Bush Renominates 20 Failed Judicial Nominees

[Beaver]

Front page news…

reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=7626458

 

[Brad]

Good.

Reid has to understand that his party is in the minority and that not allowing a vote is an attack on democracy itself.

All of these nominees must get an up or down vote and the Republicans must not rest or move on to other business until that happens.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

What one person calls failed another calls intentionally and unconstitutionally stymied.

 

[Digitonomy]

Brad:

not allowing a vote is an attack on democracy itself.

Hardly. Many actions die before they reach the Senate floor, and others (although rarer) die due to filibuster.

Scott_Lafrance:

intentionally and unconstitutionally stymied.

Intentionally? Yes. Unconstitutionally? No.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Digitonomy:

Hardly. Many actions die before they reach the Senate floor, and others (although rarer) die due to filibuster.
Intentionally? Yes. Unconstitutionally? No.

The truth of the matter is that the Senate Democrats used the filibuster in a manner that is inconsistent with the Constitution. That would make it unconstitutional.

 

[gilliam]

Digitonomy:

Hardly. Many actions die before they reach the Senate floor, and others (although rarer) die due to filibuster.
Intentionally? Yes. Unconstitutionally? No.

’

I see where the Senate is suppose to give advise and concent on nominees in the constitution but where is a filibuster in the constitution?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

’

I see where the Senate is suppose to give advise and concent on nominees in the constitution but where is a filibuster in the constitution?

Filibuster, from the Portuguese word for pirate, is simply used to connote the Senate’s Constitutionally guaranteed right to unlimited debate. There are no forced cloture rules in the Senate. However, since they have modified the method of filibustering, the current process is unconstitutional, as the minority simply debates while the issue is at hand. Essentially, a filibuster is supposed to work when an issue is on the floor, and no other issues are supposed to be raised until debate is over. At that time, there is a vote for cloture, and if no-one has anything left to debate about, it is supposed to move to an up or down vote. Now, they simply vote to delay, bring up another issue, and when the “advise and consent” function regarding a particular appointee is raised, the minority moves to delay cloture, and moves on to another issue. This puts them in the position to delay cloture and move to vote from now until Christ returns. It was a tactic develped by Tom Delaye, and he got tossed out of his seat because of it. You think that Democrats would have learn their lesson.

 

[Digitonomy]

Scott_Lafrance:

The truth of the matter is that the Senate Democrats used the filibuster in a manner that is inconsistent with the Constitution. That would make it unconstitutional.

That the Senate is managing its affairs in a way that is not specifically described in the Constitution does not ipso facto make it unconstitutional.

 

[Brad]

Digitonomy:

Hardly. Many actions die before they reach the Senate floor, and others (although rarer) die due to filibuster.

The filibuster on a vote on judicial nominees is unprecedented. This isn’t a new law. This is built into our constitution that nominees must be voted upon or else we don’t have judges.

The purposeful and intentful refusal to vote simply because they think the vote will not go their way is to falsely represent the American people in execution of their constitutional duties.

 

[Brad]

Scott_Lafrance:

Filibuster, from the Portuguese word for pirate, is simply used to connote the Senate’s Constitutionally guaranteed right to unlimited debate. There are no forced cloture rules in the Senate. However, since they have modified the method of filibustering, the current process is unconstitutional, as the minority simply debates while the issue is at hand. Essentially, a filibuster is supposed to work when an issue is on the floor, and no other issues are supposed to be raised until debate is over. At that time, there is a vote for cloture, and if no-one has anything left to debate about, it is supposed to move to an up or down vote. Now, they simply vote to delay, bring up another issue, and when the “advise and consent” function regarding a particular appointee is raised, the minority moves to delay cloture, and moves on to another issue. This puts them in the position to delay cloture and move to vote from now until Christ returns. It was a tactic develped by Tom Delaye, and he got tossed out of his seat because of it. You think that Democrats would have learn their lesson.

Don’t allow them to move on to another issue. Keep going until Christ returns (or, more practically, until the world notices that nothing is happening in the Senate).

 

[Brad]

Digitonomy:

That the Senate is managing its affairs in a way that is not specifically described in the Constitution does not ipso facto make it unconstitutional.

The Democrates are managing their affairs in a deceitful manner, one unanticipated by the devlopers of the constitution. The constitution falls apart when people of ill-will are in charge.

 

[gilliam]

Scott_Lafrance:

Filibuster, from the Portuguese word for pirate, is simply used to connote the Senate’s Constitutionally guaranteed right to unlimited debate. .

Where in the constitution does it say one (or more) Senator has a guaranteed right to unlimited debate?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

gilliam:

Where in the constitution does it say one (or more) Senator has a guaranteed right to unlimited debate?

