Republicans Lies Over Prior Use of Filibuster

[Dr Ron]

From Light Up The Darkness (see original posts for links)

Part 1: Abe Fortas

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/?view=plink&id=851

Previously John Dean warned us that the dishonesty and secrecy of the Bush administration is Worse than Watergate. Now he corrects the Republican spin on the nuclear option:

The debate over whether to use the "nuclear option" when it comes to Senate filibuster rules continues. Senate Republicans, consistent with their conservative beliefs, claim they are only employing the "nuclear option" to preserve a Senate tradition - not to change one. It is not their own "nuclear option," but rather the Democrats' use of the filibuster to block judicial nominations that, they claim, is truly "unprecedented."

Leading this charge is Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah - who has repeatedly made this very claim on the Senate floor. But he is dead wrong.

I should know: I was there when the history he is trying to rewrite was made. And not only does this very use of the filibuster have precedent, but that precedent was made by Republicans.

Later in Dean's article:

Allow me to set the record straight.

The key event occurred in 1968. That year, Republicans blocked the nomination of Associate Justice Abe Fortas to become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. And they did so with a filibuster.

Senator Hatch was not in Washington in 1968; he was not elected to the Senate until 1976. And he has either been grossly misinformed as to what occurred then, or is intentionally lying about it.

Part 2: Frist's Participation in Filibuster

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/?view=plink&id=852

The Republican Filibuster of Abe Fortas is hardly the only time the Republicans have blocked a Democratic court nominee. Bill Frist should know this, as he was there when he participated in the filibuster of Richard Paez, a Clinton nominee to the Ninth Circuit Court. It appears Frist is being as dishonest as Orrin Hatch was found to be in our previous post:

Republicans insist that judicial filibusters never happened before. Frist put it this way: "In February 2003 the minority radically broke with tradition and precedent and launched the first-ever filibuster of a judicial nominee who had majority support." In truth, no one should understand the legitimacy of judicial filibusters better than Bill Frist. On March 9, 2000, Frist participated in a filibuster of Richard Paez, President Clinton's nominee to the Ninth Circuit. When confronted about his vote late last year, Frist claimed he filibustered Paez for "scheduling" purposes. Not true. A press release by former Senator Bob Smith titled "Smith Leads Effort to Block Activist Judicial Nominees" plainly states that the intent of the filibuster was to "block" the Paez nomination.

In fact, Paez was only one of at least six filibusters Republicans attempted during the Clinton years. Senator Orrin Hatch and others argue that these filibusters don't count because they ultimately weren't successful in blocking the nominees. All that proves, however, is that Clinton's nominees were moderate enough to secure sixty votes. It also suggests the remedy to Bush's problem: Stop nominating extremist judges to the federal bench.

[kerrygoddess]

1. Great post!

Filled with facts catching the Repubs lieing through their teeth! Thanks Dr. Ron

[HuskiesHowls]

2. This is great information!!!

Now, the hard part is to get it into the MSM....and lots of luck doing that!!

[rock]

3. "Republicans Lie...."

Stop right there! No need to say more.

[Dr Ron]

4. True, but it is helpful to show the specifics. n/t

[sandnsea]

5. Thanks Ron

That lays it right out there, straight and to the point.

[sellitman]

6. Nominated and kicked!

:kick:

[Democat]

7. If the rolls were reversed, the entire media would be attacking Dems

Instead stories like this get almost no coverage and the Republicans are cheered by the U.S. media as always right and Democrats are spun as evil.

The U.S. media needs some balance!

[Nothing Without Hope]

8. ALSO: Sen. Cornyn LIED about legal support for saying senate filibuster

is illegal.

This was broken by a Kos diarist some time ago and I have been trying to figure how to get the word out. All three legal experts Cornyn has cited for his legal postion were misrepresented and at least one of them (Susan Low Bloch, a Georgetown Univ professor and noted legal scholar) has asked him to stop misrepresenting her work, but he has not stopped.

Here's an excerpt from the key web page that was cited at Kos. Lays it all out and has a copy of the Bloch memo sent to Cornyn asking him to stop misrepresenting.

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2005/04/notes_on_the_nu_1.html

(snip)

In a memo dated February 28th and widely circulated to members of the press, C. Boyden Gray, formerly White House counsel to the first President Bush, attempted to bolster his own questionable constitutional interpretation of the nuclear option with quotes taken from three well-known legal scholars: Susan Low Bloch and Mark Tushnet of Georgetown University, and Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago. In each instance, Gray made certain to set up the quotes by establishing that they came from “liberals” or a “prominent Democratic strategist.” In two of the three cases, Gray fails to cite to any actual source for the remarks he attributes to these professors, and in all three he leaves out context critical to understanding their comments, in at least one case, completely reversing the writer’s intent.

(snip - the web site author recounts how she tracked down the truth in each of the three cases, which was NOT what Cornyn claimed it was)

Bloch’s March 14th reply memo to Gray {who worked with Cornyn} states the following:
"You have seriously misrepresented my views. In a February 28, 2005 memo to journalists on behalf of the Committee for Justice, you argue that the Senate’s use of the filibuster against judicial nominations is unconstitutional. In so doing, you suggest I said such use in unconstitutional. In fact, I have never said such a thing. On the contrary, in the article you quote (but never cite), I said precisely the opposite, explicitly distinguishing the Senate filibuster from the House Rule that I was criticizing."

(snip)

There is much more at the site - I really think more should be done with this.

[Democat]

9. If Democrats were trying to push through Clinton judges

The entire media would be calling it a "scandal" and investigating every Democrat, trying to get them impeached or thrown out of office at the next chance.

Because Republicans are the ones lying and trying to go against the Constitution, the media will support them and call Dems "obstructionists" if they try to obstruct Republican crimes.

[Nothing Without Hope]

10. MUST SEE VIDEO CLIP: Sen. Allen caught lying by Tim Russert

It is most satisfying to watch and highly germane to this discussion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1757515
Thread title; VIDEO CLIP: See Senator George Allen Get Blasted by Russert on FILIBUSTER