Skip to main content

The Republicans used committees and a host of since-discarded rules (like one requiring both home state senators to sign off on any judicial nominees) to hold up a large slate of Clinton judicial nominees. It was their preferred method of obstruction, which they gleefully wielded. Jesse Helms alone was a one-man obstruction machine.

And yes, they even used the now-maligned filibuster to try and stop Richard Paez from the 9th Circuit. Sen. Smith, Republican of NH, even said on the floor of the Senate:

But don't pontificate on the floor of the Senate and tell me that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States of America by blocking a judge or filibustering a judge that I don't think deserves to be on the circuit court because I am going to continue to do it at every opportunity I believe a judge should not be on that court. That is my responsibility. That is my advise and consent role, and I intend to exercise it. I don't appreciate being told that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States. I swore to uphold that Constitution, and I am doing it now by standing up and saying what I am saying." (March 7, 2000)
Frist voted with Smith on his filibuster.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 08:30 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

81 comments | Permalink

  •  IOKIYAR (none)
    Obviously.  What a maroon Frist is.

    Andy
    Sarasota

    The answer to "compassionate conservatism" isn't timid progressivism.--Sen. John Corzine (D-New Jersey)

    by AAbshier on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 08:23:27 AM PDT

    •  Cat-Killer Frist is an EVIL moron (none)
      The cat-killer is evil to the bone, imagine just casually catching cats, then dissecting them for pleasure and later pretending to be some sort of "moral" senator!  Frist is Bush's equal in hypocrisy, and that's saying a lot.

      Repugs obstructed Clinton for years, then suddenly have amnesia when just a few of the very worst wing-nut judges are blocked.

      What percent of the US population is represented by the 44 Democratic Senators?  I think it is the majority, so they are trying to protect us from the tyranny of the small states with wing-nut Senators.

      by MD patriot on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 08:28:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  he didn't "catch" the cats... (none)
        it was worse than that. He went to animal shelters in the Boston area (he was at Harvard Med School) and "adopted" the cats, telling shelter staff that he would take them home and take care of them.

        Catching and vivisecting feral cats would be pretty bad, but it would be almost acceptible compared to what he really did.

        Frist is a sick fuck, and I never pass up an opportunity to tell the world just what a sick fuck he is.

        ...Freedom is on the march. Straight to the gas chamber. this is infidelica...

        by snookybeh on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 12:10:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  A Maroon Is A Runaway Slave, Frist is A MORON! n/t (none)
      Runaway slaves who formed their own communities were known as maroons.

      Morons, OTOH, were the subjects of a wave of jokes in the 1950s.

      Current Diary: "Arnold In Wonderland: Backstory on Today's Protests "

      by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 08:40:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bugs (none)
        I believe that he was channelling Bugs Bunny there -- a la "what a marooooooon!"

        Brand Hijacking

        by MRL on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 08:43:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  "maroon (n.)..." (none)
           1. (often "Maroon")
                 a. A fugitive Black slave in the West Indies in the 17th and 18th centuries.
                 b. A descendant of such a slave.

           2. A person who is marooned, as on an island.

        [From French marron, fugitive slave, from American Spanish cimarrón, wild, runaway, perhaps from cima, summit (from runaways' fleeing to the mountains), from Latin cma, sprout. See cyma.]

            3. A dark reddish brown to dark purplish red.

        [French marron, chestnut, from Italian marrone.]

        (v.)

           1.  To put ashore on a deserted island or coast and intentionally abandon.

           2. To abandon or isolate with little hope of ready rescue or escape: The travelers were marooned by the blizzard.

        ...Freedom is on the march. Straight to the gas chamber. this is infidelica...

        by snookybeh on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 12:17:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  cites (none)
    Can anyone dig up some authoratative cites for showing Frist as a filibusterer in this instance?  (is that a word?)

    http://badpolitiks.blogspot.com/

    by badpolitiks on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 08:26:00 AM PDT

    •  Billboard campaign (none)
      I want a DFA campaign like the DeLay billbaord campaign. I'll start the ball rolling...

