Cowen nomination debate…
Not like we need another politcal post around here.
But I was watchin’ Cspan today and caught most of what Kerry had to say. And most of it made sence.
Anyone else care to comment?
jerm
Do mean Owen - the judicial nominee?
Kerry always makes sense to me because he’s intelligent, disciplined & well-spoken (unlike some leaders we know).
Yep typo.
I’m getting worrried now…
If this philabuster amendment is passed, it would change the constitution, senate as we know and we would loose an importants part of our system IMHO.
jerm
You bet, jeremy, you hit the nail on the head. It provides an odd but important - vitally important - balance on power. For conservatives who think otherwise, just think what will happen when the left gets into power. 
Agreed.
The bush admin. is acting like this is an injustic, when it’s just democracy at work.
They act like it’s a personal vendeta against the republicans. I guess the other 207 judges just slipped through the cracks heh? 
This just get’s better and better, Bush is on a sinking ship on this one IMHO.
Might be time to cut his losses and just throw in the towel on this one! 
jerm
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| This just get’s better and better, Bush is on a sinking ship on this one IMHO. |
I don’t think the Republicans believe that at all. They’re continuing to try to make a deal but I doubt if it will work.
Listen these Republicans are total hypocrits. They did the same thing against Clinton and they were the first to use a fillibuster against a Democratic judicial nominee:
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| When Bill Clinton was president and Republicans had a Senate majority, from 1995 to 2000, they used non-filibuster delaying tactics such as anonymous holds — a device for a senator to prevent a nomination from reaching the Senate floor. In many cases, they simply never held Judiciary Committee hearings to consider certain nominees, effectively blocking them from getting an up-or-down vote. Despite the opposition of then-Majority Leader Trent Lott, a few GOP senators including Sen. Bob Smith of New Hampshire, did try to use filibusters to scuttle Clinton appeals court nominees Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon. Smith was unapologetic: “Don’t tell me we haven’t filibustered judges and that we don’t have the right to filibuster judges on the floor of the Senate. Of course we do. That is our constitutional role,” Smith declared on March 7, 2000. |
| Quote (Mr Soul @ May 19 2005,19:35) |
| Listen these Republicans are total hypocrits. They did the same thing against Clinton and they were the first to use a fillibuster against a Democratic judicial nominee: |
Is that why it's called the hypocratic oath?
Man, Kerry hit it right on the nail IMHO.
If he would have been this well versed and on in his campaign I'd like to think things would have turned out different.
But, he's doin' some good wherer he is now, defending our constitution against these would be pirates od democracy.
My favorite was when he made the analogy..and this isn't a quote..
"You can't change the rules of the game just because you aren't winning"--how true.
God bless the democrats and even the republicans who are standing against this one.
How's the old saying go..."If it ain't broke don't fix it"
200 years of a working system is proof enough to me that it needs no fixing in this area at least.
keep shinin' guys
jerm
While I agree that these tactics are not right, what should I make of this information…
Wazzup with that?
TG
The senate changes their own rules all the time.
get your facts straight.
It’s not a constitiutional change, its a procedural change.
For the previous 200 yrs, there was no filibuster in this area.
#1 Fact: Even President Clinton’s Judicial Nominees Were Not Filibustered And Never Before Has A Judicial Nominee With Clear Majority Support Been Denied An Up-Or-Down Vote On The Senate Floor By A Filibuster-As to Fortas- circa 1968- we don’t have any idea if there was majority or consensus, therefore a filibuster was not an option.
#2 Fact: Having To Overcome A Filibuster (Or Obtaining 60 Votes) On Judicial Nominations Is Unprecedented And Has Never Been The Confirmation Test For A Nominee – And In The Past, Even Democrats Have Called For Up Or Down Votes
#3 In 1995, Democrats (Bingaman, Boxer, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Lieberman, And Sarbanes) Wanted To End The Filibuster.
#4-Fact: Senate Democrats Have Used The Constitutional Option In The Past.
As Majority Leader, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) Initiated Four Precedent-Setting Procedures That Allowed A Simple Majority To Change Senate Procedures Without Altering The Standing Rules, Thereby Undermining Minority Rights To Filibuster And Use Related Tactics. In 1994, When The Democrats Controlled Both The Senate And The Executive Branch, President Clinton Confirmed A Record Number Of Federal Judges. As Majority Leader in 1979, Senator Byrd Expressly Threatened To Use The Constitutional Option In Order To Leverage Successfully A Time Agreement On A Rules Change Resolution. “Let the Senate vote on amendments, and then vote up or down on the resolution. … If I have to be forced into a corner to try for a majority vote, I will [change the rules] because I am going to do my duty as I see my duty, whether I win or lose.” (Sen. Robert Byrd, Congressional Record, 1979, pp. S144-45) Byrd Led The Creation Of Precedents In 1977, 1979, 1980 And 1987 To Stop Filibusters And Other Delaying Tactics Previously Allowed Under Senate Rules Or Precedents.
The facts speak! It’s not a change, its a chance…back to the way it has been for 200+ yrs.
PB
Awww… come on PB! Don’t ruin the fun. Since when has FACTS had anything to do with debate on here?
TG
ahhhh beauty is in the eye of the beholder unfortunately so are FACTS…Mark Twain: there are lies, #### lies then there are statistics! 
Cheers
Cruiser
TG
It’s a complicated procedural issue made overly political by both sides.
Up/Down has been the Senate trradition.
Confirmation is where the sticky battles have been (insert Clarence Thomas joke here)
Let partisan politics stay in confirmation, not up/down.
Like Mike said…we have all the power…why not use it!
PB???
| Quote (pastorbrian @ May 20 2005,17:54) |
| It's a complicated procedural issue made overly political by both sides. |
In other words, its business as usual for our current governing body.
TG
Pastor, there were no fillibusters b/c the nominees were held up on committee. The fillibuster was always an option here. The threat was all that was needed to keep things in check. Hence the phrase “nuclear option” coined by the repubs.
The rest of your points are ad hominem
In the tradition of the senate, this doesn’t happen.
Up/Down is the standard.
Democrats, in the past have argued the same points about making filibusters go away, now they want to use it.
The fact is that it’s a tool of the Senate that has been there for a long time. If there is no need to cut down the cherry tree there is no need to use an ax, but what if the cherry tree needs cutting and there is no ax? There will be a time in the future that those that see no need for the ax now, possibly because they are currently climbing in the cherry tree, will need that ax in the future. Then what? Sorry. We threw the ax in the river because we didn’t need it last year. Now what?
It’s totally irrelevant that it hasn’t been used much. That fact that is being used now is more evidence at the unreasonable partisanship that has gotten so much worse in the last few years. The filibuster is in place just for these times. To take it away is a move in direction to destroy the balance of power that is a three part necessity of our government. It has worked for 200 years. If you don’t think the underlying issue is a move to breakdown this three part balance just look at WHY some want the filibuster gone. To miss that point is to be blinded by partisanship.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| In the tradition of the senate, this doesn’t happen. Up/Down is the standard. |
This is incorrect. The Republicans blocked many of Clinton’s appointees by using some kind of hold, so they never got out of committee. The Republicans didn’t have to fillibuster because they were in the majority.
The senior/moderate Republicans are opposing the rules changes and for good reason. If it gets changed & the Democrat’s get in charge again, there will be h*ll to pay.
Hey phoo - how are things with your new Governor? I hear they’re still trying to get rid of her
