Daily Kos

The 'Up or Down Vote' talking point is dead

by kos

Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 02:03:21 PM PDT

Senate Democrats have helpfully emailed around the list below of GOP passion for the "up or down vote". Too bad the Miers fiasco has taken away that talking point from their repertoire.

They're going to need new material if Bush decides to try and make nice with his base by nominating a genuine winger.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison

"They have gotten away with obstructing by exploiting the filibuster and denying Justice Owen a direct vote. Now, unfortunately, we must take action to ensure President Bush's nominees are getting the up-or-down vote they deserve." (4/21/05 statement)

Sen. Orrin Hatch

"...I think we should bind both Democrats and Republicans that presidential nominees for the judiciary deserve an up-and-down vote once they reach the floor..." (Orrin Hatch discusses debate in Senate..., NPR, 5/19/05)

Sen. Jon Kyl

"All we seek is a return to 214 years of tradition in allowing presidential nominees the courtesy of an up-or-down vote." (Kyl Calls for `Up or Down' Vote on Judicial Nominees,' Capitol Hill Press Releases, 5/18/05)

Sen. Rick Santorum

"The time has come for the Senate to reestablish that tradition, to end these destructive judicial filibusters and to give all judicial nominees the up-or-down vote they deserve." (Should the Senate end Filibusters When Considering Judicial Appointments, Duluth News Tribune, 4/25/05)

Sen. Trent Lott

"...I felt they deserved up-or-down votes. It was not a popular action with my colleagues, but I didn't think it was right to filibuster judicial nominees then. And it's not right now." (Lott Sets the Record Straight on Judicial Confirmation Issue, 4/26/05)

Sen. John Cornyn

"And we need to get a fresh start. And that means, I believe, an up-or-down vote for all presidents' nominees whether they be Republican or Democrat." (U.S. Senator John Cornyn Holds a News Conference on Judicial Nominees, CQ Transcriptions, 5/9/05)

Sen. Mitch McConnell

"Let's get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president's nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who's in control of the Senate. That's the way we need to operate." (Senators Durbin & McConnell Discuss Issues Facing the Senate, CNN, 5/22/05)

Sen. Jeff Sessions

"This past election in large part hinged, as George Allen said, on a debate over the judiciary and whether or not obstruction was justified. I think the American people sent a clear message and I believe it's time for this Senate to make sure that judges get an up-or-down vote." (U.S. Sen. Allen & Other Senate Republicans Hold a Media Availability on the Possibility of a Democrat Filibuster, CQ Transcriptions, 3/15/05)

Sen. Richard Burr

"But denying these patriotic Americans, of both parties, who seek to serve this country an up-or-down vote is simply not fair, and it certainly was not the intention of our Founding Fathers when they designed and created this very institution." (Sen. Burr Speaks Out on Judicial Nominations, 4/20/05)

Sen. Sam Brownback

"All of the president's nominees-both now and in the future-deserve a fair up or down vote, regardless of whether some members of the Senate feel they can be filibustered based on whatever they define to be extraordinary circumstances." (Sen. Brownback Issues Statement on Judicial Nominees, 5/24/05)

Sen. John Thune

"However, I still believe that all judicial nominees with majority support deserve the fairness of an up or down vote on the Senate floor... Something is broken when you can't get a fair up or down vote, not because of qualifications or character, but because of politics." (Senators Find Good in Filibuster Agreement, AP, 5/24/05)

Sen. George Allen

"They want Senators to do their jobs and hold a straight up-or-down vote on nominees based on their qualifications, not the baseless negative rhetoric of the left...In summation, Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and all of the President's nominees, deserve a fair up-or-down vote." (U.S. Senator George Allen Deliver Remarks on the Senate Floor on Judicial Nominations, CQ Transcriptions, 5/18/05)

Sen. Chuck Hagel

"I am disappointed that the agreement reached by 14 senators does not guarantee up-or-down votes on all of the president's nominees...That is a basic principle that should have anchored any agreement." (Hagel Calls Senators' Pact Inadequate, Omaha World-Herald, 5/25/05)          

Sen. Pete Domenici

"Since the day I came to the U.S. Senate in 1973, I have believed strongly that every nominee deserves an up or down vote. That is why over all these years, I have never once voted to filibuster any nominee, even the ones that I ended up opposing. I am truly saddened that the Senate has reached this point. We should resume our long-standing tradition of giving judicial nominees who reach the floor an up or down vote." (Sen. Domenici Laments Continued Judicial Filibusters, 5/19/05)