      On a big billboard in Tennessee: "Frist, the filibusterer: Please call Sen. Frist's office and ask him why he filibustered judicial nominee Richard Paez."

      http://badpolitiks.blogspot.com/

      by badpolitiks on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 08:28:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Frist, the Cat Killer will get more notice (none)
        And more votes against the evil Frist.  Dems need to follow Matt Schweitzer's advice and start talking in normal language that appeals to real people.

        There are 104 million households with cats in the USA, and I will assume that these cat owners don't want to kill them, or have an evil Frist type kill them for his pleasure.  So this is a much better issue to put on billboards.

        Frist is a Cat Killer- do you want to vote for this evil man?  

        include a picture of a dead cat to really get the visual impact, but of course Clear Channel won't be allowing any of these billboards, their space is all taken up with "Dear Leader Bush" propaganda.

        by MD patriot on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 08:54:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  asked and answered (none)
      Roll call on Paez cloture motion.  Paez was later confirmed, 59-39.

      This one isn't exactly a secret, folks.  sample link.

      But it doesn't exactly work so great for our side, because it shows a Clinton nominee who Republicans allowed to have confirmed when only 59 votes were there.

      by Adam B on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 08:34:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  but that's fine (none)
        Allowing a filibuster is not the same as requiring a supermajority.  Historically, some filibusters get broken, others end with the withdrawal of the nominee.

        If the Democrats are allowed to filibuster these 10 nominees, it will be a high-profile event.  The Republicans will likely require them to keep it up for a while and there will be media coverage.  Polls will be taken and whichever side lacks public support will be under a lot of pressure.  Hypothetically, if the public ends up hating the Democratic filibuster, then it might get broken and the nominees would be confirmed with less than 60 votes.

        This is a healthy way for the political process to function.  And what acbonin notes only serves to reinforce the idea that the filibuster is more complicated than a mere 60-vote requirement.

        by Steve M on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 08:45:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  and (none)
          Only 14 Republicans supported this filibuster; the rest ultimately decided that the President had a right to an up-and-down vote on this nominee.

          My overall stance: we're entitled to engage in all sorts of nonsense from 2001-2006 to retaliate for the blocking of Clinton's nominees from 1995-2000.  But this has to stop at some point.

          by Adam B on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 08:57:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree, but (none)
            We are talking about the filibuster of 10 nominees out of over 200 nominated during Bush's first term, after all.  That's not even close to the same ballpark as the dozens and dozens of nominees blocked during the Clinton years.

            The ground rules ought to be rules that we could live with whether we were in the majority or the minority.  If the situations were reversed, and we had a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate, and the Republicans said "We're going to confirm 200 of your nominees, but we're going to block the 10 we consider the most extreme," would I consider that a horrible result?  No, I really wouldn't.

            An important distinction is unlike the Clinton nominees, who were blocked through hidden, procedural maneuvers, these nominees will be filibustered during open debate on the floor of the Senate.  If the public really thinks that the Democrats are being obstructionist by blocking 10 out of over 200 nominees, they can make us pay a political price in 2006.  I doubt that will happen because the position we're taking really isn't so extreme.

            by Steve M on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 09:10:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  that's absolutely all true (none)
              All I'll say in response is what my Republican friends have said: whatever we did from 1995-2000, at least we had a majority.

              by Adam B on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 09:20:34 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  true as well (none)
                It's cowardly, though, to let one or two Senators anonymously block a nomination, using the excuse that "we have a majority anyway."  While the statement is true, the result is that there's no electoral accountability.  Whereas if the majority voted down a judge on a party-line vote, then the vote would be a matter of public record.

                One of the points made by Democratic Senators in connection with the debate on the Paez nomination (I was browsing the Congressional Record this morning) was that during the Clinton years, many judges were put on hold for years at a time, only to end up getting confirmed by a vote of 98-0 or 96-2 when it actually got to the floor.  That says something about the significance of "having a majority anyway."

                by Steve M on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 09:34:18 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  the really nasty thing (none)
                  Is that Republicans want us to apply deferential substantive standards to the merits of their nominees that they refused to apply to ours.

