7.01.2005

Say it ain't so, Sandy!



This story actually elicited a gasp when I read the breaking news in my inbox.

I was excited that it was Friday, but now I'm sad.

Totally not one of the ones that I wanted gone.

What about Rehnquist?


person x at 11:15 AM

7 spoke

7 Comments

at Friday, July 01, 2005 12:04:00 PM Anonymous Kerri said...

Yep, gasp. Me too.

 
at Tuesday, July 05, 2005 5:30:00 PM Anonymous Joe said...

I propose giving Justice Scalia two votes until the dem's stop acting like they wouldn't pursue "the nuclear" option if they were the majority. (Funny how every vote should count, unless of course we are speaking of Congressional proceedings).

Surely Justice Breyer would have no problem interpreting that from the Constitution. Of course he would look to the Argentinian Jurisprudence and the insight we can all draw from it.

 
at Wednesday, July 06, 2005 10:16:00 AM Blogger person x said...

Me thinks Joe has strayed from where he belongs. Go back to where you belong, Joe.

It's funny that Republilcans, when they are the majority, forget about the shit they used to do, too.

So, I hardly think that you should whine, whine, whine that the Dems are holding up the process; maybe they wouldn't if the nominees weren't such Right-leaning pricks.

 
at Wednesday, July 06, 2005 11:01:00 AM Anonymous Joe said...

Isn't raw story affiliated with the Onion? I particularly enjoyed Freda Moon's (I sincerely hope that's a pen name) column entitled "The Hottie Factor: Senator John Kerry."

Was I supposed to be persuaded by a shopping list of blocked nominations for Ambassador's to Mozambique in 1980?

I suppose I would be accused of being "unfair" if I neglected to mention the two or three circuit court nominations that appeared that huge list. After all those are two or three fine judges blocked over a period of atleast 25 years covered by the list. Given this revelation, the dem's are certainly justified in blocking nearly every nomination in the past 5 years.

Not to take anything away from Mozambique. Won't they be at the G8 Summit?

 
at Wednesday, July 06, 2005 12:55:00 PM Blogger person x said...

Ha. Too funny. Raw Story is not an Onion-style site. But nice try.

But, to answer your post in all seriousness…

It was actually the GOP which started the trend of blocking judicial appointments. Prior to 1996, senators would usually defer to the president for nominations. The only exceptions were the 1968 Fortas nomination and the Republican filibuster attempt for H. Lee Sarokin.

In 1996, the GOP decided to change this trend and begin to deny Clinton judges hearings. In 1999, Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch refused to hold hearings for almost six months on any of 16 circuit-court and 31 district-court nominations Clinton had sent up.

The rule changes in 2003 left Democrats with the filibuster as the only option -- they couldn't be pussies and just deny hearings like the GOP.

And not like Frist has room to talk, participating in the 1996 filibuster of Paez. Oops!

So, I hardly think the 10+ nominees filibustered by Dems compares in the slightest to the 65 Clinton nominees denied a vote by proceedural sneakiness.

 
at Wednesday, July 06, 2005 4:03:00 PM Anonymous Joe said...

You will be shocked to hear that I can’t say that I agree with your analysis.

Let me begin by mentioning that I do not make the argument that the consent clause with regard to judicial nominations is superfluous. This is the contention of many conservatives and I do not agree.

Under the current circumstances, the dem’s are the minority party under a GOP Senate and White House. In other words, their say in the judicial nomination process is very weak at best. Thus, in utilizing the filibuster, they are frantically scratching and clawing to avoid the appointment of a conservative judge at all costs.

Conversely, the GOP was not acting as the minority party under Clinton. Rather, as the majority, they were voted in and entrusted with authority including the right to consent to the appointment of judges. While the GOP may not have a choice over exactly who was nominated under Clinton, they did have the legitimate power, as the majority party, to withhold their consent.

In the current situation, the dem’s do not have control over who is elected. Moreover, unlike the GOP under Clinton, if it came to an up or down vote, they realize that they have a laughable amount of say there as well. Seeing no other way out of this predicament, the dem’s have invoked their alleged “minority rights.”

It is one thing to act pursuant to the authority given to you by the public (voters) and quite another, when that authority has not been delegated to you, to impede the process of judicial appointments. If voters did not want conservative judges to be appointed, why did they elect a conservative president and fill capital hill with conservative congressmen and women?

(Naturally, this comments are made notwithstanding your opinion with regard to the intellect of those who did the voting)

 
at Friday, July 08, 2005 12:10:00 PM Blogger Jay said...

Joe the fucking coward. I love how you hide, no link to a blog, no e-mail address.

The point of the fillibuster is to check the majority party. Otherwise the minority party would lose every battle on every front that required a simple majority vote. The dems have allows a *huge* majority of Bush's appointments. Maybe you should be reminded of the blocking of Clinton's nominations to the 6th circuit, here. Senator Abraham persoannly blocked those two nominations from even coming to the floor. Why would he do that if the republicans held the majority? Just let it come to the floor and trust that the majority would vote them down. Stop acting like the dems are being immoral by blocking some of these seats. They are playing the game according to the rules. Go back to hiding.

 

Post a Comment