Durka-Durka-Muhammed-Jihad!!
Cheney Weighs in on Judicial FilibustersTo me, this isn't the 'interfering with the Senate to reduce checks and balances' - it's more like a scorched-earth policy. Looked at in a more simplistic manner, it's the Senate Dems throwing a hissy fit.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney warned Democrats Friday that he will cast the tie-breaking vote to ban filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees if the Senate deadlocks on the question.
Republicans are moving the Senate toward a final confrontation with Democrats over judicial nominations. Internal GOP polling shows that most Americans don't support Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's plan to ban judicial filibusters - a tactic in which opponents can prevent a vote on a nomination with just 41 votes in the 100-member Senate.
"There is no justification for allowing the blocking of nominees who are well qualified and broadly supported," Cheney told the Republican National Lawyers Association. "The tactics of the last few years, I believe, are inexcusable."
"Let me emphasize, the decision about how to proceed will be made by the Republican leadership in the Senate," Cheney said. "But if the Senate majority decides to move forward and if the issue is presented to me in my elected office as president of the Senate and presiding officer, I will support bringing those nominations to the floor for an up or down vote."
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said the White House "has stepped over the line by interfering with the Senate to reduce checks and balances."
While I'm not too keen on the Republicans using a 'nuclear policy' to get rid of this road-block - it could easily come back and bite the GOP in the ass down the road - I can understand their getting irritated enough to utilize such tactics.
But while the decision rests with the Republican leadership in the Senate as to whether to 'kick ass & take names', it will also rest squarely on the shoulders of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee since they don't appear to be moving at all on this and as such will prompt the Republicans to do something - anything - to get an UP or DOWN vote on those remaining nominees.
In all honesty, I can understand why the Dems are pulling these childish tricks - they're trying to wage a war of attrition on the Republicans.
Pragmatism - in any form, big or small - would dictate that eventually the Dems would realize that they've got a snowball's chance in Hell and will capitulate and give an up or down vote. I'm guessing that they're afraid to face the reality of the situation and that by 'holding the fort' for a long enough time that Al Gore or John Kerry will come riding in in the nick of time to save them.
Maybe someone should perform an intervention on the Senate Dems and make them face their fears...? Just a thought.
No offense, Mad One, but "Willing to Debate" to a Senate Republican means no debate, just a vote,
Read more in Embrace Your Fears Dude
Mad Mikey said:
Being 'willing to debate' would mean that the issue (the nominee in question) is up for a up or d
Read more in Embrace Your Fears Dude
scroff said:
If they play nice, idiots like Bolten are confirmed. This is not the time to play nice. IMNSHO, t
Read more in Embrace Your Fears Dude
Mad Mikey said:
You got a point Scroffmeister, but what boggles me is that you'd think that Dems would 'ri
Read more in Embrace Your Fears Dude
scroff said:
Just an afterthought... the Dems still represent at least 48% of this country, the Republicans do
Read more in Embrace Your Fears Dude
scroff said:
Considering that over 95% of Bush's nominations have been passed, something like 205 of them, thi
Read more in Embrace Your Fears Dude
Comments on Embrace Your Fears Dude
Considering that over 95% of Bush's nominations have been passed, something like 205 of them, this to me is more like the Republicans throwing a hissy fit... Frist seems to forget that he used a filibuster in March 2000 against Paez... 10 of President Bush, Inc.'s nominees have been blocked as opposed to 65 during Clinton's time, with such rules as the blue-slip system and anonymous holds, among others that the Republicans did away with when President Bush, Inc. came into office. New Hampshire Republican Bob Smith blocked a vote on 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Richard Paez for months by putting an anonymous hold on the nomination. When Trent Lott couldn't maintain the hold any longer Smith and 13 other Republicans tried to filibuster, but cloture was voted and Paez was confirmed, something like two years after being nominated.
|| Posted by scroff, April 23, 2005 12:06 PM ||The Republicans are pissing and moaning because the Democrats aren't just rolling over and playing dead. Fuck em, buncha whining little brats. And didn't Cheney already say he wouldn't interfere in the process? I believe he did, I believe he told Harry Reid he wouldn't become involved in Senate politics. Now he flip flops, or was it an outright lie?
Just an afterthought... the Dems still represent at least 48% of this country, the Republicans don't rule the roost.
|| Posted by scroff, April 23, 2005 12:17 PM ||You got a point Scroffmeister, but what boggles me is that you'd think that Dems would 'rise above it and play nice'.
I guess my point of this post was to point out that it's getting ugly and BOTH sides are to blame to one degree or another, both past and present.
To me and my semi-simplistic mind set is that any one person or group could try to be civil about it and attempt to dialogue about it rather than calling press conferences time and again to vent their spleens...
|| Posted by Mad Mikey, April 24, 2005 10:01 AM ||If they play nice, idiots like Bolten are confirmed. This is not the time to play nice. IMNSHO, the Republicans need to make the first 'nice' move by realizing that by not being willing to debate and give an inch or two on some of Bush's ultra-right nominees, they are not representing the US, but the Republican party, which is less than half of the US citizens, once you account for Independents, Libertarians, and those not counted or committed.
|| Posted by scroff, April 24, 2005 03:43 PM ||Being 'willing to debate' would mean that the issue (the nominee in question) is up for a up or down vote on the floor.
'Willing to debate' in the Judiciary Committee is also opening up the nomination to some sort of discussion that would eventually lead to a Senate floor vote.
|| Posted by Mad Mikey, April 24, 2005 05:41 PM ||No offense, Mad One, but "Willing to Debate" to a Senate Republican means no debate, just a vote, in which all, or practically all, Republicans will follow the party line. Bush is trying to push through 20 judges that didn't make it through last time, and the Republicans are willing to do away with the filibuster, which has been around for 200 years, to do so. There can be an 'up or down' vote on cloture, if it passes, then the nominee is in, if not, then the Senate has 'Advised' against the nominee and not 'Consented'. Simple process. The people Bush is trying to appoint are whack jobs that belong nowhere near a lifetime appointment.
Just tonight, Frist went on the rampage talking about the godless democrats, pushing for these radical right wing judges. A judge is appointed for life, and their decisions will affect everyone in the country, not just Republicans or the Religious Right. The Senate has a duty to keep that in mind and vote the interests of the country, not the likes of Frist...
|| Posted by scroff, April 24, 2005 08:08 PM ||