Senate Talk-A-Thon

[melody1181]

This is nothing but a bunch of bull!!!

The republicans get all butt hurt about a handful of rejected judicial nominess. Do they not remember what they did during the Clinto era??????

Just a waste of money, they should all be sent a personal bill for this.

I can't stand politians!!! There all crooks. If its not the republicans its the democrats. I'd rather deal with preschoolers than congress.

[blues clues]

melody, they should be doing the peoples work but thaTS ASKING FOR TO MUCH. we should make them py for the use of the halls of congress.
razz

[SuperScout]

There is a larger question that apparently nobody has asked yet, and it pertains to the issue of federalism, i.e., what standard prevails? For example, the US Constitution, Article II, Section 2, emphatically states, " ... The President ... shall have power ... with the advice and consent of the Senate ... to appoint judges ..." The rules involving the filibuster are not written in the Constitution, but are part of the procedural devices that the Senate created. There is no authorization, constitutionally speaking, for the filibuster, and there certainly is no provision, law, process or whim that should supercede the Constituion as the prevailing authority.

And just for the record, a filibuster was never conducted or threatened during the Clinton administration; there were some of his appointees that failed to obtain the approval of the Senate, the "up or down" vote being asked for today for the President's appointees. The appointees that failed to meet muster were judged to be unfit or unqualified, but at least they were voted upon by the Senate, as called for by the Constitution. The Democrats in the Senate know that these Bush appointees are qualified, but are blocking the normal process as called for by the Constitution.

A very simple solution to this process of Constitution vs. Senate rules would be a lawsuit that, if brought before a federal court, would hold that the filibuster is an unconstitutional barrrier to some of the functions of the President.

[melody1181]

I'm just talking about all the nominees that Clinton appointed that the republican controlled Senate would not pass at all. I forget the number...it was quite alot if my memory serves me right.

Also, congress should have a right, not one person should be able to control everything like that.

I still think there all crooks.

[Gimpy]

There you go again attempting to portray your neo-con republican cronies as the "good-guys" again whlie the F-A-C-T-S of history prove you W-R-O-N-G, again, and again, and again!

Here's your words, and I quote, "And just for the record, a filibuster was never conducted or threatened during the Clinton administration; there were some of his appointees that failed to obtain the approval of the Senate, the "up or down" vote being asked for today for the President's appointees.", end quote.

You're so full-of-shit your eyes are getting browner & browner!

Here is the REAL TRUTH!
######################################
Republican Filibusters Of Nominees Reported To The Floor (past 35 years)

Year Nominee
1968 Abe Fortas, Supreme Court 1*
1980 William Lubbers, NLRB 3
1980 Don Zimmerman, NLRB 3
1980 Stephen Breyer, 1st Circuit 2
1987 Melissa Wells, Ambassador 1
1987 William Verity, Commerce 1
********************************************
1993 Walter Dellinger, Justice 2
1993 Five State Department Nominees 2
1993 Janet Napolitano, Justice 1
1994 Larry Lawrence, Ambassador 1
1994 Rosemary Barkett, 11th Circuit 1
1994 Sam Brown, Ambassador 3*
1994 Derek Shearer, Ambassador 2
1994 Ricki Tigert, FDIC 2
1994 H. Lee Sarokin, 3rd Circuit 1
1995 Henry Foster, Surgeon General 2*
1998 David Satcher, Surgeon General 1
2000 Marsha Berzon, 9th Circuit 1
2000 Richard Paez, 9th Circuit 1
************************************************** *******
Total of TWENTY (20) Republican Filibusters during Clinton Administrations
* The Fortas, Brown and Foster votes resulted in the defeat of their lifetime or short-term appointments.
###################################

John Ashcroft himself, when a member of Congress conducted a number of filibusters against fully-qualified
Clinton appointees, including Surgeon General Henry Foster. In using every
measure at their disposal to block Democratic nominations during the
Clinton Administration, Ashcroft's spokesman once bragged 'we're making
business as usual impossible.'

Source: Yahoo Archives

#####################

Republicans' Filibuster May Deal Clinton a Setback on Jobs Plan
By William J. Eaton
Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON
Failing for the third time to break a Republican filibuster, Senate Democrats appeared ready Monday to give up temporarily on efforts to get President Clinton's $16.3 billion economic stimulus plan through the Senate, informed sources said.
Instead, the Senate plans to approve a $225 billion increase in the debt limit and then start a delayed Easter-Passover recess after abandoning efforts to fashion a compromise that both sides could accept, the sources said.
The anticipated outcome would mark the first big legislative setback for Clinton, while the two-week impasse created by solid resistance of the Senate's 43 Republicans indicated that GOP lawmakers may have greater influence on future Clinton proposals.
Some Democrats said they hoped there would be a voter backlash against Republicans for promoting gridlock on a bill designed to create jobs in an economy where recovery is far from robust.
But Senate Minority Leader Robert Dole, R-Kan., said that voters are telling him and his colleagues to hold firm against the short-term spending package that the president has called an emergency stimulus plan.
While denouncing the continued GOP opposition as "just a political power play," the president indicated for the first time Monday afternoon that he did not anticipate victory in the two-week-old struggle.
Earlier the president had termed the stalemate "sad," adding: "In a time when no new jobs are being created ... it means that for political purposes, they are willing to deny jobs to places like Baltimore, Dallas, Houston, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia and Cleveland and Seattle."
His comments came after the Senate voted 49-29 to shut off debate on the bill, falling 11 votes short of the number required to stop the GOP-led delaying tactics and force a decision on the legislation.
Copyright 1993 by The Tech. All rights reserved.
This story was published on Tuesday, April 6, 1993.
Volume 113, Number 18
################################################## ##########################


Once again SuperSchizoid, your ignorance is only overshadowed by your bias, and unreasoned distortion of facts and prejudiced outlook which shows how outrageous your kind are becoming.

