Skip to main content

View Diary: Republican obstruction, White House timidity, and a broken government (223 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The Democrats did when they (8+ / 0-)

    were slow-walking Bush's judiciary appointees.  Bush went to the public and suddenly the Democrats folded and started to move the process along.

    It helped to put the Democrats in a defensive position when John Roberts was nominated to SCOTUS, too.  By that time, they were afraid to challenge Bush nominees and honestly really didn't do their due diligence in the process of the Robert's nomination.  In fact, they fell all over themselves to praise him at every opportunity.

    •  I dont know about that (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan, Tony Situ

      They blocked Estrada to the point he withdrew. Even after the Gang of 14, they blocked nominees.

      GOP had a 55-45 majority in the Senate, so Roberts was going to be confirmed anyway. Same with Sotomayor and Kagan being confirmed in a Dem controlled Senate.

      I think where you could blame Obama is not going Senate get rid of the filibuster.

      But I dont know that making it a public issue helps. And it certainly doesnt work with executive nominations like assistant secretaries or agency chairs.

      •  How about a filibuster? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        3goldens, JVolvo

        The Democrats could have filibustered Roberts.  But that wouldn't have been playing nice and we all see how this has worked out.  

        It's not like the GOP is the only party who can filibuster.  

        •  Except the GOP didnt filibuster (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tony Situ, Deep Texan

          Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan or Sotomayor.

          And how would it have worked out? Say Roberts withdrew. With a GOP Senate, Bush would have put a nominee just as conservative if not more so.

          •  I have no idea (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I have no idea how it would have worked out and neither does anyone else.  

          •  You know, sometimes you put nominees (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            through the paces so as to expose exactly who they are to the public - not as a way of necessarily trying to scuttle the nomination.  The American public actually does deserve to be informed about people who are going to become the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  That is part and parcel of why the process exists in the first place.  Journalists and politicians who claim that Senate consent is some sort of ridiculous waste of time have no understanding of or respect for the concept of what a free and open democratic process is supposed to be.  Remember that the Founding Fathers designed our system in reaction to a monarchy where edicts were the standing process - whatever the king said was what was done - didn't matter what the subjects of the king or colonists thought about the edicts - or the judges that were appointed.

            The Democrats were so cowed by the time Roberts came along that they couldn't even manage to do their basic duty in showing America what they were getting.

      •  Dude the Democrats are now (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        3goldens, JVolvo

        in the majority in the Senate - excuses that the GOP held a majority at any point during Bush's term given what we are seeing right now don't hold water.

        And the Democrats did control the Senate during portions of Bush's tenure and during one of those times, the Democrats were holding up judicial appointments and Bush called them out on it.  They folded like cheap suits.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site