Entry: Frist to throw down gauntlet next week. Saturday, May 14, 2005



Enough with the waiting.  Enough with the threatening.  Enough with the talking.

It's time to put up or shut up.

Bill Frist has served notice that he will bring the judicial nominees to the floor of the Senate for debate on Wednesday and plans to have the showdown vote anytime between Friday and the following Wednesday, May 25th.

This is about more than a handful of judges being placed on the bench.  This decides whether the Republicans will be an impotent majority in the Senate or will they force the hands of the obstructionist Democrats, who will no doubt be ready to pull out all of the stops to gain victory.

Bill Frist's presidential hopes run on this event as well.  Frist will show the country whether he is man or mouse.  If he allows the Democrats to obtain victory, he's done.

But he's not the only one.  You know nothing can go down in the Senate without John McCain having his mug in the middle of it.  Now he's attached his name unto Ben Nelson's idea to undermine the Republican effort and work out a Phyrric compromise which wouldn't settle anything.  That's fine, because if McCain pulls this stunt he's guaranteed to kiss his presidential hopes goodbye as well.

But Frist and the conservatives aren't winning the PR battle.  The Democrats have been getting away with bs like this:

Reid issued a statement accusing Frist of an "abuse of power" and predicted that "Democrats and responsible Republicans will vote to preserve the checks and balances that the founders of our country so wisely established."
It's a bold-faced lie, of course; one that could easily be refuted by checking Wikipedia:

In 1789, the First US Senate adopted rules allowing the Senate "to move the previous question," ending debate and proceeding to a vote.  In 1806 this rule was eliminated, allowing the filibuster to become an option for delay and blocking of floor votes, since this left no mechanism for terminating debate. 
So the Founding Fathers never supported filibusters.  To the contrary; they got rid of them.  And add to this the fact that filibusters were eliminated from the House of Representatives in 1842, and hasn't been used there since.  So how can the filibuster be seen as a "constitutional option" in the Senate, yet not in the House?

As the U.S. Senate website states, there has been opposition to ban the filibuster again since 1841, when Henry Clay, perhaps one of the greatest American legislators ever, threatened to do so over the Bank Bill. The cloture rule, which is the number of senators needed to break a filibuster, has been changed several times over the last century, with the current 60 vote requirement coming in 1975.  So not even opposition to the filibuster is new.

The Washington Post wasn't going to challenge Reid's statement.  As we say in the South, that would be too much like right.  Instead, they write this:

Both sides claim that history and precedent support their position, but it is clear that the action proposed by Frist would bring the Senate into uncharted territory. The chamber operates on the basis of "unanimous consent," meaning that an objection from even a single senator can disrupt the Senate's activities. And Democrats have said that they would retaliate against the anti-filibuster rule change by revoking their consent for routine activities -- a move that analysts said could bring the chamber to a standstill.
Now let's think about this for a second.  Although it's the Democrats taking unprecedented steps to filibuster judicial nominees that come to the Senate floor, it's Frist who's bringing the Senate into "uncharted territory".  Right.  According to the Post, it is Frist's actions that are bring the Senate to a halt, not the Democrats that would actually halt Senate business.  This is the kind of ass-backward logic that passes for mainstream journalism these days.

Hence, it's no wonder the Democrats are winning the PR battle.  Not only does the media not question the Democrats' revision of history, but they are willing to add their biased statements as well.

This will be a tough battle, but if Frist and the Republicans stick to their guns they can get the victory in the end.  The question is how much pressure can the Republicans take from the media and other forces?  That's the $64,000 question.
   7 comments

DS Truth
May 20, 2005   10:25 PM PDT
 
Expertise

I read your response from being to end, upside down, left to right, inside out and honestly, it still does not make any sense.

Semantics…

As I stated, the word means that we agree on a common point, but take different paths to get to the end result. If we disagree on what the end result is, then it is not semantics. For example, a motor vehicle; you might call it a car, while I might call it an automobile. In essence, they are the same thing but we took two different routes (defining its meaning) to get to the same end result. In this case we disagree on what the end result is; therefore, it is not semantics – no agreement.

As for the purpose of the filibuster, you are partially correct. But what you forgot to include that its purpose to foster debate as well.

I tied to understand what you were trying to say with the following passage because it is so convoluted I could not the digest what you were trying to say. You said;

“You pass legislation with a simple majority. By the 1789 rule, you can't hold the floor if you don't have majority support. Now it's either one or the other; either Frist isn't ending filibusters by enacting that majority cloture rule, or the Founding Fathers didn't have filibusters. You can't have it both ways. Regardless, Reid's assertion that the Founding Fathers intended for a minority of senators to block legislation that the majority was to pass - whatever you may want to call that maneuver - is an outright lie.”

Ahhh!!! That’s all I can say. From what I am interpreting from your passage, it seems you just do not get it. There is a lack of understanding.

Breaking it down to you bruh…

Logically, for someone to hold the floor, debate (i.e. filibuster) has to take place. The debate would be limitless unless rules where enacted to cut off debate. In the First Senate and as it is today, rules were established to do just that – end debate. As we argued previously, the First Senate established the “the previous question” motion to end debate (i.e. filibuster), while the present day Senate established the cloture rule to end debate (i.e. filibuster). Both produced the same affect, ending filibusters, but they are applied differently. Again as we argued before, the First Senate’s motion only relied on a simple majority to end the filibuster, while the present day Senate’s cloture rule requires a supermajority to end the filibuster. In both cases, the rules or motions DID NOT eliminate the filibuster. Again, they were created to be purely mechanisms, instruments, and apparatuses to end filibusters.

In addition (and you have not given any proof to back up your assertion), the 1789 rule/motion did not say you could not hold the floor before or until an end-of-debate vote is taken. Intuitively, the debater is allowed to have the floor to help convince others to join with (him) in (his) point-of-view. Isn’t that the purpose of debate? Therefore, until the vote is taken to end the debate or continue it, the filibuster would continue.

