Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 53

Thread: GOP Senators and their Temper Tantrum!

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    Bush has gotten 168 of his judicial nominees through the Senate confirmation process. The Senate so far has only blocked 4. That's 98% success rate!

    This 30 hour marathon in the United States Senate amounts to nothing more than a GOP Temper Tantrum and its a complete waste of taxpayer dollars.

    Shame on them.

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    Please, whenever you feel the need to pontificate, PLEASE start a new thread about it.

    How many threads have you started on this board, 50??

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    Well, it is a separate topic 5-ever.

    BTW...I suspect you agree with me on this, but instead of saying so you chose to take a shot at me. Weak very weak indeed.

  4. #4
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Middletown Md
    Posts
    673
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators[/i]@Nov 13 2003, 03:42 PM
    [b] Bush has gotten 168 of his judicial nominees through the Senate confirmation process. The Senate so far has only blocked 4. That's 98% success rate!

    [/b][/quote]
    A more valid question as far as I'm concerned is.....why do the democrats refuse to allow those 4 nominees that appear to be qualified for the job the oppurtunity to be voted on by the entire senate ?.

    The answer probably has alot more to do with their conservative ideology than anything else and that's wrong, I'm sure you're gonna say something close to...well...the republicans did the same thing when Clinton was president when in fact I don't believe they did, they may have stalled, and questioned the credentials of some of his nominees but they never filibustered to block a vote on them, this tactic is truly unprecedented.

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    I don't agree completely. The Dems haven't even voted on these 4, that is not the same as voting against them. They know that they can't beat these nominess with a vote, so they have filibustered. What they did to Estrada is embarassing. The Dems are racist against minorities if those minorities are conservative. In light of their support for race-based AA, this fact is even more shameless! The Dems expect every minority to vote deomcratic and when minorites don't play ball Dems get pissed. It's unbelievably insulting to minorites, and racist to the core, frankly.

    C'mon man- you start more threads on the "non football" board than everyone else combined!

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by MARYLAND JET[/i]@Nov 13 2003, 04:23 PM
    [b] A more valid question as far as I'm concerned is.....why do the democrats refuse to allow those 4 nominees that appear to be qualified for the job the oppurtunity to be voted on by the entire senate ?.

    [/b][/quote]
    Because they find them objectionable that's why. Furthermore, the Democratic Senators are working within the rules of the U.S. Senate. This is an example of what happens when you have a closely divided govenment. In my view its healthy.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Nov 13 2003, 04:24 PM
    [b] I don't agree completely. The Dems haven't even voted on these 4, that is not the same as voting against them. [/b][/quote]
    Well, actually the senators on the Judicial Committee did vote.

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators+Nov 13 2003, 03:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (tailgators @ Nov 13 2003, 03:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--jets5ever[/i]@Nov 13 2003, 04:24 PM
    [b] I don&#39;t agree completely. The Dems haven&#39;t even voted on these 4, that is not the same as voting against them. [/b][/quote]
    Well, actually the senators on the Judicial Committee did vote. [/b][/quote]
    Your talking points are down pat. You know damn well a full vote is the proper procedure.

    You are a spin machine.

    What they did to Estrada is shameful. Honestly, do you think the Democratic party is perfect? I have acknowledged flaws in the GOP, why do you cling to this immature notion that the Dems are perfect? I have never seen you even come close to having a problem with anything they do or have done. Don&#39;t you realize how ridiculous that makes you seem??

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Nov 13 2003, 04:31 PM
    [b] Honestly, do you think the Democratic party is perfect? I have acknowledged flaws in the GOP, why do you cling to this immature notion that the Dems are perfect? I have never seen you even come close to having a problem with anything they do or have done. Don&#39;t you realize how ridiculous that makes you seem?? [/b][/quote]
    Gee 5-ever, I&#39;ve never seen you make the same challange with respect to the GOP to weeb, shakin, or the newcomers, come back, or maryland?