Sen. Charles Grassley

"The current obstruction led by Senate Democratic leaders threatens that balance. Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown deserve an up or down vote. It's high time to make sure all judges receive a fair up or down vote on the Senate floor." (Grassley: Give Judges a Fair Up or Down Vote, CQ, 5/23/05)

Sen. Wayne Allard

"I'd made my position clear. I wanted to have an up- or-down vote on the judges." (Freshman Salazar Stands with his Seniors, The Denver Post, 5/24/05)

Sens. Larry Craig and Mike Crapo

"We are pleased that three of the President's judicial nominees will receive fair up-or-down votes - it is about time. However, we continue to stress that the Constitution requires the Senate to hold up-or-down votes on all nominees. We will continue to work to ensure that is the case." (Craig, Crapo React to Judicial Nominees Deal, 5/25/05)

Sen. Ted Stevens

"I may not have always agreed with a judicial nominee pick, but I've never voted against cloture on a judicial nomination. There have been some petitions. And I've always agreed that we should allow an up-or-down vote on judicial nominations on the Senate floor. These nominees deserve our vote." (Press Conference on Judges, Federal News Service, 5/19/05)

Sen. Jim DeMint

"My goal is to confirm highly qualified judges by ensuring timely up-or-down votes for all nominees... Every nominee, no matter if the President is Democrat or Republican, deserves an up-or-down vote," (Sens. DeMint, Freshman GOP Call for end to Judicial Filibusters, 4/20/05)

Sen. Elizabeth Dole

"I think that it's very important that we reinstate the tradition, the Senate tradition, of 220 years, throughout the entire history of the United States. We've had a system that worked, that, when a nominee on the floor has a clear majority of the senators in favor, that they're going to get that up-or-down vote." (Interview with Senator Elizabeth Dole, The Big Story with John Gibson, 4/21/05)

  • ::

Tags: Supreme Court (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 73 comments

  •  Uh... an up-or-down vote... (4.00 / 2)

    for every nominee who wants one?

    Howzzat?

    by Kagro X on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 02:02:25 PM PDT

  •  I think Frist said it once also. (none / 0)

    The prophet is a fool, the spiritual man is mad; For the multitude of thy iniquity, and the great hatred...

    by Tirge Caps on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 02:03:16 PM PDT

    •  Both of my home state senators --- (none / 0)

      Burr and Dole, that is --- called for an up-and-down vote. Sounds like their own party cheated them.

      I was a Republican until they lost their minds, The word 'conservative' means 'discriminatory,' ... It's a form of political discrimination. --- Charles Barkley

      by Kimball Cross on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 02:06:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Anybody got a petard? (none / 1)

    "For 'tis the sport to have the enginer / Hoist with his owne
    petar" -- Shakespeare, Hamlet III iv.  "Hoist" was in Shakespeare's
    time the past participles of a verb "to hoise", which meant what "to
    hoist" does now:  to lift.  A petard (see under "peter out" for the
    etymology) was an explosive charge detonated by a slowly burning
    fuse.  If the petard went off prematurely, then the sapper (military
    engineer; Shakespeare's "enginer") who planted it would be hurled
    into the air by the explosion.  (Compare "up" in "to blow up".)  A
    modern rendition might be:  "It's fun to see the engineer blown up
    with his own bomb."

    Attribution

    The reason people don't learn from the past, is because the past was a repetitious lie to begin with. Mike Hastie U.S. Army Medic Vietnam 1970-71

    by BOHICA on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 02:05:07 PM PDT

  •  200 years of tradition (none / 0)

    down the drain, I guess. Because of the right-wing agenda, no less.

    Naturally, Megatron is firm advocate of the Second Amendment.

    by Omen on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 02:05:54 PM PDT

  •  The problem (none / 0)

    with some of those is that they are talking about someone with majority support.

    I think our better fight is for documents regarding the nom. From what I've read it was Republicans that were demanding them.

    by Mike S on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 02:07:21 PM PDT

  •  Shame on you, Kos... (none / 1)

    Using their own words againt them like that. Its almost as if you expect intellectual honest and integrity from our elected officials.

    Shame on all of us that expect the same. smile </sarcasm>

    Ask Three Poeple a Day: What Noble Cause?

    by Random Excess on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 02:07:46 PM PDT

  •  It's simple (none / 0)

    an "up or down vote", as long as the person is a wingnut.