From all of the materials we’ve posted, in any of the language in those posts, did it mention anything with regard to the First Senate eliminating filibusters? The only thing all of articles and postings said was that motion was adopted to end a debate. From the forced end of debate, this would allow for a vote on the “question.” That is from the language; show me something otherwise.

From the USA Today..

“Any senator could, by continuing to talk, prevent any issue from being brought to a vote. That check, which later became known as the filibuster, ensured that the majority of the moment couldn't ride roughshod over a concerned minority. Over time, Senate rules were modified to permit 60 members to cut off debate and order a vote. But the principle of deferring to a significant minority has been honored — until now.”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-04-26-our-view_x.htm

Also, for a cloture motion to be voted on and possibly take affect, there has to a FILIBUSTER in effect initially (How come that it so hard for you to understand?!!). In the case Judge Paez, filibuster was in affect and a cloture motion (vote) was taken. 13 Senator voted to CONTINUE the filibuster but was voted down, of course. Like I said before, it does not matter if it was 1, 2, 5, 13 or whatever Sentors, to hold floor for helping convince other Senators to join their cause. That is what Frist and other Senators wanted to do to Judge Paez with the filibuster until the cloture motion took affect to end the debate.

And what are you talking about respect to Paez cloture vote? And what are you talking about with regard to the Paez hold being killed in minute. 1) A hold would be considered a FILIBUSTER. 2) Where is the information which stated that the hold (filibuster) was killed in minutes?

Are you implying that a (cloture) vote was not taken? I have news for you; it was.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00037

As well, the vote was reported in the Washington Post;

“But the majority leader protests too much. Not only have filibusters been attempted against judicial nominees in the past, but Frist himself has even voted for one. In 2000, after Senate conservatives had held up Bill Clinton's nomination of Richard Paez to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit for four years, Frist joined in an unsuccessful attempt to filibuster Paez -- a judge who was favored by a clear majority of the Senate and who won confirmation after the filibuster was broken by a vote of 59 to 39.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50120-2005Jan30.html

Now, I want you think hard on this and use logic. If an end-of-debate motion is attempted, what has to be in affect initially? Before you answer that question, that subject applies to both the First Senate and the present day Senate.

As for the Founding Fathers, they included in all arguments and procedures measures for a minority voice to be and get heard. The Constitution was designed/created around that concept. Read the Bill of Rights. The words empathizes minority interest throughout. Therefore, you can draw from it conclusions that the Founding Fathers made sure the minority is not overrode in debate, laws and freedoms.

With respect to Fortas, it is all Static/Noise from you again. The major point on this topic is Hatch and the lies he pontificated on. I know all the information about Fortas. I am just not going excuse Hatch and you (initially) with you continual advancing the idea that Republican never started a judicial filibuster. Lying, like this, for the Republicans go hand in hand.

With respect to Hatch and his procedural maneuvers, I said Hatch practiced his version of PRIVATE filibustering. More to the point he practiced Obstructionism. Procedural rules that remained in place from years (through both Republican and Democratic leaders), he changed to suit Republican interests. Hatch is a classic hypocrite who defines his roles as attempt eliminate descent.

As for Boyle, it amazing me that you summarily dismiss those Civil Rights organizations because of their “left-wing” bent. There function is handling civil rights issues; therefore, their questioning of Boyles opinions and decisions are more valid then the view from that “non-partisan” website. Anyway, according to the People for the American Way (PFAW), Boyle is known for this Judicial Activism from the bench with respect to civil rights issues. In an analysis of Boyle’s testimony in a Senate Committee Hearing, the PFAW found that in civil rights case before his court, Boyle consistently attempted to set legal precedent by applying rules to on case where the Supreme Court ruled on “disparate impact” application in civil rights case. Boyle ignored its application and ruled to the contrary; therefore, setting precedence.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_525.pdf

The man is a bigot is black robes. From all of the information above, those robes should be white.

The rest of my comments about Dubya Bush only brushed the surface bruh. The man is certifiable on all level. It is scary with respect to the way he is taking this country in. The rest of the world is either laughing at us or scared as hell of us. Those dynamics speak volumes.

As for you last comments, you have got to be kidding. Frist and the rest of the Republicans are the ones acting and beginning childish. Thinking about it. Frist is screaming like a five year because he can not get his way. He is basically saying, “it is my ball and if you like the way I play, too bad.” He wants to change the rules of the game to make everybody play his way. THAT IS CHILDISH. Give me a break bruh. This is a Power-Play or Power Grab simply put. Frist is drunk with power and he knows it.

Summarizing,

1. You are dead wrong about the role and the elimination of the Filibuster.
2. I have proven that Hatch, Frist and you lied about Republicans and the Judicial Filibusters
3. Hatch is an unadulterated Obstructionist
4. Neo-Cons want Activist Judges but will decry them in a heartbeat.
5. The Neo-Cons would promote a bigot/racist to high positions to suit there purpose.

Truth is not on your side bruh.. No way, no how!! By the way, you talk about using Talking Points, your responses are riddled with them. Amazing..
Expert
May 19, 2005   01:21 AM PDT
 
DS, all of that talk, yet said nothing.

Like I said, you can sit here and play semantics (and it is semantics; you're trying to call the same situation a filibuster while I disagree.), but the fact is, the purpose of a filibuster (at least in current terms) is to hold legislation that would otherwise pass.

You pass legislation with a simple majority. By the 1789 rule, you can't hold the floor if you don't have majority support. Now it's either one or the other; either Frist isn't ending filibusters by enacting that majority cloture rule, or the Founding Fathers didn't have filibusters. You can't have it both ways. Regardless, Reid's assertion that the Founding Fathers intended for a minority of senators to block legislation that the majority was to pass - whatever you may want to call that maneuver - is an outright lie.

Of course, you're trying to get me to believe that if one person tries to hold the floor, it's a filibuster, despite 99 other senators that could invoke the cloture rule ASAP. Notwithstanding this absurd notion, it can't even define the traditional meaning of filibuster, which is a long and drawn out speech. I can see if you beat cloture the first or even the second time, but if you can't beat it the first time it is evoked, then it kills the whole purpose of a filibuster.