    I do have concerns with the Democratic party and I have mentioned some of them.

  10. #10
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Middletown Md
    Posts
    673
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators+Nov 13 2003, 04:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (tailgators @ Nov 13 2003, 04:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--MARYLAND JET[/i]@Nov 13 2003, 04:23 PM
    [b] A more valid question as far as I&#39;m concerned is.....why do the democrats refuse to allow those 4 nominees that appear to be qualified for the job the oppurtunity to be voted on by the entire senate ?.

    [/b][/quote]
    Because they find them objectionable that&#39;s why. Furthermore, the Democratic Senators are working within the rules of the U.S. Senate. This is an example of what happens when you have a closely divided govenment. In my view its healthy. [/b][/quote]
    You&#39;re 100 % correct.....the only reason the democrats are not allowing a vote is because they find them objectionable...but...is finding them objectionable a valid reason for not allowing a vote on them ?.

    Certainly they have the oppurtunity to show how objectionable they feel those 4 candidates are by voting against them...but...they realize if that were to happen then more people would vote yes and they would be confirmed so instead of having an honest debate about the merits of the candidates they chose to take away the members who disagree with their ideology&#39;s rights by fillibustering.....again......a tactic that has never been used in the history of the senate for judicial nominees.

    Granted, they are working within the rules of the U.S senate...but...that doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s an ethical thing to do.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by MARYLAND JET[/i]@Nov 13 2003, 04:46 PM
    [b] Granted, they are working within the rules of the U.S senate...but...that doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s an ethical thing to do. [/b][/quote]
    Are you saying the United States Senate would have rules that are unethical?

    Bottom line Maryland it&#39;s politics pure and simple, and with an almost evenly divided senate your side is stymied on this. So what&#39;s your answer? Go out next year and try to win more elections. Then if your successful at the polls you can come into the senate and be 100% successful there.

    In the final analysis though, you&#39;ve got to admit that since he&#39;s gotten 98% of his judicial nominees through the confirmation process President Bush has done pretty well.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    these are the 4... a real group of winners.

    - Janice Brown, was the first California Supreme Court Justice to receive an unqualified rating from the state bar and still be nominated by a governor, in this case Gov. Pete Wilson. Three-fourths of state bar evaluators felt Brown was ill-equipped to hold the position. Complaints filed by her peers called her "insensitive to established legal precedent…and lacked compassion and intellectual tolerance for opposing views."



    - Priscilla Owen, who represents the "far right wing" of the Texas
    Supreme Court. One of her many rightward dissents from that court&#39;s
    majority opinions was described as an "unconscionable act of judicial
    activism" by Alberto Gonzalez, who was then also a justice on the
    Texas court but is now President Bush&#39;s chief White House Counsel.

    - Carolyn Kuhl, who threw out a suit brought by a woman with breast
    cancer whose doctor had brought a drug company salesman into the
    examining room where he witnessed an intimate examination of her.
    A unanimous appeals court later reversed Kuhl&#39;s decision.

    - Charles Pickering, who took extraordinary and ethically questionable
    steps to try to reduce a mandatory jail sentence for a man convicted
    of burning an eight-foot cross on the lawn of an interracial couple.


    ---


    my fave quote of this was from Daschle when they asked him if the DEMS were gonna be there all night he said "if the Republicans need help filbustering themselves, we&#39;ll be glad to oblige. :D

  13. #13
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Middletown Md
    Posts
    673
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators[/i]@Nov 13 2003, 04:56 PM
    [b] Are you saying the United States Senate would have rules that are unethical?

    Bottom line Maryland it&#39;s politics pure and simple, and with an almost evenly divided senate your side is stymied on this. So what&#39;s your answer? Go out next year and try to win more elections. Then if your successful at the polls you can come into the senate and be 100% successful there.