                  And it wasn't all blue slips.  Elena Kagan, a Clinton DC Circuit nominee, never even got a hearing -- but because it's DC, there was no one to blue slip her in the first place.

                  by Adam B on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 09:40:16 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Let's be real (none)
              "We're going to confirm 200 of your nominees, but we're going to block the 10 we consider the most extreme"- yes, we would be up in arms arguing how those 10 aren't really that extreme.

              And, do we really have to recite talking points HERE- this isn't a Sunday morning talk show, we are preaching to the choir.  Let's acknowledge that if the situation was reversed, we would absolutely be screaming, especially since the positions not getting filled are the highest one's in the court system.

              There were two great pieces of wisdom in this thread- 1) that at some point this really has to stop, and 2) the rules should be those that everyone would want, not knowing if they are in the minority or majority (I forget who said it about tax policy, but something to the effect that imagine you are about to be born, and don't know whether you are going to be rich or poor- design a tax system).

              How about this- the filibuster should be safe, rare, and legal.

              A flame rescued from dry wood has no weight in it's luminous flight yet lifts the heavy lid of night.

              by JakeC on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 10:31:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Amen (none)
                (And not just because I offered one of the pieces of wisdom.)

                Maybe it's because I'm a lawyer, but I want a federal judiciary with the best and the brightest of both sides, with Posner and Kosinski and Sunstein and Ackerman instead of middle-of-the-road types like O'Connor, Breyer and Ginsburg.  The playing field needs to be wider.

                #2, fwiw, is John Rawls' "veil of ignorance", and it applies to all policy areas.

                by Adam B on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 11:19:15 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Thanks (none)
                  I always feel so smart when I quote someone, but then have to add I have no idea who I am quoting, or if I am doing so accurately.

                  A flame rescued from dry wood has no weight in it's luminous flight yet lifts the heavy lid of night.

                  by JakeC on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 11:40:52 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes (none)
                    I was explicitly making a Rawlsian argument.

                    I don't dispute that we might be screaming if it was our 10 nominees being held up, but that doesn't mean it would be unreasonable of them to hold up 10 out of 200.  It's an adversarial process, we're supposed to scream.

                    Most Americans feel like the system works best when neither party gets every last thing they want.

                    by Steve M on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 01:10:13 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I just get a little frustrated (none)
                      By the rote that often appears on the site:  Republicans=Bad; Democrats=Good (or at least, less bad)

                      The whole thing is a exercise in hypocricy:

                      Republicans HAVE filibustered nominees in the past

                      Democrats HAVE called filibustering nominees "unConstitutional" in the past and HAVE changed the filibuster rules while they were in power as it suited them.

                      Both parties change their stripes as it accomodates them at the moment.  This is not a Republican or Democratic thing- it's a political thing.

                      Again, I am only talking about for postings on this site.  I don't have a problem with Democrats giving interviews in which they stick to the tired script; for that matter, I don't have a problem with Republicans doing that either, I understand the need to persuade.

                      But, why, on a site that is largely going to be an Amen chorus, do we have to recite the same dogma like it's a friggin religious chant?  It seems to me that acknowledging strengths and weaknesses here would lead to the development of stronger arguments.

                      A flame rescued from dry wood has no weight in it's luminous flight yet lifts the heavy lid of night.

                      by JakeC on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 01:43:46 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

      •  Paez and the Berzon(preceding) votes DO work (none)
        because more than 60 votes shut down debate, Paez 85-14, Berzon 86-13(Frist not part of the nays for Berzon).

        Paez won 59-39, Berzon won 64-34.

           Stephen Breyer in 1980 failed 1 cloture vote to be appointed to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, passed the 2nd vote 68-28, and after the 2 cloture votes won by 80-10.

        It's all here  :  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/12/132226/730

        So what's unprecedented about these nominees passing a 60-vote hurdle?