That's the whole problem with both Paez and Fortas's nominations. Paez only had 13 senators willing to vote for a hold, and thus it was killed in minutes. Fortas's cloture vote only got the support of 45 senators - not even enough to nominate him, so after the cloture vote they immediately pulled his nomination off the floor.

Indeed that's what Hatch was speaking of when he said it wasn't a filibuster as Senator Robert Griffin, who led the opposition, said:
-----------------
Check the Congressional Record and find Sen. Robert Griffin, a leader of the anti-Fortas fight: "[T]hus far, there have been only four days of Senate debate on this very important, historic issue. . . . [A] filibuster, by any ordinary definition, is not now in progress." And: "An examination of the Congressional Record . . . clearly reveals that the will of the majority was not frustrated. . . . On the basis of the Record, then, it is ridiculous to say that the will of a majority in the Senate has been frustrated."
--------------------

Now, I disagree with the statement, as the hold and resulting cloture vote persuaded Fortas supporters to kill the nomination due to majority support, but I can see Hatch's point, as well as Griffin's.

The difference between Fortas and Paez, however, is that Fortas's succeeded, and killed, while Paez's was not even close to beating cloture on any vote, as they only had 13 votes to hold.

Going on with Fortas, as the Washington Times points out, Republicans back then stated that they only placed the filibuster on Fortas after he refused to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee again on impropriety charges. Also, they found out that Fortas lied on his first hearing to the committee. If the Senate Majority Leader, a Democrat, wasn't willing to hold his debate and vote until Fortas answered these charges, I understand why they filibustered:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050512-084718-4268r.htm

That's not inconsistent; I have acknowledged before on this blog the contrast between the Fortas filibuster and the filibusters that are going on now. I have never said judicial filibuster has not taken place; only Clinton ones, and I still stand on that on the fact that there wasn't any kind of consensus that would even come close to stopping cloture.

In trying to discuss Hatch, you're trying to blur the definitions of filibuster and block. Talk about inconsistencies; somehow Hatch using his powers as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman now can be described as a filibuster. All of a sudden, filibuster can now include any type of block, yet the failure to block cloture - even on the first vote - can be a filibuster as well.

And Boyle, once again, I haven't heard of anything that would point to him directly being a racist. Opposing those statutes, particularly the redistricting cases Cromartie v. Hunt and Easley v. Cromartie, does not make him an activist or a racist, indeed I think they were unconstitutional gerrymandering as well. Besides, I doubt if there is a lower-tiered judge that hasn't had a number of cases remanded in their careers. The highest number I found for Boyle was 12%.

Considering the Black Leadership Forum consists of a group of left-wing black special interest groups (with the possible exception of the Urban League, which is more moderate) and individuals, of course they will oppose Boyle. No surprise there. But Boyle has been on the bench for over 21 years, and has tried over 12,000 cases. And if he's getting the support of newspapers like the Charlotte Observer and the Raleigh N&O, neither of which are conservative Bush supporters by any stretch of the imagination, he can't be too much of an activist.

Here's a more honest and nonpartisan look at Boyle's record:

http://www.screenshotblog.blogspot.com/2005/04/terrence-w-boyle.html

But, as I say again, Boyle's record had nothing to do with my original point, as I only mentioned him in regards to how long nominees have been waiting for a vote.

As for the rest, I'm not about to get into another debate with you on Iraq or on opposition to "the Dubya Bush". I think this conversation is long enough as it is. But you really can't honestly tell me that the Democratic Party has been so consistent and brave in the past five years, regardless of whatever issue? Cmon now; be honest with yourself. I could pull out plenty of information that proves otherwise but I don't have all night to do it.

Regardless, the truth is not with the Democrats - you know it, I know it, and others know it. Besides, now that the Democrats are willing to shut down the Senate in a manner equivalent to a child throwing a temper tantrum, they'll have plenty of time to find out what the truth really is. And I'm sure there are some conservatives in that chamber that don't mind telling them.
Name
May 18, 2005   09:31 PM PDT
 
Okay, now this is funny.. Your response was Laughable from beginning to end.. Like said and will continue to say, you have inconsistency in your argument – lack of focus. I will point them out to you as I go along.

To start, I will examine the following passage;

“I oppose judicial filibusters, and that's what Frist is pledging to end. The historical comments were thrown in to counter Harry Reid's implication that filibusters were intended by the first Senators, which I've shown is absolutely wrong.”

Initial question, in what vain do you show Harry Reid was absolutely wrong about filibusters? If you are implying that the first Senator did not want filibuster where is your proof? If what you put forth as the truth, I countered it. Basically, if the Fiirst Senate wanted the filibuster eliminated, they would have summarily dismissed it (like the House) and as I noted, they did not. Reid is correct on all counts; it just seems you and Frist can not deal with that fact.

Next passage;

“I'm sure there are several circles that consider these judges to be activist. I'm sure in their view, activist means right-of-center. However in the real world, proper judicial context doesn't mean to keep everything the same (that would be the true meaning of conservative, no?) and thus abide by every standing judicial precedent. It means to interpret law based on the words and intent Constitution, in which a number of judicial precedents never have done, including tax laws, environmental laws, regulatory laws, etc. post-New Deal.”

Now, we know better here. You should realize that I know how to Google as well as you do. I am sure you know the judicial records of the three nominees I discussed. Their jurisprudence go well beyond their conservative bent in terms of their opinions and decisions. In the case Janice Brown, she goes out of her way to ignore federal laws respect to her decisions.

According to the People for the American Way, “…When Brown was nominated to the state supreme court in 1996, she was found unqualified by the state bar evaluation committee, based not only on her relative inexperience but also because she was "prone to inserting conservative political views into her appellate opinions" and based on complaints that she was "insensitive to established precedent.”

The last portion of the passage means directly that she is prone to Judicial ACTIVISM. This has nothing to do with her opinions outside of judicial proceedings. It has to do with forgoing the law of the land by submitting opinion base-on personal beliefs, various agendas or other factors.

More passages;

“Therefore, simply mentioning they want to repeal some of these laws is nothing more than partisan opposition based on a support for the agenda you seek to move forward, and thus is irrelevant to whether or not they have properly interpreted the law within their jurisdiction and whether they will do so once they get on the bench.”

