gop to filibuster scotus nominee

[Toro]

A story from January 30th, 2006? ...

the story is about obma and company trying to obstruct a bush nominee.....shortly the tables will be turned and everyone will cry foul and lament how evil the gop is....

politics is the best soap opera on tv.....

With 40 seats, the GOP couldn't filibuster an appointment to a university board.

 

[American Horse]

I don't think the GOP has the numbers to pull off a filibuster, but even if they did they'd be vilified if the nominee was a person of color. I think whoever gets the nomination will breeze through confirmation unless the cons can find some dirt.

Dirt? That's just not in the Repubs playbook; unless someone brings up Bill Clinton, and he provided his own dirt. The main issue of the Republicans will be whether or not the nominee is originalist vis-a-vis the constitution. Then only if there is some blatant closet that simply can't be overlooked, will they invoke character. So you are right, the nominee will likely "breeze through."

A likely nominee is Sonia Sotomayor; She was nominated to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H. W. Bush in 1997. She became the youngest judge in the Southern District and the first Hispanic federal judge anywhere in New York State. She appears often on Fox News Channel giving her expert opinion on policy matters and the law. Her opinions are usually hardcore liberal. My guess is that she will be the choice.

 

[Missourian]

If the GOP was smart (and their not but if they were) they would give Obama's nominee an quick up or down vote just like they demanded for Alito. Don't make a big ta-do about it up front but let the behind-the-scenes guys/gals play it up in the media.....they have nothing to lose replacing a liberal with a liberal, and nothing would make the Dems look worse than the GOP living up to the standard they requested and didn't receive from the (D)'s and the sitting president.

 

[Annie]

If the GOP was smart (and their not but if they were) they would give Obama's nominee an quick up or down vote just like they demanded for Alito. Don't make a big ta-do about it up front but let the behind-the-scenes guys/gals play it up in the media.....they have nothing to lose replacing a liberal with a liberal, and nothing would make the Dems look worse than the GOP living up to the standard they requested and didn't receive from the (D)'s and the sitting president.

I think that is what will happen. No blocking.

 

[Vel]

The Republicans are not going to try to fillubuster this nomination. Frankly, I don't think the Republicans have ever been as "bad" about doing that when it comes to judicial nominations as the Democrats have been to begin with. And they're certainly not going to do that now. They will make statements, etc. But they're not going to try to fillibuster.

They won't try to filibuster, because they know they can't hold it. They will, however, pander to their base.
We'll hear a lot about how the majority is suppressing the rights of the minority. How, they are being mistreated and ignored. How the Democrats are abusing their power to push the most liberal judge in America on the people. How the country is going to hell in a hand basket, because the President has nominated someone who will legislate from the bench and reinterpret the Constitution rather than uphold it.

It ought to be quite interesting.

Maybe we should pull up some soundbites (maybe from Youtube) and so that we can all laugh at how things have changed since Bush was President... Republicans condemning Democrats then and Democrats condemning Republicans today. It would be funny to see.

Immie

Well who else SHOULD they pander to? One of the reasons that Republicans are out of power is that they took their base for granted and failed to do the job the "base" sent them to Washington to do. Republican politicians wrongly assumed that their "base" would act like the Democrat's base and support them regardless. They misunderstood the results of the 2006 elections and got whacked even harder in 2008. Hopefully they've learned a lesson and we can return to a two party system.

 

[DiveCon]

If the GOP was smart (and their not but if they were) they would give Obama's nominee an quick up or down vote just like they demanded for Alito. Don't make a big ta-do about it up front but let the behind-the-scenes guys/gals play it up in the media.....they have nothing to lose replacing a liberal with a liberal, and nothing would make the Dems look worse than the GOP living up to the standard they requested and didn't receive from the (D)'s and the sitting president.

how many of Clintons judicial appointments were filibustered?
with a GOP controled senate

 

[Immanuel]

Well who else SHOULD they pander to? One of the reasons that Republicans are out of power is that they took their base for granted and failed to do the job the "base" sent them to Washington to do. Republican politicians wrongly assumed that their "base" would act like the Democrat's base and support them regardless. They misunderstood the results of the 2006 elections and got whacked even harder in 2008. Hopefully they've learned a lesson and we can return to a two party system.

I'd vote for no party and term limits if it were up to me.

Regarding "pandering", I don't think they should "pander" to anyone. I think they should do what is best for America and forget about the "religious right" (a group, I find myself somewhat closely related to in principle). There is too much pandering going on by both sides.

Immie

 

[Vel]

Well who else SHOULD they pander to? One of the reasons that Republicans are out of power is that they took their base for granted and failed to do the job the "base" sent them to Washington to do. Republican politicians wrongly assumed that their "base" would act like the Democrat's base and support them regardless. They misunderstood the results of the 2006 elections and got whacked even harder in 2008. Hopefully they've learned a lesson and we can return to a two party system.

I'd vote for no party and term limits if it were up to me.

Regarding "pandering", I don't think they should "pander" to anyone. I think they should do what is best for America and forget about the "religious right" (a group, I find myself somewhat closely related to in principle). There is too much pandering going on by both sides.