        Just one thing. This president can not (refuses to) nominate someone who is not odious to fewer than 40 elected Senators.

        by joan reports on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 01:12:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The point is (none)
          That even when the Republicans had the votes to stop Paez from coming to a vote (the two non-votes on confirmation were Repubs), they still let him come to a vote and most of them did not vote to filibuster.

          by Adam B on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 01:32:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The point is (none)
            that not more than 14 found Paez or Berzon odious or super-objectionable.

            Also, 1 day after Paez survived cloture, Jeff Sessions made a motion "to indefinitely postpone" the Paez nomination.  The unusual motion to outmaneuver Paez was defeated 67-31. So Paez twice mustered more than 60 votes to move his nomination along.

            It's not the rules that have changed. It's the president.

            President Clinton, President Reagan, President Carter could forward nominees that were not vigorously, strenuously opposed by 40+ senators.

            Why can't this president nominate appeals judges who do not offend so many constituencies. He won't; that is unprecedented.

            The link in my comment above contains all references to 60-vote hurdles; plenty of precedent, judicial and executive appointees both.

            by joan reports on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:36:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  but that begs the question (none)
              Are all these nominees that odious, or are we just trying to make a point?  For some of them, clearly, yes.  Others . . . I'm not so sure that we wouldn't want someone on our side with the same credentials confirmed.

              by Adam B on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:55:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well (none)
                I haven't looked into it that much. Do you have the names of a few that you think are tolerable ??

                Who are they? I can look them up and see if I agree with you on that.

                I assume if the Dems rejected them in the last session of Congress, it was because they were ones who could bring the courts in a dangerous direction. Or they were completely unforthcoming (deceptive) in their testimony on their views.

                Any nominees to the DC Circuit are just about the most important, because of that court's special jurisdiction on regulatory (+ other) issues and because it is frequently a feeder of judges to the Supreme Court when a vacancy appears. I believed the confirmation of John Roberts to the DC Circuit should not have been allowed by the Dems.

                        Here's an argument why Griffith should not be allowed to be confirmed.
                  http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=18100

                I don't believe the Dems are just trying to 'make a point.'

                by joan reports on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 06:13:41 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  Oy. (none)
    "Pot, this is kettle.  Have you two met?"

    With any luck, we should have the entire 20th century repealed by 2008

    by aschupanitz on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 08:26:52 AM PDT

  •  Another Frist-Flop (none)
    shouldn't surprise anyone.

    by Gin on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 08:27:30 AM PDT

  •  asdf (none)
    Democrats should be repeating this LIKE A BROKEN RECORD.

    "Republicans blocked far more of Clinton's nominees and found it perfectly fair to do so...Republicans blocked far more of Clinton's nominees and found it perfectly fair to do so...Republicans blocked..."

    (and on that note, did anyone else think the DNC's broken-record "our economy is steady and strong" ad was one of the very best of the campaign?)

    When I am King, you will be first against the wall.

    by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 08:29:22 AM PDT

  •  So this tells us what? (none)
    That Republicans are hypocrites?

    There's a shocker.

    by asdfasdf on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 08:29:54 AM PDT

    •  not a monopoly (none)
      So this tells us what? That Republicans are hypocrites?

      I wonder who "pontificated on the floor of the Senate" and told Frist that he was "violating the Constitution of the United States of America by blocking a judge or filibustering a judge".  Was it a Dem who is now oh-so-bravely defending the filibuster?

      (I happen to think the filibuster is a good thing now and will be a good thing if and when the positions are again reversed.  I also happen to think that Repubs -- especially the current batch -- aren't just hypocritical but have taken it to new heights.  But they don't have a monopoly on hypocracy.)

      Proud member of the reality-based minority

      by Bearpaw on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 09:35:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Blog Category (none)
    Should be "Republican Hypocrisy"

    Seriously. Or Maybe "Republican" is the same thing.

    by Steve G on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 08:31:36 AM PDT

  •  he was one (3.85)
    of only 14 senators to vote against cloture.