This entire passage is Non-Sense. This is not about partisan politics bruh. It is about putting appellate judges in place with agendas – activist agendas.

Your Inconsistent Argument #1

The mentioning of wanting to repeal laws if you are being considered for a seat on the appellate bench warrants a further look by the overseers of judicial appointments – wouldn’t you think!!! That is an inconsistency in your argument. That notion leaves open construal of what agendas the potential appellate jurist may push forward. In that case, you can not deem it irrelevant or leave the jurist opinions open to interpretations.

Moving forward, more from you,

“In regards to the historic means of the filibuster, I didn't misinterpret a thing. To the contrary; the rule that was implemented in 1789 is the same one that Frist wants to enact; a simple majority can end a filibuster.”

I never said you misinterpreted the 1789 “move to the previous question” motion. What I did say you blatantly stated; “…So the Founding Fathers never supported filibusters. To the contrary; they got rid of them.” That statement is a dye-in-wool, bold face, unadulterated LIE!!!!! You did the typical Neo-Con thing; you forwarded an untruth as a truth.

Your Inconsistent Argument #2

“Now, you can say "filibusters still exist" if you'd like. It's semantics, because you and I both know that a filibuster that can be killed with a simple majority is like a car that has no gas: there's no use for it. The supermajority cloture requirement gives filibusters their power, just as the unlimited debate time rule what was killed in the House in 1841 did and does give it power in the Senate now.”

This passage made me laugh out loud. Semantics! Come on brothaman. Let me briefly examine what that implies. Semantics means we could agree on interpretation of point or view but we approach the same argument from different directions. For me, in this case, it does not work. We disagree with what you deemed as fact – reference your Founding Father statement above. You can not have in both ways; that’s called (what!) an inconsistency. As I said before and will continue to say, the Senate NEVER eliminated the filibuster as you so blatantly attested to. So, sweetening your argument with conjecture is meaningless because no matter if is it a supermajority or simple majority it does not nullify the fact you made a bold statement that was incorrect. You wanted to advance a misnomer to suit your purpose. It is only right or wrong, not semantics.

Attacking your Assertion…

“And to state that the House would have kept the filibuster alive had it not been for their growing numbers is only a hypothetical, as you provided nothing to support your assertion”

According to the Center of History and the New Media, “Congressional prerogative from the onset allowed for unlimited debate (filibustering). But the House of Representatives grew with the United States population, and the House became too large for unlimited debate. The Senate, however, remained small enough that any member, having taken the floor, could talk endlessly, and the Senate had no method of stopping the speech.”

What can I say, you were Aced again.

http://hnn.us/articles/printfriendly/618.html

Your Inconsistent Argument #3

“If the Constitution provides for the House and the Senate to make their own rules, that's precisely what they've done by creating and changing the cloture requirement three times and now eliminating judicial filibusters altogether. I'm sure you're not implying that this is illegal, so if a majority of the Senate states they want to eliminate the judicial filibuster rule, so be it.”

I did not say or imply that Congress’ two wings did anything illegal by setting up rules dependent or independent of each other. The birthright for the wings to be inconsistent with each is constitutional. Inclusively you asked the question, “So how can the filibuster be seen as a "constitutional option" in the Senate, yet not in the House?” To answer it again, because it is constitutional; therefore, their difference is consistent.

Your Inconsistent Argument #4

“As for the filibuster of Paez, it was only supported by 13 senators, something that Commondreams (another biased source) fails to note, but tries to divert by saying "they were moderate enough to receive 60 votes". However, that's not true because Paez was confirmed with only 59 votes.”

”Thus, there had to be a good number of senators that disagreed with filibustering judicial nominees, including Trent Lott, who was the Republican Leader at the time. Regardless, it proves once again that filibusters are useless if you don't have the suport to keep them active. Frist did vote to hold the nomination, and he says it was through scheduling differences. Considering there isn't any record of supporting judicial filibusters prior to this, I believe him”

Now, you must think I am crazy. This is silliest passage you produced thus far. What you are doing is rationalizing the FILBUSTERING by 13 Senator as not being a FILBUSTER. Come on!!!! You can do allot better than that. I do not care if it is 1, 2, 13 or 100 Senators, the call for debate to hold (in limbo) a vote on a “question”, no matter how you cut it, it is a FILIBUSTER. Therefore, to excuse the lies and misinformation with regard to a Clinton nominee not ever being FILIBUSTED, you are Complicit in the Hypocrisy.

Also, you still remain inconsistent with information, Commondreams.com reported the FACTS (something you forgot about) about what happened without bias. Facts can not be Bias.

Also, be real!. Frist voted for the filibuster because be knew what was happening via the Press Release. Stop being an apologist for him. He LIED!!!!!!!!!!!!

As for Orrin Hatch, as I stated, he practiced his own form of filibustering. He practiced it so well it was a classic form of Obstructionism (…where have I heard that word before). For Democrats and Republicans alike (before Hatch became Judicial Committee Chair), the procedural rules with regard to forwarding a nominee to committee remained the same. Hatch in his abominable wisdom changed the rules to fit his purposes. According to the several sourcing, Hatch;

“As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Hatch abandoned every rule that Democrats (and prior Republicans) followed, then created new ones as he went along. After the blue-slip rule allowed two senators from a nominee’s home state to block the nomination, for example, Hatch decided he’d no longer enforce the rule.

* In 1998, for no special reason, Orrin Hatch decided that only one senator needed to object to a nomination. This made it easier for Republicans to obstruct Bill Clinton’s nominees.

* In 2001, when one of their own became president (GW Bush), Hatch suddenly reversed course and decided that it should take two objections after all. That made it harder for Democrats to obstruct George Bush’s nominees.

* In early 2003, Hatch went even further: senatorial objections were merely advisory, he said. Even if both senators objected to a nomination, it would still go to the floor for a vote.

* A few weeks later, yet another barrier was torn down: Hatch did away with a longtime rule (Rule IV) that said at least one member of the minority had to agree in order to end discussion about a nomination and move it out of committee.”

This is Classic Obstructionism. Therefore, by Hatch’s own hand, “filibustered” nominees on his whims.

Your Inconsistent Argument #5

With respect to Abe Fortas, from what I am reading, are you implying that Fortas should have been filibustered? The three points you laid out, indicates that position. So, I see. The filibustering of Abe Fortas was okay in your estimation. Like I have been saying all along, you are inconsistent, knowingly or unknowingly. You take on a stance to advance a position without regard to where it will lead.

Also, and more to the point, Hatch lied about the filibustering of Abe Fortas. He made speeches on the Senate floor advancing that lie – more misinformation to advance the Neo-Con agenda. Principally, Hatch is full of non-sense just like the “static” you tried to create or generate with your depiction of Fortas’ background. In all do respect bruh, do not start laying on the BS thick and heavy now. Hatch lied; there is no way around it.

By the way, even the Senate.gov website called the Abe Fortas matter, a FILBUSTER.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Filibuster_Derails_Supreme_Court_Appointment.htm

In terms of Terrance Boyle, at least do research on his background before advancing his name in an argumentative discussion. The point being with Boyle, the man goes well beyond the normal bound of so called judicial activism. According to a number of sources, Boyle consistently violates civil rights and has a tendency to attempt to set precedents from the bench.

In a letter to Arlen Spector and Patrick Leahy, The Black Leadership Forum stated,

“Moreover, Judge Boyle has been repeatedly reversed for making the same errors. His record signals a marked tendency to deny parties the opportunity to have their arguments fully considered by precipitously granting motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment. He also routinely has misconstrued the federal sentencing guidelines. Judge Boyle’s mistakes are frequently so egregious that the Fourth Circuit has reversed him even under the deferential “plain error” standard. And all too often, these errors involved the failure to follow precedent or an extremely narrow construction of the Constitution and federal laws protecting individual rights and civil liberties.

“Particularly of concern to the Black Leadership Forum are the numerous instances in which the Fourth Circuit and the Supreme Court have had to intercede in order to curtail Judge Boyle’s blatant attempts to chip away at constitutional and statutory civil rights guarantees.”

http://www.blackleadershipforum.org/articles/oppose_boyle.htm

You have to ask yourself, is Boyle qualified for the Appellate Court? In all cases, NO!. Therefore, the use of the filibuster and/or procedural motions (as it was originally constituted, pre-Orrin Hatch) is warranted.

Moving forward this line of thinking… The filibuster helps to keep the majority from advancing unqualified jurist onward without (at least) debate on that “question.” These protections are needed to keep the Boyles out of positions where their biases can be incorporated into their judicial decisions and opinions. Furthermore, without the protection of the filibuster, the majority could nominate and place a Pat Robertson on the bench unimpeded. That thought in and of it self is daunting on several levels. It goes without question.

Plus…

The Constitution was written to protect the individual from the masses. It is apart of our individual freedoms. Additionally, the Constitution with respect to congressional proceedings, protections the minority from the majority by giving voice to their concerns through debate and measures. In essence, it gives voice to a minority where judicial nominees are concerned. If not, nominees would be green-lighted through Congress without a descending voice. Question to you, would you want this to happen if the Democrats were in power? (Be honest with your answer. The BS meter will be acutely tuned for your answer)

It is funny that you referenced Senators, Leahy, Daschle and Boxer. They have shown the back-bone to stand-up to the Dubya Bush and him band of lackeys including the liars from the “Right” in both the House and Senate. For the three, with respect to Iraq specifically, they have to right to criticize Bush for the war and its associated profiteering and other nastiest that surrounds it. BUT before you mention Iraq in anything, you tell me where in the hell are those WMD’s? In all rights, because of the lies from this administration and their associated cronies in Congress, blood is on their hands. All I will add to this, once you and your brethren find those WMD’s, next, go find Osama. I wish you luck. PATHEDIC!!!

Finally, with respect to your epilogue in your last paragraph, it is full of non-sense as usual. The Democrats have history on their side with regard to lending a voice to minority descent in congressional debate. It follows the Checks and Balances deemed essential. But I am confused by your statement in the respect. Isn’t the Congress a governmental branch? Within that concept, the minority voice plays a role. It is folks like you want to warp the concept into a political “hotball” to advance an agenda. Give me a break.

Also, as for misinformation, I have pointed out the information that trying to advance but you did not consider someone like me challenging you on it. In essence, that is what the Neo-Cons want. The want to spoon feed the press their version of the facts without retort or analysis. But, you folks go one step further. You feed information to the Jeff Gannon’s of this world and/or they let them sit in on press conferences so they can feed the administration’s representatives and the President soft-ball questions. OR, you guys like you buy your media. Armstrong (Brought and Sold) Williams will attest to that. Like I said early on, you folks are ABSOLUTELY Full of It. .

Epilogue…

Essentially, your arguments are baseless and full of holes. You are not about truth, just like the rest of your Neo-Con brethren. But holding this “discussion” with you, I am amazed. You are an intelligent brother but you align yourself with a Neo-Fascist, Racist, Elitist Clan (Conservatives). I mean brothaman, Dixiecrates, Southern Strategy Republicans, Willie Horton Republicans, Angry White-Man Republicans and Corporatist, what do you see in their movement? Is it simply a learned progression or inherited philosophy? Mainly, black folk like you confuse the hell out of me. I just don’t get it.
Expert
May 17, 2005   03:21 PM PDT
 
It's funny; I never make it clear what my focus is yet I'm somehow inconsistent. That's a first.

I oppose judicial filibusters, and that's what Frist is pledging to end. The historical comments were thrown in to counter Harry Reid's implication that filibusters were intended by the first Senators, which I've shown is absolutely wrong.

I'm sure there are several circles that consider these judges to be activist. I'm sure in their view, activist means right-of-center. However in the real world, proper judicial context doesn't mean to keep everything the same (that would be the true meaning of conservative, no?) and thus abide by every standing judicial precedent. It means to interpret law based on the words and intent Constitution, in which a number of judicial precedents never have done, including tax laws, environmental laws, regulatory laws, etc. post-New Deal.

Therefore, simply mentioning they want to repeal some of these laws is nothing more than partisan opposition based on a support for the agenda you seek to move forward, and thus is irrelevant to whether or not they have properly interpreted the law within their jurisdiction and whether they will do so once they get on the bench.

In regards to the historic means of the filibuster, I didn't misinterpret a thing. To the contrary; the rule that was implemented in 1789 is the same one that Frist wants to enact; a simple majority can end a filibuster.

Now, you can say "filibusters still exist" if you'd like. It's semantics, because you and I both know that a filibuster that can be killed with a simple majority is like a car that has no gas: there's no use for it. The supermajority cloture requirement gives filibusters their power, just as the unlimited debate time rule what was killed in the House in 1841 did and does give it power in the Senate now.

And to state that the House would have kept the filibuster alive had it not been for their growing numbers is only a hypothetical, as you provided nothing to support your assertion.

If the Constitution provides for the House and the Senate to make their own rules, that's precisely what they've done by creating and changing the cloture requirement three times and now eliminating judicial filibusters altogether. I'm sure you're not implying that this is illegal, so if a majority of the Senate states they want to eliminate the judicial filibuster rule, so be it.

As for the quotes, you dismiss my information proving the Hatch quote wrong because it came from "an ultra-conservative website" only after you admit you got your information from a DNC website. Somehow you're implying that the DNC is somehow more credible than Powerline, albeit Powerline not only proved the DNC was wrong but discredited the Washington Post.

As for the filibuster of Paez, it was only supported by 13 senators, something that Commondreams (another biased source) fails to note, but tries to divert by saying "they were moderate enough to receive 60 votes". However, that's not true because Paez was confirmed with only 59 votes.

Thus, there had to be a good number of senators that disagreed with filibustering judicial nominees, including Trent Lott, who was the Republican Leader at the time. Regardless, it proves once again that filibusters are useless if you don't have the suport to keep them active. Frist did vote to hold the nomination, and he says it was through scheduling differences. Considering there isn't any record of supporting judicial filibusters prior to this, I believe him.

As for Hatch, you're trying to blur the line between filibuster and placing a hold on a nomination, which is the option of the Senate Judiciary Committee. If the Democrats - who did this to Terrance Boyle and other while they controlled the Senate - doesn't like it, the solution is simple: get the Senate back. Once again, it's a quirk in being part of the majority. But the key word is "majority", as a filibuster is being supported by the party-line minority vote.

And the information Dean provided from an old NYT article stated that Republicans were split evenly in the Abe Fortas nomination, with Southern Democrats willing to join the opposition (of course, the left likes to think of Republicans and Southern Democrats as one and the same). This also sets aside the corruption charges that eventually led to Fortas's resignation on the Supreme Court altogether. Nor could the Times actually confirm majority support for Fortas as Chief Justice. While Hatch was wrong about it being a filibuster, the fact remains that 1.) none could provide definite proof that Fortas had majority support, 2.) Fortas was also opposed on corruption charges, in which I stated already in this blog entry, and 3.) it was indeed bipartisan.

All in all, the quotes are irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is the partisan support for filibustering justices that you don't agree with in a minority stance. Of course, I could provide quotes from Sens Leahy, Daschle, Boxer, among others arguing that justices should be given up or down votes, but Democrats have shown to be hypocrites on so many issues in the past (Iraq, social security, military spending, etc.) that it's not surprising to see them contradict themselves in such manners now.

I don't know Terrance Boyle, nor do I know of any quotes or actions that would prove he's racist (the NC 12th Congressional District case is not one of them, for I think it's unconstitutional gerrymandering as well). Besides, that wasn't the point anyway; as I stated there has been a number of nominees that have been waiting for years and haven't been rushed by any means.

The Democrats have nothing to stand upon in this argument, other than engaging in ad hominem attacks and trying to blur the minority rights argument - one that they didn't respect while they were in power - as well as checks and balances, which only applies to the branches of government and not politicial parties. But as I stated in the blog entry, they won't be challenged for their misinformation in the press, and little to none of the information I've given either in the blog entry or in the comments section will be covered by the press either.
DS Truth
May 17, 2005   01:07 PM PDT
 
Expertise (Interesting Name Choice)

Okay, to start, you are inconsistent with your arguments because you never make it clear what your focus is and it seems you consistently leave out important information with respect to quotes and segments you put-forth. Therefore, I will need to break down your response to my reply, section by section.

Activist Judges…

The Bush nominations are considered activist judges in many circles. Editorial in The News Journal [Wilmington, DE], The Mercury News [San Jose, CA], Newsday and Atlanta Journal-Constitution (to name a few), all expressed concern over ultra-conservative judges with judicial opinions that exceeds the bounds of normal jurisprudence. The following is a breakdown of comments from an editorial in The Mercury News;

* California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, whom we have previously criticized for discarding precedent-setting cases she disagrees with while writing her own libertarian philosophy into her opinions. As a judge on the District of Columbia Circuit, hearing challenges to federal laws, she would probably try to strike down critical environmental, labor and anti-discrimination protections.

* Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen. Her strident dissents against reproductive rights and environmental protections prompted new U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, a fellow Texas justice at the time, to chastise her "inflammatory rhetoric."

* William Myers III, a former lobbyist for the mining and beef industries, nominated to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers California and most of the West. As a solicitor for the Interior Department in Bush's first term, he challenged fundamental environmental laws and sought to weaken regulations over public lands.

http://www.earthjustice.org/policy/judicial/owen_commentary.html

The text speaks for itself. This administration is seeking to rage war on the civil protection via blatant activism of the judges they nominate. That is inexcusable.

Also, to add more flame to the fire, IndependentJudiciary.com reviewed the current Appellate Court nominees and rated them. Take a look at information on the three nominees above.

Janice Brown
http://www.independentjudiciary.com/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=50

Priscilla Owen http://www.independentjudiciary.com/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=21

William Myers III
http://www.independentjudiciary.com/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=76

All of them activist judges and all of them need to be filibustered to the end.

