|
|
|
|
jrjo
Gone Fishin
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 16451
Location: Lake Wobegon, MN
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 11/09/04 - 13:51 Post subject: Democrat filibuster on appealate judges
| Quote: | | A number of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees to the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals were nominated over 3 years ago, in May 2001, and have still not been allowed a vote on the Senate floor because of the filibustering of left-wing Democrat Senators. One of the targets of these obstructionists was Miguel Estrada, a highly qualified Honduran immigrant to America and a Harvard Law School graduate. Unfortunately, he withdrew after 2 years, more than 100 hours of debate, and 7 votes to break the Democrats' filibuster. These same obstructionists have refused votes on 4 nominees to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals because 2 Democrat Senators from Michigan want to name their own appellate court nominees, ! clearly a violation of the U.S. Constitution. During the 108th Congress, there have been 18 votes to break the unconstitutional filibusters by the Democrats, on nominees Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen, Charles Pickering, Carolyn Kuhl, Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor, Bill Myers, Henry Saad, Richard Griffin, and David McKeague. These 18 votes in the 108th Congress to break the Democrat filibusters are more "cloture" votes (to end debate on the Senate floor) on judicial nominations than in all of the previous 107 Congresses combined. Unfortunately, liberal Senators are now threatening filibusters on five more of President Bush's judicial nominees: Terry Boyle, Susan Neilson, William Haynes, Brett Kavanaugh, and Tom Griffiths. |
What do you think of filibustering?
|
|
|
|
|
Cappy
Excelent
|
|
|
Joined: 16 May 2002
Posts: 27368
Location: Spreadsheetylvania
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/09/04 - 13:53 Post subject:
They are as outdated as the Electoral College. A waste of taxpayer's time
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/09/04 - 13:53 Post subject:
I think that sometimes, not all the time, it's all you've got.
Edited to say, if one thought he was totally unqualified, and one is of the minority party, this is sometimes the only tactic. It's too bad people can't reach across party lines but if they can't, I'd like to know there's something the minority can do.
|
|
|
|
|
megawill
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1552
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/09/04 - 14:11 Post subject: Re: Democrat filibuster on appealate judges
| jrjo wrote: |
What do you think of filibustering? |
i call it one of the 'checks and balances' that our amazing system has...the senate is not intended to be a 'rubber stamp' of the executive or judicial branch...
what your snippet doesn't mention is that 127 Appellate nominees have been approved...why haven't these nominees been approved? I don't know why they've held them up but has Bush/Cheney done anything to appease the concerns?
|
|
|
|
|
megawill
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1552
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/09/04 - 14:17 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
RexRacer
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Posts: 814
Location: A pancake house of ineffable crappiness
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/09/04 - 14:18 Post subject:
Here's a quote from a related article in the Philly Inquirer.
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/10109938.htm (requires registration)
"During Bush's first term, Democrats successfully blocked 10 of his judicial nominees to U.S. Appeals Courts - the nation's second-highest courts. At the same time, the Senate confirmed 203 of Bush's court appointments." Emphasis mine.
Does anyone know the number that the Senate Republicans gave Clinton? It'd be an interesting comparison.
|
|
|
|
|
RexRacer
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Posts: 814
Location: A pancake house of ineffable crappiness
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/09/04 - 14:28 Post subject: Re: Democrat filibuster on appealate judges
| Quote: | | These same obstructionists have refused votes on 4 nominees to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals because 2 Democrat Senators from Michigan want to name their own appellate court nominees, ! clearly a violation of the U.S. Constitution. |
This is a bit misconstrued and not at all either uncommon or limited to one party.
During the Clinton years Senate Republicans gave a list to his administration of potential nominees that they would not oppose. As you could well imagine, they were all centrist to center-right in ideology.
One could even see this as an attempt at the bipartisanship we're talking about, coming from either side of the aisle.
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/09/04 - 14:54 Post subject:
I have no problem with this, especially considering the number of justices that have been approved. 10 blocks out of 213 nominations. That only 4.69% of the nominations have been held up does not sound like obstructionism to me. It sounds like reasonable concern.
|
|
|
|
  |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
|