    More:

    Frist was directly confronted with this vote by Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation (11/21/04). Schieffer said "Senator, a group called The American Progress Action Fund sent me a question to ask you. And here's what it says: 'Senator Frist, if you oppose the use of the filibuster for judicial nominations, why did you vote to filibuster Judge Richard Paez when President Clinton nominated him to the 9th Circuit?'" [3] Frist replied "Filibuster, cloture, it gets confusing--as a scheduling or to get more information is legitimate. But no to kill nominees."

    But American Progress has obtained a document that proves Frist was not, as he suggested, voting to filibuster Paez for scheduling purposes or to get more information. He voted to filibuster Paez for the very reason he said was illegitimate - to block Paez's nomination indefinitely.

    On March 9, 2000, Former Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) issued a press release describing the intent of the Paez filibuster vote the day before. The release says Senator Smith "built a coalition of several moderate and conservative Senators in an effort to block" Paez's nomination. [4] Frist was a part of that coalition. Smith did not organize the filibuster to get more information on Paez (after all his nomination had been pending for four years). He organized the filibuster because he had already decided Paez was "out of the mainstream of political though and...should [not] be on the court" [Click here to read Smith's press release].

    by thirdparty on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 08:33:26 AM PDT

    •  Target the 9 still in office (none)
      Besides Frist, eight other Republican senators who supported the filibuster are still in the Senate:

      Wayne Allard (CO)
      Sam Brownback (KS)
      Jim Bunning (KY)
      Larry Craig (ID)
      Mike DeWine (OH)
      Mike Enzi (WY)
      James Inhofe (OK)
      Richard Shelby (AL)

      It'd be nice if a bunch of their constituents reminded them of that vote...y'know, just in case they've forgotten their previous opinions about the constitutionality of judicial filibusters.

      "The past is never dead. It's not even past." -- William Faulkner

      by GreenCA on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 11:19:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Again, Hypocrisy Is A Moral Principle (none)
    The GOP believes in double standards as a matter of principle. This is how you think when God's on your side. Anything goes. Lying for God? No problem! Killing for God?  Haven't you heard of the Crusades?  Torturing for God?  "No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!"  

    This is precisely the sort of thing that liberalism ala John Locke was intended to escape from. It is the foundation of our civil, secular government.

    We need to move on from pointing out specific instances and being outraged by them to simply noting them as examples of a much broader pattern and then asking the American people, "Which do you believe in?  Two sets of rules or one?"

    Current Diary: "Arnold In Wonderland: Backstory on Today's Protests "

    by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 08:36:15 AM PDT

  •  Buzz Words (4.00)
    Someone on DKOS yesterday said we should use buzz words, as the GOP does.

    On this, and other forms of hypocrisy, why dont we use: TWO-FACED (the word "hypocrite" sounds whiny)

    On use of 9/11 and Terry Schiavo for political purposes, why don't we use:

    CHEAP
    TAWDRY

    On misuse of taxpayer funds, and blowing large surpluses, why don't we use:

    CANT TRUST 'EM ANYMORE.
    NOT YOUR DADDY'S REPUBLICAN PARTY ANY MORE

    WE NEED TO GET OUR BUZZ WORDS DOWN, AND WE NEED TO GET THEM OUT, AND GET THEM OUT REPEATEDLY

    Jon Frank
    Birmingham MI

    by jfrankesq on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 08:36:30 AM PDT

  •  Corporate Hack Media (4.00)
    Puzzling (but not surprising) that the Corporate Hack Media can't dig up these matters of public record on their own instead of pretendign that this fight is brand new and the Democrats are the bad guys.

    Brand Hijacking

    by MRL on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 08:42:43 AM PDT

  •  They're cutting of their nose (none)
    These guys don't get it. They live for the now and can't even perceive what will happen once they return to the minority.

    I talk about it on Centrisity and call it Going Nuclear!