Filibuster…

If you really read what I wrote you would have understood that I was addressing your passage in context. Basically, you mentioned the “results” with taking into account the “whys.” The “whys” is most important aspect of your argument (or the lack thereof). Your passage goes as follows;

“So the Founding Fathers never supported filibusters. To the contrary; they got rid of them. And add to this the fact that filibusters were eliminated from the House of Representatives in 1842, and hasn't been used there since. So how can the filibuster be seen as a "constitutional option" in the Senate, yet not in the House?”

What you conveyed was misinformation and you did not relay all of the facts.

The “filibuster” was not eliminated in the Senate. As I stated in my initial response to you, in the First Senate in 1789, Senate Rule XIX states that every member has the right to express their opinion as apart of the debate process. Still in 1789, the “move to the previous question” motion was adopted but filibustering did not END! The motion was a device to end debate (a filibuster) on a “question” with a simple majority but it did not end the practice of “filibustering.” In other words, if an end-of-debate vote was not taken or if there was not a simple majority, the “filibuster” would continue. This is the same condition that exist today in the Senate except with a 3/5 vote (cloture motion) to end a filibuster. Even the scholar “Sarah A. Binder” you referenced from the NY Times article did not state the filibuster went away in the Senate in 1789, she only stated that “previous question” motion was adopted. In my opinion, that is misinformation on your part because you left out a critical detail.

With respect to the House and filibustering, I referenced it because you left a “hanging” question that I felt should be addressed. As I stated previously, the House dropped the practice of “filibustering” because of the size of its growing membership, where endless debate from all of its members, would not be feasible. If that systemic problem did not exist “filibustering” would have still been the active option. What's more, with your query or inquiry with regard to the “constitution option”, it is viable because the constitution allows the House and the Senate to create and enact their own sets of rules for conducting business in its body respectively.

Also, I did not realize you were framing your argument to Judicial Nominations only. When you mentioned Henry Clay, I assumed you were looking at all types of filibustering.

Orrin Hatch…

First, the information I submitted was from DNC website. I used to because it spoke directly to the concept of how big a FRAUD Hatch really is. Also, the rebuttal quote you submitted comes from an ultra-conservative website that will defend Hatch regardless of the cause. And, you made reference to Clinton nominations not being filibustered. That bruh, is a bold face lie!

With that said, let me look at the referenced lies of Orrin Hatch with respect to filibustering including the lies Bill Frist as well. Also, it will address directly your misguided assertion. From Commondreams.org; they make reference to the actions of Hatch and Frist with the following Myth;

“Myth 2: Judicial filibusters are unprecedented. 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. “

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0305-29.htm

The information above plays right into the notion of the lie Republicans submit as truths. I am not sure you are victim of it or complicit.

More proof of Hatch being a self-indulgent, megalomaniac who should be ostracized as a pariah. According to an Opinion piece on CBSNEWS.com, “…Republicans decided to deny them Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. Between 1996 and 2000, 20 of Bill Clinton's appeals-court nominees were denied hearings, including Elena Kagan, now dean of the Harvard Law School, and many other women and minorities. In 1999, Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch refused to hold hearings for almost six months on any of 16 circuit-court and 31 district-court nominations Clinton had sent up.” All of this was partisan politics where Hatch used procedural maneuvers to deny hearings.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/25/opinion/main683182.shtml

Principally, Orrin Hatch practiced his own private version of filibustering by blocking Clinton’s nomination from getting to the floor simply at his behest. From what I am reading, you deem this practice excusable. I deem it unethical.

More on the Selective Mental Memory History of Hatch…

John Dean wrote a great article on the revisionist history Orrin Hatch tried to apply to filibustering of Abe Fortas nomination to the Supreme Court Chief Justice in 1968. From the article, Dean maintains that on the Senate floor (on April 27, 2005) Orrin Hatch stated;.” …Some have said that the Abe Fortas nomination for Chief Justice was filibustered. Hardly. I thought it was, too, until I was corrected by the man who led the fight against Abe Fortas, Senator Robert Griffin of Michigan." This is bold face lie and Dean proves it. He states, “The evidence is overwhelming, however, that there was indeed, a filibuster, and that it was very real.” He goes on detail the filibuster in the following article; (Remember, Dean was apart of the Republican inter-structure at that time)

http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/dean/20050506.html

I added Dean’s article because it speaks to the lies and misinformation put-forth by Orrin Hatch and it speaks directly to the hypocrisy by the Neo-Cons and in this case your posting.

The Other Quotes…

Like I said previously, I inserted other quote because I assumed we were discussing all forms of filibustering but unknowingly, you framed the debate. But looking at the quotes from a “un-framed” perspective, they emphasized the hypocrisy of the “Rights” views on the subject on all levels. More specifically, the “Right” wants to tag the Democrats with the term Obstructionism while they are the “poster boys and girls” for the practice. Clinton and his administration was a victim of it first-hand.

Lastly, for Terrance Boyle, in my opinion, his nomination should be held up indefinitely. The man is a certifiable bigot and sexist. Also, he is a protégée of Jesse Helms. That information speaks for itself. But curious, in the light, is he acceptable to you? If so, as both of being African-American, I am shock and appalled. Blind allegiance is one thing, but aligning yourself with known bigots/racists is other.

Overall, I am sending this back to you. Using your phraseology, “anyway, nice try.”

Black Neo-Cons are a trip!!! (DS Truth – May 2005)
Expert
May 16, 2005   12:32 AM PDT
 
DS, there's so much babble in your post I don't know where to begin...

First, the assumption that the Bush nominees are activists is a label that is thrown around with frequency, yet is never supported by conclusive evidence with it. At least when conservatives make those arguments, there argued through the legal opinions made.

As for the history of the filibuster, yes...both Houses allowed unlimited debate. I would have thought that was pretty clear, given the fact that I mentioned the House eliminated the filibuster in 1841, and the Constitution was in effect and Congresses had met over the past 50 years, that would be a foregone conclusion. I guess you have to spell it out for some people.