    If not a wingnut, principle does not apply.

    Nice list. Hypocrisy is fun.

    Democrats will fight for a Renewed Deal with the American people.

    by Hoyapaul on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 02:08:50 PM PDT

  •  Hypocrisy (none / 0)

    From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.  2000.

    SYLLABICATION:    hy·poc·ri·sy
    PRONUNCIATION:      h-pkr-s
    NOUN:    Inflected forms: pl. hy·poc·ri·sies
    1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness. 2. An act or instance of such falseness.
    ETYMOLOGY:    Middle English ipocrisie, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, play-acting, pretense, from Greek hupokrisis, from hupokrnesthai, to play a part, pretend : hupo-, hypo- + krnesthai, to explain, middle voice of krnein, to decide, judge; see krei- in Appendix I.
     

    A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma

    by JekyllnHyde on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 02:09:24 PM PDT

  •  '200 years' (4.00 / 2)

    Kyl, Santorum, McConnell and Dole talk about the historical precedent of giving Presidential nominees a vote.

    That is a bald-faced lie.

    In the 19th century, it was much more common for the Senate to simply not consider nominations.

    by Elwood Dowd on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 02:13:42 PM PDT

    •  Not just any vote! (none / 0)

      The direction of the vote is crucial. It must be a vertical vote. Anything but is sufficient to get you labeled as a traitor of your own GOP.

      Find me one of the quoted luminaries who forgot to emphasise the verticality of the vote. You can't. Not one of them mentioned a "vote", "pro or contra", "yes or no", "yays or nays", "confirm or deny"... no sir, none of that. It's everyone's "up or down" vote, and any other direction (or omission of direction!) is punishable by the Talking Points Act.

      So if any of you think that they sound like blabbering idiots because they repeat the same phrase using the same words in the same order - that only means they are respecting The Talking Points Act, just like any law-abiding citizen should. And you should at least respect that.

      If there is freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows - "1984"

      by DrFairday on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 08:42:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Had she wanted it (none / 0)

    she could have gotten it.

    Can that be said for those filibustered by the Democrats?

    by DennisBoz on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 02:14:05 PM PDT

    •  Or those bottled up in committee by Hatch? (none / 0)

      by Elwood Dowd on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 02:24:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bush and Cheney and Card (none / 0)

      had a meeting after Frist had spoken to Card.  At that meeting they decided that she should withdraw her name.

      She ostensibly withdrew her name.  But, in reality, she was pushed out because of pressure from the Right.  Particularly over the recently revealed 1993 speech.

      The US is now a corporatist-fascist society where Blackwater rules. I'm neither a christian, nor a capitalist, so where do I fit in?

      by HillaryGuy on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 05:29:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Voting is for losers (none / 0)

    Remember, we voted Gore in 2000, and Bush became President.  We wanted up or down votes on Clinton nominees, which didn't happen. Up or down votes only applies to right-wing Republicans in this fantasyland we call America today.

    "In 10 years, I've never seen the press lay a glove on him." Chris Matthews on John McSame

    by wolverinethad on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 02:15:23 PM PDT

  •  Let's not forget (none / 0)

    ...their blogging enablers.

    by nitpicker on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 02:15:54 PM PDT

  •  aye, matey... (none / 1)

    hoisted by their own petard... Arrrrrrrrrr...

    visit my blog: And, yes, I DO take it personally

    by profmarcus on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 02:16:23 PM PDT

  •  You're allowing logic to cloud your thinking. (4.00 / 2)

    These folks clearly stated an "up or down vote" is warranted once they reach committee. If special interests and partisan hacks can influence the nominee from even getting that far...no harm/no foul.

    It's not a war, it's an occupation

    by PRESSmUP on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 02:17:08 PM PDT

  •  A bold non sequitur (4.00 / 6)

    The nomination was withdrawn, not filibustered.  Two very different things.  There's no hypocrisy or double-speak involved.  If we use this argument we're going to look like fools.

    Hell, scratch that.  We'll BE fools if we use this argument.  

    You can laugh/A spineless laugh/We hope your rules and wisdom choke you - Radiohead

    by strannix on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 02:18:21 PM PDT

    •  100% (none / 0)

      agreed

      by bsedrish on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 02:23:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  not at all (none / 0)

      If the nomination had gone forward adn the Dems had supported (which would have been a sly move) the american taliban would have been forced to filibuster.