    Flash
    Centrisity

    by anokaflash on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 09:01:08 AM PDT

    •  Planning (none)
      They systematically reject the idea of planning for the worst, because that's "negative" and shows weakness.  So they will not even entertain the possibility that they will ever be out of power.  It's a kind of magical thinking.

      by FlipYrWhig on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 09:14:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oooo Magical (none)
        They must eat Lucky Charms for breakfast, too, then! laughing

        Seriously, tho. When I talk off the record to these types of folks. They have a sincere concern about what may happen 'down the road'

        On Saturday's NARN broadcast (A Right Wing Blogger show on the local (MN) Hugh Hewitt affiliate) I could tell that a couple of the guys were very luke warm on the issue. INCLUDING PowerLiner John Hinderocker.

        Either the support is waning from constituent responses, or they actually have, if even a glimpse, of what would happen 'IF'

        Flash

        by anokaflash on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 09:45:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Pocket filibuster (none)
    was the method most used against Clinton nominees.

    please use this term .. often!

    by mollyd on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 09:01:47 AM PDT

  •  Yeah but... (none)
    All together now everybody...

    "9/11 CHANGED EVERYTHING!"

    Ok, very good, next time on-key...

    by steppenwulf on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 09:12:40 AM PDT

  •  Cheney quotes in Seattle Times (3.50)
    "I would support an effort to restore the constitutional practices that existed before the Democrats started using the filibuster for judicial appointments," Cheney said aboard Air Force Two as the Senate stands on the brink of a partisan showdown on the issue...

    Democrats are the ones who altered the traditional practice," he said. "It's important that that precedent not be allowed to stand."

    April 16

    Apparently he doesn't remember Abe Fortas:

    Fortas was already an associate justice, and President Lyndon B. Johnson wanted him to take the reins when Chief Justice Earl Warren retired. Republicans balked, hoping they would have the White House soon and that a Republican president could name Warren's successor.

    Many conservative Democrats in the Senate were also opposed, primarily Southerners who could tolerate the liberal Fortas on the high court but did not want him to be chief justice. An effort to cut off debate and proceed to a vote on the nomination failed to receive a majority, let alone the two-thirds vote then required for cloture (an end to debate). The majority required for cloture has since been reduced to three-fifths.

    NPR Filibuster Primer

    Haven't seen Cheney's quotes widely reported, although I generally read the news as opposed to watching...has this been reported elsewhere?  If so, has his assertion that the use is unprecedented for judicial nominees been challenged?

    Comments referring only to ratings are a nuisance. Noise. They waste time and bandwidth. We're all dumber for having read them.

    by willowby on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 09:26:58 AM PDT

    •  Great idea (none)
      Let's point out that the rules for filibustering have been changed it the past.

      Hopefully, no one looks to hard at how that happened to occur.

      A flame rescued from dry wood has no weight in it's luminous flight yet lifts the heavy lid of night.

      by JakeC on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 10:36:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  hmm... (none)
        The Fortas nomination was in '68, and the new rule went into effect in '75.  

        Probably part and parcel of the same unease about its use as a tool to thwart civil rights generally, but it doesn't seem to have arisen from the nomination per se.

        I dunno...clearly the filibuster can be used for good and ill.  The fact that there were some Democrats who used it to block a judicial nominee doesn't change the fact that Republicans initiated it in that case.

        Guess my main point was that Cheney's a liar.

         

        Comments referring only to ratings are a nuisance. Noise. They waste time and bandwidth. We're all dumber for having read them.

        by willowby on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 11:40:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  wow, Cheney's a liar... (none)
          alert the media.

          ...Freedom is on the march. Straight to the gas chamber. this is infidelica...

          by snookybeh on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 12:07:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  yeah I thought that was kind of the point (none)
            since the reporter in the Seattle Times didn't question the Vice President's assertion that filibusters hadn't been used against a judicial nominee.  That seemed worth noting, since it's part of their constitutional argument.

            And I thought this was the right place to note it...you know, on a diary about Frist's similar false claims.  If the subject matter doesn't interest you, you're not obliged to read it.

            Or you might consider it a call to arms.  If you hear more Republican lies that the use of filibuster is "unprecedented", by all means alert the media.  It's rather important they get this stuff right.

