"Senate Democrats to attempt break of GOP judicial filibuster "

[DearAbby]

Washington (CNN) - Senate Democrats are set to hold a vote Tuesday on breaking a GOP filibuster against a district judge first nominated by President Barack Obama for a seat on the federal appeals court eight months ago.

Indiana Judge David Hamilton - Obama's first judicial nominee - was tapped to fill a vacancy on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in March.

His nomination cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee in June, but leading Republicans have since prevented a final vote, arguing that Hamilton is too liberal.

Congressional Democrats have expressed growing unease over what they argue is a slow pace of both judicial nominations and confirmations since Obama took office. Obama's high profile nomination of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor was successful, but only six of the president's nominees have been approved so far for the federal bench.


Former President George W. Bush, in contrast, filled 28 vacancies on the bench during his first year in office. Twenty-seven of Bill Clinton's judicial nominees were approved during his first year in 1993; Ronald Reagan placed 42 judges on the federal bench back in 1981.

Senate Democrats have accused their Republican counterparts of obstructionism. Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, recently called the slow pace of confirmations "outrageous."

There are currently 99 vacancies on the federal bench.

Republicans, for their part, have argued that they are exercising a legitimate oversight and confirmation function.

"I think (Judge Hamilton) is clearly a liberal activist," said Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee.


More
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/17/senate-democrats-to-attempt-break-of-gop-judicial-filibuster/

[SteppingRazor]

1. Shouldn't be difficult. From what I've read, the Dems have Lugar and a couple others on their side.

n/t

[Beetwasher]

2. There Has To Be At Least One Dem OR Lieberman Holding This Up

So who is it? They now have 60 in the caucus so there should be no fillibuster unless someone in the caucus is fucking them. Who is it?

[spanone]

3. remember all the republican bullshit about up or down votes...

the media went right along with the right wing in calling the dems obstructionists....they are not even reporting on this

[FBaggins]

5. That's the game we call politics.

You'll note that our side made the same kind of noise that they're now making.

They're hypocrites to be sure... but that doesn't mean that we aren't as well.

Moreover... they warned us didn't they? Didn't they say that we had better watch out because there would be a Democratic president some day and we were setting a precedent?

[Beetwasher]

8. WTF Are You Talking About?

That's a goddamn lie. Dems threatened fillibuster but didn't do it. They backed down when Repubs threatened to eliminate the fillibuster. Remember the "Nuclear Option"?

[FBaggins]

9. I remember just fine... don't you?

They didn't "back down" - the "gang" took it away for SOME of the nominees. Many never got an up or down vote.

Moreover... there hasn't BEEN an actual filibuster THIS time, has there? Why aren't you claiming that's "reps threatened a filibuster but didn't do it" ???

It's the same dance... just different partners.

[Beetwasher]

10. Bullshit

Are the Dems threatening to nuke the fillibuster? Put up or shut up. Let's see your link for your claims.

The Repubs are blocking FAR more than any Dem ever did. It's not even close.

[FBaggins]

12. Strawman.

Did I say that they were going "nucular"? They don't need to because 60 is a more significant number than 54-55.

What I said was that they switched dance partners... and they did. Republicans previously claimed that you shouldn't filibuster otherwise qualified nominees who would easily win up/down votes on ideological grounds and were required to hold an up or down vote... calling them obstructionists - while Democrats insisted that that's what advice and consent means and refused to vote on nominees who were unacceptable to them. Now Democrats are saying that Republicans are unreasonably using procedural measures to hold up otherwise qualified candidates who would would easily win up/down votes... calling them obstructionists - while Republicans hold up votes on ideological grounds and try to pretend that that's what advice and consent means.

[Beetwasher]

14. The Fact That The Repubs THREATENED Going Nuclear Is The Whole FUCKING POINT

The fact that YOU don't mention that and try to put Dem and Repub "obstructionism" on equal footing is disengenuous precisely because you leave the extremeness of Repub tactics (nuking) out of YOUR discussion. The facts are that the Repubs are blocking WAY more nominess than the Dmes and the Dems are NOT threatening THEM w/ nuking the fillibuster.

That's the point. Repub obstruction is not even close to being equitable to Dems "obstruction" and Dem reaction to that "obstruction" is nowhere near equitable to Repub reaction.

[FBaggins]

16. Nope... that's your diversion.

The "Whole F'n point" was:

"remember all the republican bullshit about up or down votes... the media went right along with the right wing in calling the dems obstructionists...."


If you wish to have your OWN conversation... then you can pick what it's about. if you reply to someone else you need to be more aware of the context.


The democrats WERE obstructing... we didn't want their right-wing nominees on the bench and we used whatever we legally could to keep it from happening while they wanted them on the bench. They spun about right and wrong but that was just spin. Now THEY are obstructing because they don't want even moderate judges on the bench and will try anything they can to keep it from happening.