      Sponge Bob, Mandrake, Cartoons. That's how your hard-core islamahomocommienazis work.

      by Benito on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 02:23:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yep... (none / 0)

      I mean, were Clinton's nominations of Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood as AG entitled to up or down votes after their withdrawal?  Of course not.  It would be silly to require a vote once someone has effectively said "I will not serve even if confirmed."

      There are stellar examples of Republican hypocrisy on the "up or down!" point (namely, their ridiculous antics with many of Clinton's judicial nominees), but this doesn't seem to be one of them to me.

      by profmatt on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 02:25:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Huh ? she didn't even get a hearing, unlike Bork (none / 0)

      She was forced to fall on her sword.

      by Hartley on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 03:18:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  utter nonsense (none / 0)

      The Repugs declared Miers both unqualified and insufficiently fascist before she even got a hearing.  A failure to slaughter them over their hypocritical rhetoric would be both cowardly and incompetent.

      by jqb on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 03:34:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I wish you luck (none / 1)

        You'll need it with an argument as irrelevant and illogical as this one.

        But I'll say it once more, in the hopes that you'll listen - Miers is no longer a candidate because she withdrew her nomination.  Not because of what the any Senators did or did not do.

        If you have statements by Senators calling for a filibuster that have previously decried filibusters, you have a point against those individual Senators.  

        But otherwise, you can say what you want, but please realize the utter stupidity of what you're saying.  If you lambast the GOP for criticizing Miers, you cede any ground to criticize the next nominee.  You can't rail against someone for doing something that you'll damn well want to do next time.  Don't box yourself in so easily.

        You can laugh/A spineless laugh/We hope your rules and wisdom choke you - Radiohead

        by strannix on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 03:57:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  This is fine by me. (none / 0)

    If that talking point is dead in the water, then it won't be so outrageous for the Democrats to threaten to filibuster the next appointee, who is likely to be a frothing at the mouth conservative lunatic, like Janice Rogers Brown. If an up-or-down vote is no longer required, that's only a good thing.

    The Reign of Error

    by greebs on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 02:20:55 PM PDT

  •  Did Reid Engineer this? (none / 0)

    i.e. Suggest Meirs knowing the talibaptists would oppose, thus splitting the GOP, and thereby removing GOP justification to eliminate the judicial filibuster?

    If so...Reid is one bad ass Senator. If losing Daschle was the price we paid to get Reid and this is his doing, it's a price well-paid.

    Sponge Bob, Mandrake, Cartoons. That's how your hard-core islamahomocommienazis work.

    by Benito on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 02:22:05 PM PDT

  •  I hope the Dems (none / 0)

    wrap that "Up or Down" bullshit around the neck of every wingnut who spouted it.

    by sendel42 on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 02:24:42 PM PDT

    •  UP or Down B.S. (none / 1)

      Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison R-TX, a member of the Republican leadership said on MSNBC that she fully supported the Miers nomination and pronounced the hapless White House Counsel qualified. A lawyer for thirty years and a former president of the Dallas and Texas Bar Associations, Miers was eminently qualified to ascend to the Supreme Court having led a 400-person corporate law firm. Miers was ruthlessly pilloried in the most sexist fashion I've ever seen. Hutchison should have been cutting asses every week in conference and publicly on the floor of the Senate to keep her brethren in line. It just goes to show how useless a Republican woman is, even when she is in the leadership of her party. She can never be counted on to stand up and defend a moderate female nominee unless she satisfies the patriarchal right wing fanatics in the Senate GOP conference. Senator Specter is correct when he points to the unfairness of the process thus far and the unwillingness of the GOP Conference to give the woman a chance. The pious hypocrites are only willing to give somebody an up or down vote if they are a reactionary wing nut.

      "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King, Jr.

      by trevorwells on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 03:42:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  once they reach the floor (none / 0)

    They'll hide behind that bromide.  They'll say Miers never reached the floor, she never even reached the committee.  But once they do, and they have a majority, the filibuster is wrong.  That'll be their frame.

    I'm not saying it isn't hypocritical, but that'll be the frame.