As for the Senate, the first Senate met in 1789, and one of the rules created was that a simple majority was needed to cut off debate by the motion of "a simple majority to cut off a debate by a motion for 'the previous question.' And this was stated by Lloyd Cutler, who ironically was legal counsel to both Bill Clinton (who defended him on Whitewater) and Jimmy Carter, and died just last week.

And there is an NY Times article quoting a professor from GW University stating the same thing.
------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/21/weekinreview/21shan.html?ex=1116302400&en=aba592d56f9e16c9&ei=5070&oref=login&oref=login

"Sarah A. Binder, a political scientist at George Washington University and co-author of a book on the filibuster, said that both the House and Senate began work in 1789 with a measure called a "previous question motion" that required only a simple majority to cut off debate. The House has kept such a rule to the present day.

But the Senate dropped it in an 1806 housecleaning without fully understanding the implications, she said."
---------------------------
of course, you could have easily ran a search on this yourself and found out whether this was true.

None of Clinton's nominations were ever filibustered; a number of them were either defeated in committee or they simply did not receive a committee hearing. That's a functional part of the Senate rules that have been done even when the Democrats were in power.

The quotes you have are laughable, and actually hurts your argument more than helps. First, you did nothing but copy and paste a DNC news release, or copy and pasted it from someone else who got it from the DNC. I would think that would have propelled you to dig a little deeper into 1789 Senate information, but no matter.

As Powerline and Hugh Hewitt notes, here's what Orrin Hatch really said:
--------------------
"Naturally, in the last week or so of a session, there is going to be the threat of some filibusters. It is one of the few tools that the minority has to protect itself and those the minority represents. But this is not a filibuster. I find it unseemly to have filed cloture on a judgeship nomination—where I have made it very clear that I would work to get a time agreement—and make it look like somebody is trying to filibuster a Federal court judgeship."
----------------------
Not only was Hatch not including about judicial filibusters when he made that statement, he didn't support them. But don't worry; the Washington Post was busted too.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010353.php

The other quotes you mention have nothing are irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is whether or not judicial filibusters should be halted. The second quote only warns his colleagues about Clinton appointments that could be judicial activists. In the third quote, Hatch states that reasonable time should be given for debate. Well, a few of the filibustered nominees have been waiting over four years now; I think that's long enough. One, Terrance Boyle, was first nominated 15 years ago, during GW Bush's term. I think we can say that's long enough. And I don't even know why you mentioned Arlen Specter, as John Ashcroft was nominated as the U.S. Attorney General, not for courtship.

But hey; nice try anyway.
DS Truth
May 15, 2005   08:18 PM PDT
 
It never ceases to amaze me how much, Republicans and the Neo-Cons always position themselves as full blown hypocrites.

To start, you folks complain about activist judges (a large percentage of whom were put in place by Republicans), but will not hesitate to nominate or recommend more the same type of “activist” judges. But one caveat, they will have to guarantee the advancement of the Neo-Con agenda. That in itself is repugnant.

Reading your passage in its entirety makes no sense. One particular section where you in brief, discussed the history of filibustering, from the same US Senate website failed to mention, address or even recognize the following passage.

“In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could filibuster. As the House of Representatives grew in numbers, however, revisions to the House rules limited debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued on the grounds that any senator should have the right to speak as long as necessary on any issue.”

From the above passage, you can conclude that initially both the House and the Senate adopted the same rules for limitless debate. This is what the founding fathers of the House and Senate dictated. Also, and you did not cite or reference this as well, the only reason the House drop the practice of filibustering was due to “Numbers” not because it did not work or members simply did not like the custom.

According to Senate rules (read Senate Rule XIX), every member has the right to express their opinion on the “question” relatively uninterrupted. In the case of the House, because the size of the membership, it would not be feasible. Therefore, the “filibuster” as it was constituted in the House and the Senate early on, was drop from the House because of again its size. Due to this systemic problem, a procedural debate mechanism/platform with times limits, was adopted.

It is interesting that you fail to uncover any of that information. If want to know more about filibusters check out the site below. The use of Wikipedia as a source is questionable. The information can be filtered and in some cases, biased.

http://www.goodpoliticsradio.com/alaska/alaskapodcast/2005/04/what-is-filibuster-all-about.html

As for half ass-information from media, it is but you should check yourself as well. Why no mentioning of the fact that Clinton nominations were the most filibustered by of course Republicans, in the history of the Senate? Back then it was the price of doing Senate work, now you Neo-Cons call it Obstructionism. You folks are full of it. This not about logic, it is about being TOTAL HYPOCRITES.

Lastly, let me leave you with the words and opinion of two of you Right-Wing Cronies.

================
Senator Orrin Hatch

During the Clinton Administration, Senator Hatch commented as follows on the importance of giving judicial nominees careful consideration:

"[The filibuster is] one of the few tools that the minority has to protect itself and those the minority represents." (Congressional Record, October 4, 1994)

"[T]he Senate can and should do what it can to ascertain the jurisprudential views a nominee will bring to the bench in order to prevent the confirmation of those who are likely to be judicial activists. Determining which will become activists is not easy since many of President Clinton's nominees tend to have limited paper trails... Determining which of President Clinton's nominees will become activists is complicated and it will require the Senate to be more diligent and extensive in its questioning of nominees' jurisprudential views." (Address of Senator Hatch before University of Utah Federalist Society chapter, February 18, 1997)

"While the debate about vacancy rates on our federal courts is not unimportant, it remains more important that the Senate perform its advice and consent function thoroughly and responsibly. Federal judges serve for life and perform an important constitutional function without direct accountability to the people. Accordingly, the Senate should never move too quickly on nominations before it." (Congressional Record, June 22, 1998)

Senator Arlen Specter

On the nomination of John Ashcroft to be Attorney General:

"And there have been threats of filibuster. And if John Ashcroft is as bad as the witnesses on this side of the table have characterized him, as bad as the senators have characterized him - if he's that bad, they know how to stop him." (Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, January 18, 2001)

=============

Enough said… FRAUDS (Both of them)

Leave a Comment:

Name


Homepage (optional)


Comments