    In the final analysis though, you&#39;ve got to admit that since he&#39;s gotten 98% of his judicial nominees through the confirmation process President Bush has done pretty well. [/b][/quote]
    I wouldn&#39;t necessarily say that the senate has rules that are unethical.....what I would say is they have rules and procedure that have loopholes that the democrats have successfully exploited in this particular case.....In my book that&#39;s unethical because it violates the spirit of the way judicial nominees are supposed to be handled.

    But you&#39;re correct in your assertation that it&#39;s politics pure and simple but I feel the country would be better served if both parties tried to play the game by the intended rules and didn&#39;t try to cloud things up with technicalities and rhetoric.

    As for the 98 % not being so bad I just feel like filibustering in this case is unprecidented and extremely unfair to the 4 people who deserve a vote by the full senate and are not recieving it because of the wishes of the minority so in that case.....no...98 % is not good enough.

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Nov 13 2003, 04:37 PM
    [b] these are the 4... a real group of winners.

    - Janice Brown, was the first California Supreme Court Justice to receive an unqualified rating from the state bar and still be nominated by a governor, in this case Gov. Pete Wilson. Three-fourths of state bar evaluators felt Brown was ill-equipped to hold the position. Complaints filed by her peers called her "insensitive to established legal precedent…and lacked compassion and intellectual tolerance for opposing views."



    - Priscilla Owen, who represents the "far right wing" of the Texas
    Supreme Court. One of her many rightward dissents from that court&#39;s
    majority opinions was described as an "unconscionable act of judicial
    activism" by Alberto Gonzalez, who was then also a justice on the
    Texas court but is now President Bush&#39;s chief White House Counsel.

    - Carolyn Kuhl, who threw out a suit brought by a woman with breast
    cancer whose doctor had brought a drug company salesman into the
    examining room where he witnessed an intimate examination of her.
    A unanimous appeals court later reversed Kuhl&#39;s decision.

    - Charles Pickering, who took extraordinary and ethically questionable
    steps to try to reduce a mandatory jail sentence for a man convicted
    of burning an eight-foot cross on the lawn of an interracial couple.


    ---


    my fave quote of this was from Daschle when they asked him if the DEMS were gonna be there all night he said "if the Republicans need help filbustering themselves, we&#39;ll be glad to oblige. :D [/b][/quote]
    Bitonti - I could post positive reviews of these judges - would that change your mind?


    The Priscilla Owen rant is funny. Vagaries about being "right-wing" (as if that by itself makes one unfit) and judicial activism, which the Democrats have NEVER minded and in fact promote. The reason why BOTH parties are so hell-bent on nominees is precisely BECAUSE there is so much judicial activism going on these days - it&#39;s how the will of the electorate is subverted. The recent judicial response to the partial birth ban is an example. The elected officials of this land got together and enacted a piece of legislation, that represents the constituency of the USA. But a few judges say "Nope&#33;" and that&#39;s that. I hope you all realize that we no longer live under the Constitution....but I digress.

    Your silence about Estrada is telling. There is NO valid reason why he was never brought to a vote and the Dems actions about him are unconscionable. Seriously, his only &#39;crime&#39; is being both latino AND conservative. The Dems are amazingly more racist than they accuse the GOP of being and if people cannot or refuse to see that manifesting itself in the treatment of Estrada then I don&#39;t know what to tell you.

    The GOP has warts, big ones, but I am constantly reminded about why I will NEVER, EVER vote for a Democrat - they are by far and away the greater &#39;evil.&#39;

  15. #15
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Middletown Md
    Posts
    673
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Nov 13 2003, 05:37 PM
    [b] these are the 4... a real group of winners.

    - Janice Brown, was the first California Supreme Court Justice to receive an unqualified rating from the state bar and still be nominated by a governor, in this case Gov. Pete Wilson. Three-fourths of state bar evaluators felt Brown was ill-equipped to hold the position. Complaints filed by her peers called her "insensitive to established legal precedent…and lacked compassion and intellectual tolerance for opposing views."