Don't you get exhausted attempting to tell your lies and untruths around here???

You should REALLY try and get your "facts" straight before sticking your FOOT in your mouth so often, ya know??

But, it appears you'll never do THAT, will ya??

:cd: :re: :re: :cd:

[reconeil]

Makes one really proud to be An American,...especially when seen worldwide how well: "Leftist Extremists" and/or "Left-wing Obstructionists" can simply do what they normally do SO OPENLY here.

Plus, and since all dictators worldwide despise Freedom & Democracy with a fanatical passion ALREADY,...doesn't such political and sophomoric nonsense displayed by such political oneupsmanship fools ABOVE ALL ELSE make America and democracies in general LOOK EVEN WORSE? More silly, naive and foolish than normally,...FOR SURE.

Neil

P.S. I realize that Democrat control of America lasted for over 50 years. Still, when will the FINALLY WINNERS and/or Conservatives/Republicans start acting like WINNERS, and not always caving-in to THE LOOSERS (every which way possible) absurd anti-America and pro-foreign/foreigner demands? Haven't Republicans been in control long enough, so as to start acting like WINNERS, taking control,...and do what needs doing inspite of Leftist opposition? I would have thought such would have been a welcome reality by now?

[MORTARDUDE]

altho I understand where they are coming from...

I prefer to call this "the-Senate-jerk-a-thon"... they are the jerks and we are the saps for re-electing these non-performing losers.

Go Libertarian. Go back to the basics. 1776 - 1783. What this country was, is, and should be !!

Larry

[Gimpy]

Lookee heanh!

**************************************
Senate Stops Bush Nominees, Ends Long Debate
By Thomas Ferraro
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats blocked two more of President Bush (news - web sites)'s federal appeals court nominees on Friday after a nonstop U.S. Senate debate of nearly 40 hours, boosting to six the number of stonewalled judicial candidates.

On each of two votes, Republicans fell seven short of the 60 votes needed in the 100-member Senate to stop delaying tactics against California jurists Carolyn Kuhl and Janice Rogers Brown and clear the way for their confirmation.

Democrats also sustained, by the same margin, a procedural hurdle known as a filibuster against another nominee, Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, first blocked in May.

The three votes followed the Senate's longest nonstop debate since a 57-hour, 24-minute marathon in 1988 over campaign legislation.

"Once again a partisan minority of senators has thwarted the will of the majority," Bush said in a statement after the votes on Friday. "These obstructionist tactics are shameful, unfair and have become all too common."
The talkathon began on Wednesday night and focused on Bush's stalled judicial nominees and what Republicans called unprecedented and unconstitutional Democratic obstructionism.
Republicans, who hold a narrow Senate majority, decided to hold the around-the-clock debate after criticism from conservative activists they were not doing enough to take on Democrats.

Democrats said they had simply exercised a constitutional right to "advise and consent" to stop Bush from packing the courts with what they called right-wing ideologues who could not be trusted to uphold civil rights, abortion rights, worker rights and environmental protections.

[font=times new roman]They also noted they had joined Republicans in confirming 168 of Bush's other judicial nominees, to reduce the vacancy rate on the federal bench to less than 5 percent, its lowest level in more than a decade.[/ FONT] Republicans argued Democrats had entered new and dangerous territory by blocking judicial nominees on the Senate floor who were backed by a majority of lawmakers.

"Stop now," said Sen. Rick Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican. "You have a chance to save this country and this judiciary. Stop now."

Democrats countered that Republicans had blocked 63 of Democratic President Bill Clinton (news - web sites)'s judicial nominees, preventing most of them from even getting a hearing.

"I find it incredibly remarkable ... that the very people who lament not getting a vote for (the blocked Bush nominees) were participants in the effort" to stop Clinton's candidates, said Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota .

"This debate, make no mistake about it, strengthened our side," said Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat. "We are energized."

********************************************

[reconeil]

If only it were that simple?

But, and sad realities as they are, throw in a third party or some ringer like Perot,...and such pretty-much guarantees The Leftist control of America by that election. Any votes taken away by any third choice will never be taken away from The Dems, since "They" will always religiously (some say: "Staunchly") vote for a Dem no matter how suspect of intent, integrity, character or even honesty their choice might be.

Think me over-stating things? Well, for me anyway,...the word: "Clintons" (plus Perot) does pretty-much prove the point I've tried to make. Hell, Perot got us: "Clintons" for 8 years and into the forseeable future. I think such: "Cruel and unusual punishment" for America. Don't you?

Don't know the answer other than another 1776. But, one thing's for certain,...a third party or a ringer will never oust: "Leftist Extremists" and/or "Left-wing Obstructionists.
Sorry Friend.

Neil

[Gimpy]

You need to go back and check YOUR historical F-A-C-T-S as well my friend!

Your "obstructionist/extremist" label fits the "right/wing radical" republican history MUCH more appropriately than it does the demos!

Just go back up one post to see the TRUTH!

Damn, fella............you're gettin bout as bad as that SuperSilly fella, ya know what I mean? You and he ought to start a "duo" of distortion and take it on the road. Course, about the ONLY place it'll go ver very well would be in Texas or "Rio Linda"............That's somewhere out there in La--La land for those who don't know!

ADIOS AMIGO! :re: :re: :re: