, based upon your research,
what
was the requirement for cloture during that period of Senate history?
Was
it majority or was it supermajority?
IIRC sometime in the 1960's the Senate adopted a rule to allow
a vote of 60% of the Senate to invoke cloture. I don't know it
that is 60% of quorum of 60% of the full Senate. Prior to that,
there was no rule to force cloture.
And lets keep in mind:
1) There has been NO filibustering of GWB's judicial nominees.
The threat of fillibuster has been sufficient thus far.
Seven of Bush's appellate nominees *have* been fillibustered by the
Senate Democrats.
No, a filibuster was threatened, that was sufficient. A true
filibuster virtually shuts down the Senate so the threat alone
is usually enough. I dunno when the last time was that there
was an actual filibuster, maybe not since 1968.
2) 95% of GWBs judicial nominess have been approved, the highest
such percentage in at least 30 years.
3) No preseident has ever had the chutspah, in his second term,
to renominated a whole slate of judges who were turned down
druing his first term.
That, on your part is a @#$% lie. Those judges were *not* turned
down,
they never had a fair hearing in the Senate, they were either
filibustered
or held in committee by the then Daschle majority without a chance
for a
fair Senate hearing. Several of the judges removed their names from
consideration after waiting in limbo for well over a year.
Ok, Stopped rather than turned down. But as noted above there had
been no actual filibustering.
As to holding judiical nominees in limbo, think back to the
obstruction of the process during the Clinton years when nearly
30% of the positions in the Federal Judiicary became vacant
because the Republicans blocked nominees to the point of
bringing the entire process to a virtual standstill.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C2005 02%5CPOL20050216a.html
... When he was
in power, he (Senator Byrd) declared, "the power and right of
the majority of the Senate
to change the rules of the Senate at the beginning of a new
Congress".
He didn't "declare that", the Constitution mandates it. If the
present
Senate takes actions to modify its procedural rules to end
fillbuster
that will be just as Constitutional as the procedural rules that
permit it.
That's all well and good, and constitutionally correct. However,
Byrd's
present position is that changing procedures now is warping the
constitution claiming that the majority wants to change the rules.
So which Senator Byrd is right, the one from 1979, or the one now?
As noted:
If the present
Senate takes actions to modify its procedural rules to end fillbuster
that will be just as Constitutional as the procedural rules that
permit it.
I don't care to check to see if Burd ever made the statements you
attribute to him.
Meanwhile, consider:
In 2000 Bill Frist voted against cloture regarding the nomination
of Richard Paez to the ninth circuit.
"If they want to filibuster, mount a filibuster for an appellate
judge, I think that's appropriate, if they want to do it. It
normally is not done. But if that's what the Democrats want to
do, I think they're entitled to do it under the rules of the
Senate." 2001, Senator C. Boyden Gray on John McLaughlin's
"One on One"
According to the Congressional Research Service, cloture motions
were filed and cloture votes held on 14 appeals court nominations
from 1980 to 2000.
Not only has it happened, it has happened often.
Perhaps you should begin question the honesty of whomever it
is that assigns talking points to you.
I had thought that the Clintons set a standard for sheer dishonesty
in the face of fact that would be hard to beat. But the Bush
administration and its supporters have proven to be the Bob
Beamans of dishonesty established a record for bald-faced lying
that may (one hopes) never be surpassed.
--
FF