    - Priscilla Owen, who represents the "far right wing" of the Texas
    Supreme Court. One of her many rightward dissents from that court&#39;s
    majority opinions was described as an "unconscionable act of judicial
    activism" by Alberto Gonzalez, who was then also a justice on the
    Texas court but is now President Bush&#39;s chief White House Counsel.

    - Carolyn Kuhl, who threw out a suit brought by a woman with breast
    cancer whose doctor had brought a drug company salesman into the
    examining room where he witnessed an intimate examination of her.
    A unanimous appeals court later reversed Kuhl&#39;s decision.

    - Charles Pickering, who took extraordinary and ethically questionable
    steps to try to reduce a mandatory jail sentence for a man convicted
    of burning an eight-foot cross on the lawn of an interracial couple.


    ---


    my fave quote of this was from Daschle when they asked him if the DEMS were gonna be there all night he said "if the Republicans need help filbustering themselves, we&#39;ll be glad to oblige. :D [/b][/quote]
    O.K.....I&#39;m sure you realize there are two sides to every story and although you are trying to paint these 4 nominees as unqualified most observers don&#39;t try to go there regardless of ideology because it&#39;s just not the case.

    What they are is strict constitutionalists and that&#39;s why the left is pulling out all the stops to keep them from being confirmed.

    The real argument here is how to interpret the constitution, is it something to be followed word for word like people on the right tend to believe...or...is it something that is a framework to go by but can be shaped by the times as the left tends to believe.

    That&#39;s the real fight going on here, the unqualified garbage from some on the left is just a smokescreen to shield them from the real reason they don&#39;t want them on the court.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by MARYLAND JET[/i]@Nov 13 2003, 06:06 PM
    [b] As for the 98 % not being so bad I just feel like filibustering in this case is unprecidented and extremely unfair to the 4 people who deserve a vote by the full senate and are not recieving it because of the wishes of the minority so in that case.....no...98 % is not good enough. [/b][/quote]
    Unprecidented? Did you know that 63 of President Clinton&#39;s judicial nominees weren&#39;t even granted the courtesy of a hearing in front of the Senate Judicial Committee?

    It&#39;s true&#33; The Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch refused to allow these people to even take the first step in the confirmation process. This was just another form of filibustering. Indeed its worse because at least today&#39;s Democrats are making their opposition public, while Hatch&#39;s actions were done behind closed doors.

    The GOP Senators who are staging this dog and pony show are the most disingenuous bunch of phonies I&#39;ve seen in a long, long time.

  17. #17
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Middletown Md
    Posts
    673
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators+Nov 14 2003, 09:49 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (tailgators @ Nov 14 2003, 09:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--MARYLAND JET[/i]@Nov 13 2003, 06:06 PM
    [b] As for the 98 % not being so bad I just feel like filibustering in this case is unprecidented and extremely unfair to the 4 people who deserve a vote by the full senate and are not recieving it because of the wishes of the minority so in that case.....no...98 % is not good enough. [/b][/quote]
    Unprecidented? Did you know that 63 of President Clinton&#39;s judicial nominees weren&#39;t even granted the courtesy of a hearing in front of the Senate Judicial Committee?

    It&#39;s true&#33; The Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch refused to allow these people to even take the first step in the confirmation process. This was just another form of filibustering. Indeed its worse because at least today&#39;s Democrats are making their opposition public, while Hatch&#39;s actions were done behind closed doors.

    The GOP Senators who are staging this dog and pony show are the most disingenuous bunch of phonies I&#39;ve seen in a long, long time. [/b][/quote]
    Yes.....This is " UNPRECIDENTED " action the democrats are taking and here&#39;s why.

    Instead of touting statistics like 168 - 4 a more accurate statistic on the current state of affairs should be 0 - 4.

    Until now EVERY judicial nominee throughout the history of the senate who has recieved the support of the MAJORITY of senators has been confirmed...conversly...NO nominee who has enjoyed the support of the MAJORITY of senators has EVER been denied an up or down vote.