The difference is that we have a much larger majority and they won't be able to hold out as long. They also have a few Senators whose prior statements can be used against them in an election campaign if things are close in that state.

[Beetwasher]

17. "You'll note that our side made the same kind of noise that they're now making. "

You wrote that, correct? You are equating the two parties saying they are behaving in the same way. They are not.

In addition, as others pointed out, the media is silent about Repub obstruction.

"His nomination cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee in June, but leading Republicans have since prevented a final vote, arguing that Hamilton is too liberal."

Did you read the fucking article? The Repubs are fillibustering this nomination.

[FBaggins]

18. And they are.

Yes... I said it. Note that I didn't say "word for word the exact thing"... I said "the same KINDS of things"

In addition, as others pointed out, the media is silent about Repub obstruction.

Yep... but not because of any particular bias. It's because we're giving them a far better story to run with.

Note that I also said this elsewhere on the thread. This is a GOOD thing. Because Republicans WANT all attention to be spent on healthcare reform and Democratic infighting. This is an excellent opportunity to make progress in other areas.

Did you read the fucking article? The Repubs are fillibustering this nomination.

Ok... please provide a link to the cloture vote that failed. Otherwise there's no difference.

Hint. There hasn't been one.

[Beetwasher]

19. LOL! So Threatening To Nuke Fillibusters Is The "Same Kind Of Things" Dems Are Doing???

Man are you full of shit.

First sentence from the article:

"Senate Democrats are set to hold a vote Tuesday on breaking a GOP filibuster against a district judge first nominated by President Barack Obama for a seat on the federal appeals court eight months ago."

How the fuck are they going to break a fillibuster that (according to you) isn't happening? Seriously, you have major reading comprehension issues.

Let's recap shall we? In response to Dems threatening to fillibuster, Repubs threaten to NUKE fillibusters. And this is somehow equitable behavior (according to you) w/ the Dems holding a vote and using their super-majority to override an actual fillibuster (that according to you isn't happening). :eyes:

[FBaggins]

20. Repeating a strawman makes it no more convincing.

If you wish to have a debate with yourself on your own terms then by all means go ahead.

How the fuck are they going to break a fillibuster that (according to you) isn't happening?

You're really that blind, are you?

It isn't a filibuster until someone actually votes against cloture. Until that point it's just a THREAT of a filibuster. Someone on this thread highjacked your posting name and made that VERY SAME POINT regarding the "nuclear" age. We didn't actually filibuster the vast majority of those nominees...we just said we would.

Yes... the behavior is the same. The only difference (as I said) is that we have more votes.

If we only had 58 votes you would see Democrats reminding Republicans that when this went around last time... we warned them that what was sauce for the goose...etc.

[Beetwasher]

23. Man, You're Pathetic, Your Bullshit Is Busted

They are fillibustering this nominee. It's as plain as fucking day in the article.

In fact, THE FUCKING TITLE OF THE ARTICLE IS:

"Senate Democrats to attempt break of GOP judicial filibuster" :rofl:

"Senate Democrats are set to hold a vote Tuesday on breaking a GOP filibuster against a district judge first nominated by President Barack Obama for a seat on the federal appeals court eight months ago."

You can't break a fillibuster if there is no fillibuster to be broke.

And threatening to Nuke a fillibuster is not the same as having a vote to override, no matter how much you keep spouting that idiocy. The nuke option is an extreme, radical way to deal w/ fillibusters. A vote is democratic.

But you keep saying they're the same. It says a lot about your agenda.

"Someone on this thread highjacked your posting name..."

Cuckoo! Cuckoo! Wow, now you're into nutcase territory.

[FBaggins]

25. Why the double standard?

Did you think nobody would notice?

This hypocrisy was exactly my point. Both sides play the game and are blind to it.

YOU said "Dems threatened fillibuster but didn't do it" and now this threat IS a filibuster even though no cloture vote has even been scheduled?

You can't break a fillibuster if there is no fillibuster to be broke.

Tell that to the guy who posted #8. You two should get together some time. It would be quite a party.

The nuke option is an extreme, radical way to deal w/ fillibusters. A vote is democratic.

The nuke option would ALSO have been a vote. The real difference is in who is in control and how large the control is... NOT the willingness to use every means at our disposal to win victory.

I can't wait until we get to a fillibuster-breaking budget reconciliation gambit. This too is an end-around on the 60-vote rule... but no doubt you'll be blind to it.

Tell me... when you watch football can you tell when the runner's knee is down on a fumble replay... or does it matter which team the runner is playing for?

Don't worry... I think the rest of us already know the answer.

Click here to go back to the main forums.

If you have any questions, please contact the site administrator.
Click here to go back to previous page.