From the U.S. Senate website.
Filibuster and Cloture:

Using the filibuster to delay debate or block legislation has a long history. In the United States, the term filibuster – from a Dutch word meaning “pirate” – became popular in the 1850s when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent action on a bill.

In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could use the filibuster technique. As the House grew in numbers, however, it was necessary to revise House rules to limit debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued since senators believed any member should have the right to speak as long as necessary.

In 1841, when the Democratic minority hoped to block a bank bill promoted by Henry Clay, Clay threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Thomas Hart Benton angrily rebuked his colleague, accusing Clay of trying to stifle the Senate’s right to unlimited debate. Unlimited debate remained in place in the Senate until 1917. At that time, at the suggestion of President Woodrow Wilson, the Senate adopted a rule (Rule 22) that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote – a tactic known as “cloture.”

The new Senate rule was put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Despite the new cloture rule, however, filibusters continued to be an effective means to block legislation, due in part to the fact that a two-thirds majority vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next several decades, the Senate tried numerous times to evoke cloture, but failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to southern senators blocking civil rights legislation in the 1950s and 1960s. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds (67) to three-fifths (60) of the 100-member Senate.

Many Americans are familiar with the hours-long filibuster of Senator Jefferson Smith in Frank Capra’s film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but there have been some famous filibusters in the real-life Senate as well. During the 1930s, Senator Huey P. Long effectively used the filibuster against bills that he thought favored the rich over the poor. The Louisiana senator frustrated his colleagues while entertaining spectators with his recitations of Shakespeare and his reading of recipes for “pot-likkers.” Long once held the Senate floor for fifteen hours. The record for the longest individual speech goes to South Carolina’s J. Strom Thurmond who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

 

[Digitonomy]

Brad:

The Democrates are managing their affairs in a deceitful manner

This is simply untrue. The Democrats have been very up-front about their intentions, and the tactic they are using.

 

[Digitonomy]

Brad:

The purposeful and intentful refusal to vote simply because they think the vote will not go their way is to falsely represent the American people in execution of their constitutional duties.

I missed this when I read the thread earlier. I wouldn’t say “falsely,” but it is a disservice to the country. And it’s a tactic I’ve disagreed with for a few years, even before the president first brought it up in his State of the Union address.
1998 State of the Union:

Police, prosecutors, and prevention programs, as good as they are, they can’t work if our court system doesn’t work. Today there are large number of vacancies in the federal courts. Here is what the Chief Justice of the United States wrote: “Judicial vacancies cannot remain at such high levels indefinitely without eroding the quality of justice.” I simply ask the United States Senate to heed this plea, and vote on the highly qualified judicial nominees before you, up or down.

 

[Digitonomy]

Brad:

The purposeful and intentful refusal to vote simply because they think the vote will not go their way is to falsely represent the American people in execution of their constitutional duties.

I missed this when I read the thread earlier. I wouldn’t say “falsely,” but it is a disservice to the country. And it’s a tactic I’ve disagreed with for a few years, even before the president first brought it up in his State of the Union address.
1998 State of the Union:

Police, prosecutors, and prevention programs, as good as they are, they can’t work if our court system doesn’t work. Today there are large number of vacancies in the federal courts. Here is what the Chief Justice of the United States wrote: “Judicial vacancies cannot remain at such high levels indefinitely without eroding the quality of justice.” I simply ask the United States Senate to heed this plea, and vote on the highly qualified judicial nominees before you, up or down.

 

[Digitonomy]

Brad:

The purposeful and intentful refusal to vote simply because they think the vote will not go their way is to falsely represent the American people in execution of their constitutional duties.

I missed this when I read the thread earlier. I wouldn’t say “falsely,” but it is a disservice to the country. And it’s a tactic I’ve disagreed with for a few years, even before the president first brought it up in his State of the Union address.
1998 State of the Union:

Police, prosecutors, and prevention programs, as good as they are, they can’t work if our court system doesn’t work. Today there are large number of vacancies in the federal courts. Here is what the Chief Justice of the United States wrote: “Judicial vacancies cannot remain at such high levels indefinitely without eroding the quality of justice.” I simply ask the United States Senate to heed this plea, and vote on the highly qualified judicial nominees before you, up or down.

 

[Brad]

Digitonomy:

This is simply untrue. The Democrats have been very up-front about their intentions, and the tactic they are using.

The deceiving is hidden in their upfront manner. They are upfront because they want to sell the tactic to the American people - paint it as being “right” and “courageous” when they know it represents and imposition of their minority will overtop the full representation of the United States.

You don’t think that one deceives they say “I am deceiving you” do you?