    It is absolutely unprecedented that a partisan MINORITY would take this action against judicial nomines, Sen Corzine { D - NJ } admitted as much in an e-mail to potential donors when he said " the current blockade of judicial nominees is unprecedented ", doesn&#39;t it strike you as a little odd that the democrats will tell their donors one thing, and the rest of the american people something else ?.

    Your argument about Sen Hatch&#39;s actions against Clinton nominees doesn&#39;t hold water.....there is nothing new or relevant about a nominee who is not confirmed due to lack of support from the MAJORITY.....at the end of the first Bush administration there were 54 nominees who did not muster enough MAJORITY support and were not confirmed, at the end of the Clinton administration there were 41 such nominees, it the MAJORITIES right under our constiutional system for confirming judges as opposed to the MINORITIES and that&#39;s the difference.

  18. #18
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    Don&#39;t use logic or facts to argue with Tail - he has developed an immunity to reason&#33;

    Dems = good
    GOP = bad


    That&#39;s about as sophisticated as it gets from him. Occasionally he&#39;ll parrot a thought from Krugman or Dowd, but other than that he essentially has nothing to say except for his childish and self-righteous preachings.

    For example - Tail is passionately against the war and Bush&#39;s tax cuts, yet plans to vote for a guy who gave Bush authority to wage war AND agrees that Bush&#39;s tax cuts (including the middle-class cuts) are a good thing (John Kerry). Yeah, that works.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    On January 20, 2001 the vacancy rate in the federal judiciary was 25%. Today it&#39;s only a mere 5%. President Bush has gotten 98% of his judicial nominees through the confirmination process. This was done with extraordinary cooperation from the Democratic Senators.

    Like I said earlier, if the President and the Republican Senators want to get enough votes to break a filibuster they need to win more seats in the next election. Until then they just need to deal with it. At least this tactic is more honest than Orrin Hatch not even granting 63 of Clinton&#39;s nominees a hearing before the Judicial Committee.

    Rules are rules and the Democrats are acting well within the rules. Perhaps Maryland JET you believe the JETS should&#39;ve let the Raiders have a chance to tie last Sunday&#39;s game after Brien&#39;s FG in overtime? Because, a lot of people would say its infair that they didn&#39;t get a chance on offense.

  20. #20
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Middletown Md
    Posts
    673
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators[/i]@Nov 14 2003, 11:13 AM
    [b] On January 20, 2001 the vacancy rate in the federal judiciary was 25%. Today its 5%. President Bush has gotten 98% of his judicial nominees through the confirmination process. This was done with extraordinary cooperation from the Democratic Senators.

    Like I said earlier, if the President and the Republican Senators want to get enough votes to break a filibuster they need to win more seats in the next election. Until then they just need to deal with it. At least this tactic is more honest than Orrin Hatch not even granting 63 of Clinton&#39;s nominees a hearing before the Judicial Committee.

    Rules are rules and the Democrats are acting well within the rules. Perhaps Marylan JET you believe the JETS should&#39;ve let the Raiders have a chance to tie last Sunday&#39;s game after Brien&#39;s FG in overtime? Because, a lot of people would say its infair that they didn&#39;t get a chance on offense. [/b][/quote]
    Whoooaaaa there big fella.

    We&#39;re not talking about the judiciaries vacancy rate so that&#39;s irrelevant.

    You&#39;re the one who stated the republicans were being disingenuous in a previous post and that you didn&#39;t think the democrats actions were unprecedented at all and my post basically challenged your ascertations with indisputable proof against your argument.

    If you want to challenge the facts I presented you feel free to go ahead and try but if you look at the present situation historically and without liberal bias there is no other rational conclusion than it is the democrats who inded are breaking new ground with their approach and indeed are the ones who are disingenuous in trying to say this is historically equivilant with what happened to Clintons nominees when in fact...nothing could be further from the truth.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us