[Beetwasher]

27. LOL! There's No Double Standard Chester, There's Only You're Delusions

There's you and your bullshit and then there's reality. Reality is, Dems are going to vote to override an actual fillibuster. Republicans couldn't do that IF the Dems did in fact fillibuster (which they didn't), so they threatened to NUKE the fillubuster altogether.

If you think those are equitable positions, you're delusional.

[Beetwasher]

30. Still Want To Claim There Was No GOP Fillibuster???

Senate Democrats break GOP judicial filibuster

Washington (CNN) - Senate Democrats broke a GOP filibuster Tuesday against a district judge first nominated eight months ago by President Barack Obama for a seat on the federal appeals court.

--snip--

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/17/senate-democrats-break-gop-judicial-filibuster/

:rofl:

[spanone]

21. NOPE....the point is the MEDIA ...you missed it entirely. YOU are 'picking what it's about'

start your own thread

[FBaggins]

22. That's funny.

So you're saying that you put the subject in the message and something unrelated in the subject line?

And that's my fault?

Regardless... I dealt with BOTH how the parties have acted and the media in other posts.

As I said... the media's reaction is because we're giving them a better show to cover right now. At the time, the "fillibuster" WAS the show. And the media didn't "go along with the show" (unless you watch lots of Fox?)... they closes they came was to play along to keep the show going.

ALSO funny is that you replied to that post consistent with the Republicans/Democrats comparison and never thought to mention "hey... I was really just talking about the media" ?

[spanone]

24. not funny. you quoted my post. about the media. and told someone else what it was about.

don't make excuses for the media to me, thank you.

[FBaggins]

26. Nope - You note I quoted your post

Yet you still claim I got it wrong?

I didn't say "that means"... I just pointed out that you DIDN'T say that it was about the nuclear option. I dind't "tell him what it was about"... I told him what it WASN'T about.

You've "corrected" me without ever saying that this WAS what it was about. In fact... you've shown otherwise.

[spanone]

11. Giving hypocrisy a bad name

DURING THE BUSH administration, Republicans decried Democratic attempts to filibuster judicial nominees. Some went so far as to label such filibuster attempts unconstitutional and threatened to exercise the "nuclear option" to ban the procedural tool in nomination matters.

Yet now Republicans are threatening to filibuster in an attempt to thwart confirmation of President Obama's first judicial nominee, Indiana federal Judge David F. Hamilton. The Senate is scheduled to vote on cloture Tuesday on Judge Hamilton's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. The prospect of a filibuster is made all the more ridiculous because Judge Hamilton has been rated "well-qualified" by the American Bar Association, enjoys the support of both home state senators, including Republican Richard G. Lugar, and even wins praise from the conservative Federalist Society of Indiana.

Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, has distorted Judge Hamilton's record on the trial court in an effort to rally the GOP caucus. For example, Mr. Sessions, arguing that Judge Hamilton is too liberal, cites a case in which Judge Hamilton struck down as unconstitutional sectarian Christian prayers in the Indiana state house but allowed those that referred to Allah. Mr. Sessions points out that the decision was overturned by the court of appeals that Judge Hamilton now hopes to join.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/16/AR2009111603258_pf.html

[bain_sidhe]

13. Who is this "we" you speak of?

Feels like an "Intel" moment here...

[malaise]

15. There's an Op Ed in the NYT today

but I haven't heard a word on TV.

[FBaggins]

4. Good idea

You can't maintain multiple filibusters simultaneously while still pretending to be trying to govern. They're going to have to pick one that they're willing to stand by and let some others fall by the wayside.

Yes, it likely means that healthcare overhaul is put on the back burner for now, but at least we get something out of it

[napi21]

6. I didn't think being too left or right was a ligitimate objection

to a judgeship. If it is, why didn't the Dems use it against Roberts & Alito?

[Ganja Ninja]

7. They should line all these votes up one after the other ..

so when one filibuster ends they have to start the next and then the next and the next ....

[DearAbby]

28. Senate Democrats break GOP judicial filibuster

Washington (CNN) - Senate Democrats broke a GOP filibuster Tuesday against a district judge first nominated eight months ago by President Barack Obama for a seat on the federal appeals court.

The Senate voted 70-29 to end debate over the nomination of Indiana Judge David Hamilton, who was tapped by Obama in March to fill a vacancy on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Hamilton was Obama's first judicial nominee.

The full Senate is now expected to move forward quickly on a final vote on the nomination.

Hamilton's nomination cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee in June. Leading Republicans, however, then spent weeks preventing a final vote, arguing that Hamilton is too liberal.

Congressional Democrats have expressed growing unease over what they argue is a slow pace of both judicial nominations and confirmations since Obama took office.


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/17/senate-democrats-break-gop-judicial-filibuster/

[Beetwasher]

29. Sweet!

n/t