Need help in freeper debate.

[ArchTeryx]

A freeper friend of mine has leveled the claim that Republicans have NEVER filibustered judicial nominees. Not once. Only Democrats have, according to him, which is the whole point of the "nuclear option".

Can anyone come up with specific examples of Republican filibusters of judicial nominees on the fly?

[Massacure]

1. They did it all the time to Clinton.

[ArchTeryx]

3. I know...

That's what I said. He insists that it was never done. I need specific examples to hit him with.

[Paul Dlugokencky]

6. To Quote Republican Senator Hatch...

In 1994, when Democrats were in the Senate majority, Sen. Hatch called the filibuster “one of the few tools that the minority has to protect itself and those the minority represents.”

-from http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=8280

Google around for more, and for examples.

Also, ask your friend if he is familiar with the records of the ten judicial nominees the Democrats are opposing.



http://www.cafepress.com/kickindemocrats

[ArchTeryx]

9. Unfortunately...

He is. My friend is a Moonie, and he's openly admitted that conservative judicial nominees are the #1 reason he votes Republican, time and time again. To him, it's ALL about the judges.

[suigeneris]

23. Here is where Hatch tries to weasel

out of what he said with the old "out of context" ploy:

http://judiciary.senate.gov/member_statement.cfm?id=744&wit_id=51

He doesn't succeed, IMO.

[rfkrfk]

21. the majority party does not need to filibuster

the 'nomination' never gets out of committee.

I don't know about the first two years of
the Clinton era, or before.

[MADem]

2. Google is your friend! n/t

[trotsky]

4. Here you go..

Thanks to DUer sonicx:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1730537

[rurallib]

5. They tied Clinton's nominees

up in committee. They had the control so they didn't have to filibuster because their were other ways. They stopped 60 of Clinton's nominees. IIRC many at the appeals level which brought the wheels of justice to a crawl.

[CatholicEdHead]

7. Correct,

back in the 1990's the procedure to stop nominations was a blue-slip or something that was anonmyous and even one member could stop it in committee, long before it would get to the floor.

As soon as the GOP took power, that is one rule they quickly removed.

[Gothmog]

8. Abe Fortas

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050408.html Abe Fortas was filibuster. Frist participated in a filibuster himself.

[ComerPerro]

10. Hoestly: don't bother

if your friend is anything like the Republican slime I know, they will demand hard proof. And even when you show it to them, it won't be enough. They just won't believe it. They will say your source is biased (even if you show them a Faux News story) and that its just liberal lies.

I stopped "debating" them, because it turned into a contest of "Rush says this, and unless you can show me ten sources that say otherwise and that I approve of, you are a liar."

But thats just me. Maybe your friend isn't as irrational as the GOP jerkoffs around here...

Sorry to take such a bitter tone. I just have to know: why is the burden of proof always on us? And why, when we offer hard evidence, is it not enough?

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr Fate]

12. But which party recieved Strom, Helms & the boys with open arms?

Once the old-timey racists felt the DEMS were no longer pure enough- they left. Which party welcomed them with open arms? I believe it starts with a capital "R"....

Sins of the Father, sins of the father. Al Gore is not in power, but they guy who's Grandad Daddy did business with the Nazis is.

But screw memory lane-
When you can find a way to take on DEMs w/o going back 40 or more years, I'll be ready.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr Fate]

15. I see- so you have nothing current or factual worth addressing.

I already had most of those arguments way back in the 90's. I'll leave you to your Pearl Jam CDs.

Last time I checked, lying about why we are at war has nothing to do with race.

Have a pleasant stay, Bimbo.

[GeheimeStaatsPolizei]

16. hey,

lets ease off on insulting peoples tastes here, Nine Inch Nails in the 90's man, never Pearl Jam.

new album next week!!!

[Dr Fate]

17. Long-haired Liberal Music????

Must be tough having to mentally compromise everything there is worth enjoying.

I'm from Georgia and I know a thing or two about racism and which party monopolizes it. Trust me, it has nothing to do with Al Gore or Liberal Rock stars.

[GeheimeStaatsPolizei]

18. nah

its just that there were so many knock off bands it became hard to tell them apart. I think NIN is on par with Pink Floyd in terms of having extremely well-thought out music while still maintaining a top 40 pop sensibility. I went to basic at Ft. Benning, that's about all I've ever seen of GA. Hot and humid, yes I can imagine a lot of racism there. Great book about Atlanta was Tom Wolfe's "A Man in Full", written when Atlanta was thought to be a coming world class city.

[Vickers]

19. You're right, everything you say is right!

No really, you're right. I can tell.

Tschüß!