            I thought that was the point of all this discussion in the first place.

            Comments referring only to ratings are a nuisance. Noise. They waste time and bandwidth. We're all dumber for having read them.

            by willowby on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:00:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I was just pointing out (none)
              The last line from the quote in the text box of your initial post, that the cloture vote was subsequently changed from 2/3 to 3/5.

              Because, when a person sees that, they might wonder then why there is so much fuss over the Republicans looking to change it again;

              Especially since it was a DEMOCRATIC Senate that changed the rules in 1975.

              A flame rescued from dry wood has no weight in it's luminous flight yet lifts the heavy lid of night.

              by JakeC on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:31:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  gotcha, but (none)
                my point wasn't to "notify the presses" there was a cloture rule change in '75.  

                It was that the use of filibusters in judicial nominees is not a "radical and unprecedented" interference with the constitutional duty to Advise and Consent.

                Which is the basis of Frist's (and now Cheney's) argument, isn't it?

                Jesus...all I really wanted to know was whether anyone other than the fucking Seattle Times picked up Cheney's quote.

                Comments referring only to ratings are a nuisance. Noise. They waste time and bandwidth. We're all dumber for having read them.

                by willowby on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 03:25:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  apology... (none)
                  in the event that you come back and read this, I didn't intend to be snarky towards you, I was just making rhetorical snark towards the perpetual dishonesty of Cheney. Sorry.

                  ...Freedom is on the march. Straight to the gas chamber. this is infidelica...

                  by snookybeh on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 07:19:27 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  my bad (none)
                    I was too quick to take offense...usually I have thicker skin.  Thanks for the reply, and back atcha.

                    It's a bit of a shark tank around here lately, eh? :)

                    Comments referring only to ratings are a nuisance. Noise. They waste time and bandwidth. We're all dumber for having read them.

                    by willowby on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 08:47:38 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

  •  None of this matters (none)
    None of this matters because the MSM refuse to say anything about it or question Republicans about it.  The MSM needs to ask pointed specific, questions about the tactics used during Clintons time in office to these Senators when they have them on Meet the Press or Face the Nation.  We are hearing maybe one generic question after another and nothing with meat.  

    by edalex on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 12:04:47 PM PDT

    •  excuse me? (none)
      Did you even read the link I posted above where CBS News reported recently on this very item?

      Don't blame the MSM when it isn't warranted.

      by Adam B on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 12:06:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  OK, read it, still agree with my post (none)
        I read your post and still do not see where anyone has been asked about it.  Instead of writing an article on it, how about getting some current quotes about the difference in what they did and what they are trying to get around now.  We all know what happened during the Clinton years, now lets here what the Republicans have to say about it present day.

        by edalex on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 12:18:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  So, I Hear Frist Wants To Adopt the Constitution (none)
    Here Kitty.  Here Kitty.  This won't hurt a bit.

    by Into The Woods on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 12:38:37 PM PDT

  •  Frist two-faced... (none)
    So here's evidence that Frist took part in the EXACT same power play (a filibuster on a judicial nominee) he's condemning now -- yet another example of Republicans changing the rules when they don't like the result... Further, it's been reported that the Republicans filibustered one of Lyndon Johnson's nominees for Chief Justice way back**...

    But even so, I'm baffled as to why it's so important (as the Repubs say) to make a distinction between floor filibusters and blocks in committee. The latter was the preferred Republican method in the 90's, when at least 60 Clinton nominees were denied even a HEARING in front of the judiciary committee...If the "tyranny of the minority" is what's at stake here (as Frist maintains), how is a mere committee not WORSE than 44 senate votes (assuming all Dems favor a filibuster on some judge)?!?!?  Truthfully, it's even worse than that, because (imo) it's reasonable in several cases to say that the Clinton blocks were instigated by a minority of just ONE (Jesse Helms)... Am I missing something? ... It's like the friggin' twilight zone here: even by their own logic, the Republicans are a mess...