    D-Day, the newest blog on the internet (at the moment of its launch)

    by dday on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 02:29:39 PM PDT

  •  Sorry, not a lot of mileage here... (none / 0)

    Senate Republicans will say that, even if they were opposed to her nomination, they were fully prepared to give her an "Up or Down Vote" once the Judiciary Committee rendered its verdict, and that it was her own choice to drop out before the vote was held.

    by cbastian on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 02:35:40 PM PDT

  •  Why are Republicans so full of shit? (none / 0)

    As Alec Baldwin would ask.  If their flip-flopping on perjury is any indication, they'll certainly spin their up-or-down-vote connundrum.  In fact they'll spin anything, anytime, re-write history, photo-shop reality, and not ever be called on it by Dems.  

    by Ad Absurdum on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 02:41:56 PM PDT

  •  A response ... (none / 1)


    They say: "The president's nominee deserves an up-or-down vote."

    We say: "America deserves a justice, not an extremist. We will fight extremist nominees using every tool at our disposal."

    by athomascr on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 02:46:02 PM PDT

  •  i wish (none / 0)

    they'd have called their bluff on the "nuclear option". do they honestly want to establish a tradition of not being able to stop a flawed nominee? i wish one damn dem had the backbone to just stand up in that chamber and fillibuster them into submission. like "I dare you."

    occasional drunken bloviation

    by garth on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 02:56:38 PM PDT

    •  stopping the nominee (none / 0)

      There was no nuclear bluff here whatsoever.

      The tradition to stop a flawed nominee is NOT the fillibuster of SCOTUS candidates, but rather a NO vote in committee or on the floor. What you saw here was principled conservatives & some few Democrats (the rare # willing to actually take a position on anything these days)) holding the line for judicial competence & causing enough of a debate within the party to cause a potentially embaresing defeat on the floor by upset republicans. Miers was clearly likely to vote the way many conservatives would have liked, but was rejected by many anyway as not being heavyweight enough in an intellectual sense.

      whether you're of either party, it's nice to see that the political machine doesn't always walk in partisan lock-step.  

      Blogging on the web at http://plasticsurgery101.blogspot.com

      by droliver on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 03:13:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  NO its not.... (none / 1)

    republicans have little or no respect for average Americans and think they are, basically DUMB therefore they will try and use the UP or DOWN VOTE attack on any attempt to filibuster....they think the american public wont connect it to what happened to harriet Miers...

    which is why WE have to connect it for them and keep connecting it...just like Dick Durbin tried to do on hardball.

    where was harriet miers up or down vote...heck, the gop didnt even give her a hearing and ALL because the white house refused to be forthcoming with essential documents they felt they needed in order to make an 'informed decision'

    its actually bigger then the up or down vote thang....they have a lost substantial amount of credibility to claim democrats have no right to ask for documents they think they need in order to make an 'informed decision'

    i so hopoe the democrats dont let this opportunity to set the goal line yet again.

    this is no time to sit and wait to see what republicans do next.

    The CONSTITUTION is MY Flag pin

    by KnotIookin on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 03:04:06 PM PDT

  •  Hmmmm (none / 0)

    many of those quotes refer to a nominee being bottled up in committee. Miers didn't even make to the committee hearing and withdrew.

    Not 100% sure how we can effectively use some of those quotes in this context.

    Maybe I am missing how. Can someone give us an example?

    cheers,

    Mitch Gore

    Wanna win in '08...?

    Put your money where your mouth is.

    by Lestatdelc on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 03:04:36 PM PDT

  •  asdf (none / 0)

    But they're just going to say that they'd still have been happy to give her her upurdown vote, but that she withdrew her name from the nomination.  'Not our fault,' they can say, 'she decided to back out due to, y'know, client-lawyer priviledge.  Nothing we can do.'

    If they allow that to stand, then she should never have been allowed to be put forth in the first place, and all of this dance has been for nothing, just a waste of time.

    I'm still an Edwards supporter, and a Patriots fan. Not having the best year here...

    by Stymnus on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 03:05:40 PM PDT

  •  Nonsense (none / 0)

    A nominee that withdraws cannot get an up or down vote.  D'uh.  That's like demanding an up or down vote for John Roberts to fill the seat of O'Connor for which he was originally nominated.  No one (on the right) ever argued (well maybe there were some lonely voices) to have Miers filibustered.  But it is pretty clear that she understood that she did not have 50 votes and withdrew.  No one refused to hold a vote.  Nor has anyone ever argued beforehand that the vote must be held immediately upon the nomination.  No one disputed that investigations should have been had, hearings completed, floor debate scheduled, etc.  The "up & downers" have been consistent on this.

    by Drgrishka1 on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 03:07:13 PM PDT