[No Exit]

13. Your fellow

repukes who backed desegregation didn't do it out of humanitarian sentiment. They did it because their friends the businessmen had saturated the whole white population with cars and homes and all the other trappings of the "wonderful 50's" life. They needed a new pool of consumers, and they wanted to press on till no black person could be content unless he had a nicer car than his neighbor's. Then, at last, blacks could enjoy the 50's style "American dream": buy buy buy, more and more useless crap, gotta keep up with the Joneses. Oh, joy.

And it didn't hurt, either, that blending blacks into the mainstream gave Mr. Businessman a whole new labor pool to work with. Meanwhile, black businesses (and yes, they had them back then) withered and died.

Now the blacks have been properly brought into the wonderful American consumer way of life. Uh-oh, now that both blacks and whites are jaded over all the trinkets they've mortgaged themselves to buy, who's Mr. Businessman gonna sell to? Se habla espanol!

[Cats Against Frist]

24. Thanks

Lately, I've been feeling like segregation and elitism is OK -- mostly because I want the fuck away from any knuckledragger who'd vote for Dimson -- but, it's possible that there are some upsides to segregation -- or would have been.

In some ways the liberal rainbow and the GOP "colorblind" society come home to roost on the same peg -- I think if things could have started off on a little better footing -- like reparations -- that we could conceivably have a segregated society, and it wouldn't be that bad.

And I'm not racist -- if anything, I'm elitist in terms of education and consumer awareness -- but, after working in social services for a few years, I'm not quite sure that I'm dedicated enough to helping people who are every bit as wretched and thankless -- and clueless -- as the core 'muricans -- class is not the divide, either. You can be poor or wealthy and still play out your role as human capital just as efficiently.

Anyway, I'm just rambling. I'm just sick of people -- rich, middle class and poor, who still continue to want to live the "charade," and I'm looking for a way to not have to share my living space with them.

Part of this has been brought on by having to decide where to send my child to school. I fear the consumers more than I do any other group -- I don't want my child to be influenced by that crap and be roped into a social darwinistic, soulless, empty existence -- and I thought maybe that blending people -- progressives, liberals, republicans, it doesn't matter -- who are not materialistic -- or even just liberals or liberal libertarians or something -- into communities where we wouldn't have to worry about the crap. And why not make it a movement?

But then what happens to the poor -- the people we leave behind? Unlike conservatives, I blame no child for his or her state, and would never support policies that punish the child for the behavior of the parent -- but how greatful are the "poor" that we're helping. What are their faces? I've watched "the poor" blow their entire EIC check on stereo equipment and clothes, when they're living in a roach-infested apartment and have three kids -- one with lead poisoning -- shaved bald from lice.

It's a complex world -- and in the rush to blend everyone -- I think maybe we never thought through ways that segregation could have been helpful. Particularly if the same government resources that are put into diversity awareness, affirmative action, lawsuits, etc. -- could have been put toward black communities, education, businesses, etc.

Maybe I'm crazy.

[No Exit]

25. Hi, good to see you

Well, I think that poster's main point was to criticize "the democrats" for working against civil rights legislation way back when--for all the world, as though the republicans were such great humanitarians!

Republicans then were, and now are, moved by economics--by whichever way will most benefit "business". It's about money.

You seem to be on the right track about choosing a school. Avoid the materialistic groups of students like the plague! I'm so sick of the "bourgeoisie" inculcating my children with a feeling that you MUST drive the correct vehicle and wear the correct shirt, or you're nobody. The parents are materialistic, but at least they're mature enough to be somewhat less crass about it... not so their children.

As for "the poor", all I can say is that since blacks came through the civil rights movement, there are increasing numbers of black professionals all around me. They used to do "days work" for slave wages; now they go to law school. So there has indeed been some progress.

[Toots]

20. Name one time the Democrats used it

It is not so much the use of the filibuster that causes change it is the threat of using it. Republicans have made that threat as many or more times than the Democrats. Tell your "friend" that they need to educate themselves as to how government works.

[ianrs]

22. here's one from dailykos

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/4/19/113052/604

don't know the details, but I'm sure google etc. will help.

[Kipepeo]

26. Republicans stopped 60 of Clinton's

Read this: http://mediamatters.org/items/200502180004

In fact, while Democratic senators used the filibuster to block 10 of Bush's 229 first-term judicial nominees, the Republican-controlled Senate prevented approximately 60 Clinton nominees from even receiving a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, much less a vote on the Senate floor. And while Senate Republicans under Clinton strictly enforced a "blue slip" rule -- which allows one home-state senator to prevent a nomination from moving forward -- they greatly relaxed this rule under Bush to circumvent Democrats' objections to several nominees.

As The Washington Post noted in a December 13 article detailing Republican opposition to Democrats' filibusters of Bush nominees: "Republicans say that Democrats have abused the filibuster by blocking 10 of the president's 229 judicial nominees in his first term -- although confirmation of Bush nominees exceeds in most cases the first-term experience of presidents dating to Ronald Reagan."