    And BTW, Chief Justice Rehnquist harshly criticized the Republican Senate for leaving open so many federal seats in the 90's.. He said it was dangerous and irresponsible... But alas, the Republicans get a pass here as well in the media...

    **Santorum was on Imus this morning repeating a common Republican talking point, claiming that use of the filibuster on judges is "unprecedented", and that "it's never happened" (not exact quotes)...not sure why the Repubs are allowed to get away with that...  I think there's a good chance RS is going down in PA, BTW...

    Hank

    by Hkingsley on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 01:20:09 PM PDT

  •  same old, same old... (none)
    Do as we say and not as we do.

    George Bush vacations in Texas; he LIVES in Denial.

    by Joon on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 03:27:13 PM PDT

  •  Straight from the Congressional Record (none)
    Congressional Record 106th Congress (1999-2000)

    Senator Smith's remarks are on page S1212.  Search for S1212.  The second entry, entitled NOMINATIONS OF RICHARD A. PAEZ AND MARSHA L. BERZON--Continued, dated March 7, 2000.  The link will get you an html page of the text.  In that page is a link to a PDF.

    I intend to print it out and mail it to my Senators (Inhofe and Coburn) along with my thoughts on the matter. I rather doubt my Senators really care what I think, but they won't be able to pretend they don't know.

    There's a cancer growing on the Republican party.

    by ignorant bystander on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 04:08:38 PM PDT

  •  How is this possible? (none)
    The blatant in-your-face hypocrisy of Frist.  This man cannot be trusted.

    "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes . . . or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams

    by TaleWgnDg on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 08:11:09 PM PDT

    •  Hey KOS... (none)
      ...thanks for your answer to a question that I had. So yes, both parties have used the filibuster to block federal judges.

      However, your example is one judge only, and at the district court level. The current situation is about ten judges, every single one nominated in five years' time by GWB to the much more powerful Federal Court of Appeals. In other words, none of Bush's appellate court nominees have been approved. Compare this to under Clinton, when appellate judges were routinely approved by the full Senate. What seems to be different this time around is the determination by Dems to resist the President remaking the higher echelons of the federal judiciary, and so far, that strategy has proven remarkably successful.

      Here's another question:

      Have Republican Senators ever used the filibuster to block nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals or U.S. Supreme Court?

      by didsbury08 on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 12:48:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not sure where your facts come from... (none)
        you said: In other words, none of Bush's appellate court nominees have been approved.

        from the Wash post: "During Bush's first term, Democrats did not allow a vote on 10 of the 52 appointments he made to fill vacancies on federal appeals courts."

        ...seems to me this says 42 judges HAVE been appointed to Appeals courts...

        you said: Compare this to under Clinton, when appellate judges were routinely approved by the full Senate.

        ...though I don't have a specific number, several news sources have reported that Republicans blocked nearly half of Clinton's appeals court nominees in the late 90's...half doesn't sound like "routinely approved", especially since with W the numbers seem to be well under half getting blocked now...

        Hank

        by Hkingsley on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 08:46:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Fortas was going to be Chief Justice... (none)
        you said: Have Republican Senators ever used the filibuster to block nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals or U.S. Supreme Court?

        ... see the post about Abe Fortas...and this story from the Wash post:

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45149-2005Mar17.html

        by Hkingsley on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 08:49:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  By the way (none)
        you said: However, your example is one judge only, and at the district court level.

        What judge is this? The Paez filibuster was for a 9th Circuit Court of APPEALS vacancy... unless you're referring to something else...

        Hank

        by Hkingsley on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 09:10:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Yeah, let's target the four of them for a primary (none)
    The traitors-  Schumer, Feinstein, Durbin, and Kohl.

    A flame rescued from dry wood has no weight in it's luminous flight yet lifts the heavy lid of night.

    by JakeC on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 07:26:10 AM PDT

    •  Sorry (none)
      Comment was supposed to be a reply, way up thread-in context, I can assure you, it makes perfect sense.

      A flame rescued from dry wood has no weight in it's luminous flight yet lifts the heavy lid of night.

      by JakeC on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 07:29:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Permalink

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site