    •  those who declared her unqualified before (none / 0)

      she even got a hearing most certainly did "dispute[] that investigations should have been had, hearings completed, floor debate scheduled, etc."

      by jqb on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 04:07:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ummm... (none / 0)

        Qualifications (or lack thereof) are readily apparent from the resume.  I don't think you need hearings to ask "is it really true taht you never once wrote an article on a relevant con law issue?"

        by Drgrishka1 on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 04:14:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  so you don't deny disputing (none / 0)

          "that investigations should have been had, hearings completed, floor debate scheduled, etc."

          by jqb on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 04:28:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Huh? (none / 0)

            All I was saying that no one ever advocated an up and down vote as soon as the Prez nominated someone.  The up and down vote was urged for those people who went through the process, were vetted, and voted out of the committee.  No one ever suggested that the President gets to dictate the Senate schedule.

            Miers went through the part of the process and decided to withdraw before undergoing the rest of it.  Since she withdrew, no need for a vote.  The end.

            by Drgrishka1 on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 08:19:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  huh == poor reading comprehension (none / 0)

              "All I was saying"

              You said "No one disputed that investigations should have been had, hearings completed, floor debate scheduled, etc."  That's the only part of what you said that I addressed.  That claim was false; people have disputed, vociferously, that she ever should have been selected, and clamorously called for Bush to withdraw her, which he did.  Whatever one thinks of that, it's a fact.

              by jqb on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 10:29:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  It's called... (none / 0)

    IOKIYAR

    TexasDemocrat
    Giggity giggity giggity...Iraq's a Quagmire

    by TexasDemocrat on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 03:12:50 PM PDT

  •  it's frightening (none / 0)

    how like mindless robots they all use the same words.

    how about an up-or-down vote on using your own brains to represent your constituents, Senators?

    "It's possible for human being(sic) and fish to co-exist peacefully." George W. Bush

    by mississippi scott on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 03:44:24 PM PDT

  •  Miers was a decoy - here comes the nuclear option (none / 0)

    BUSH DID NOT PUT MIERS UP TO PASS.

    It was all a sham.  And she was in on it.

    No SCOTUS candidate in her/his right mind would put forward the pre-school pap that Miers presented.  She was a decoy.

    It was all a flim-flam to put their REAL candidate forward, in a way that Bush can say to the Dems,

    "Look.  I tried to give you someone you could live with.  Can I help it if the Conservatives wouldn't let me work with you?"

    Here comes the nuclear option.

    One thing Rove didn't think of, though:

    When Libby and he went on a little outing, that there was a man in the U.S. like Patrick Fitzgerald who could be set upon them.

    With Bush's popularity descending into the depths, things aren't as rosy as they were when this Miers grift began.

    But they are going to push their real candidate anyway.

    It will be up to Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer and Dick Durbin to dig their heels in and not yield.  

    This time it is for the first half of the 21st century.

    by TravelerDiogenes on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 04:29:18 PM PDT

  •  Litmus test (none / 0)

    Dead, too, is the right's claim they have no judicial litmus test (we knew it was dead a while ago). They do have one. Miers failed.

    The Hughes for America fundraising drive is here!

    by BobcatJH on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 04:32:53 PM PDT

  •  What makes you think this is true? (none / 0)

    They're going to need new material if Bush decides to try and make nice with his base by nominating a genuine winger.

    Haven't we learned by now that hypocrisy is a plank in the Republican platform?  It's right there in between gay bashing and corporate welfare.  They don't give a damn what they said last year, last month, or even last hour.  They know with 100% certainty that the media will never call them on it, and that's all that matters.  It doesn't matter what the Dems say.  It doesn't matter what we say.  It only matters what the media says.  And they own the media.

    -7.63/-6.67

    by libdevil on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 04:47:38 PM PDT

  •  What up or down vote? (none / 0)

    Where was the opportunity for an up or down vote? I don't believe that a single senator had announced a negative position on her..and now they don't have to.   Taking the flip-side argument, if she had hung on, she would have gotten an up or down vote - worst case, it would have been "No" in the committee.  

    by Wheelman1969 on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 05:33:04 PM PDT

  •  News Of Dead Talking Point Exaggerated (none / 0)

    no, they'll use it again.

    and the fact that they arranged for her to withdraw her nomination is how it will work.

    yeah, they are liars about that, but they are not about to stop it.

    strong infrastructure and fair play

    by pyrrho on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 05:50:43 PM PDT

Permalink | 73 comments