Immie

I think that politicians should have an obligation to vote in the manner that they represented themselves to be while they were seeking election. Do you not think it's hypocritical of a politician to portray themselves as fiscally conservative in order to attract votes and then, as soon as they get to D.C. turn around and vote for massive pork barrel spending? Would it not be hypocritical for a politician to portray themselves as a social liberal and then vote to criminalize say..pornagraphy. I think politicians should, so to speak, dance with the ones that brung them.

 

[Immanuel]

I think that politicians should have an obligation to vote in the manner that they represented themselves to be while they were seeking election. Do you not think it's hypocritical of a politician to portray themselves as fiscally conservative in order to attract votes and then, as soon as they get to D.C. turn around and vote for massive pork barrel spending? Would it not be hypocritical for a politician to portray themselves as a social liberal and then vote to criminalize say..pornagraphy. I think politicians should, so to speak, dance with the ones that brung them.

I see your point, but then I don't think they should sell themselves as something they are not in the first place. George W. Bush as a "compassionate conservative" being a prime example.

Immie

 

[Vel]

I think that politicians should have an obligation to vote in the manner that they represented themselves to be while they were seeking election. Do you not think it's hypocritical of a politician to portray themselves as fiscally conservative in order to attract votes and then, as soon as they get to D.C. turn around and vote for massive pork barrel spending? Would it not be hypocritical for a politician to portray themselves as a social liberal and then vote to criminalize say..pornagraphy. I think politicians should, so to speak, dance with the ones that brung them.

I see your point, but then I don't think they should sell themselves as something they are not in the first place. George W. Bush as a "compassionate conservative" being a prime example.

Immie

I agree. Kind of like Obama selling himself as a moderate.

 

[Immanuel]

I think that politicians should have an obligation to vote in the manner that they represented themselves to be while they were seeking election. Do you not think it's hypocritical of a politician to portray themselves as fiscally conservative in order to attract votes and then, as soon as they get to D.C. turn around and vote for massive pork barrel spending? Would it not be hypocritical for a politician to portray themselves as a social liberal and then vote to criminalize say..pornagraphy. I think politicians should, so to speak, dance with the ones that brung them.

I see your point, but then I don't think they should sell themselves as something they are not in the first place. George W. Bush as a "compassionate conservative" being a prime example.

Immie

I agree. Kind of like Obama selling himself as a moderate.

That would be prime example #2. Unfortunately, America bought both of them hook, line, and sinker

Immie

 

[Bullypulpit]

obstructionist bastards...........

Obama joins filibuster bid against Alito: But senator criticizes tactic, says it will fail. | Article from Chicago Tribune (Chicago, IL) | HighBeam Research

Jan. 30--WASHINGTON -- Sen. Barack Obama said he would vote Monday to filibuster Judge Samuel Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court, but he conceded the effort would be futile and criticized Democrats for failing to persuade Americans to take notice of the court's changing ideological face.

"The Democrats have to do a much better job in making their case on these issues," Obama (D-Ill.) said Sunday on ABC News' "This Week." "These last-minute efforts--using procedural maneuvers inside the Beltway--I think has been the wrong way of going about it."

Gosh...the GOP about shat itself blind when the Democrats threatened to filibuster Chimpy McPresident's judicial nominees. Seems they don't like being reduced to playing the minority role. **** 'em, they brought it on themselves.

Funny how some people can't see Democrat hypocrisy when it crawls up their own pants leg, but scream themselves hoarse over Republican hypocrisy that hasn't even happened yet.

Call me when they ACTUALLY filibuster, rather than when someone simply assumes they're going to.

Jon Kyl, the second-ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate, warned president-elect Barack Obama that he would filibuster U.S. Supreme Court appointments if those nominees were too liberal. - Senator John Kyl (R-AZ)

No need to assume what has already been explicitly stated.

This is Senator Kyl in 2005...

John Kyl (R-AZ)
"For 214 years it has been the tradition of the Senate to approve judicial nominees by a majority vote. Many of our judges and, for example, Clarence Thomas, people might recall, was approved by either fifty-one or fifty-two votes as I recall. It has never been the rule that a candidate for judgeship that had majority support was denied the ability to be confirmed once before the Senate. It has never happened before. So we're not changing the rules in the middle of the game. We're restoring the 214-year tradition of the Senate because in the last two years Democrats have begun to use this filibuster. (...) This is strictly about whether or not a minority of senators is going to prevent the president from being able to name and get confirmed judges that he chooses after he's been elected by the American people. And it's never been the case until the last two years that a minority could dictate to the majority what they could do." (NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, "Judicial Wars," 4/25/05)

Now, in order to avoid being called a hypocrite, perhaps you should avoid the assumption that congressional Democrats will ride roughshod over the GOP minority until they explicitly state their intention to do so.

 

[DiveCon]

Gosh...the GOP about shat itself blind when the Democrats threatened to filibuster Chimpy McPresident's judicial nominees. Seems they don't like being reduced to playing the minority role. **** 'em, they brought it on themselves.

Funny how some people can't see Democrat hypocrisy when it crawls up their own pants leg, but scream themselves hoarse over Republican hypocrisy that hasn't even happened yet.

Call me when they ACTUALLY filibuster, rather than when someone simply assumes they're going to.

Jon Kyl, the second-ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate, warned president-elect Barack Obama that he would filibuster U.S. Supreme Court appointments if those nominees were too liberal. - Senator John Kyl (R-AZ)

No need to assume what has already been explicitly stated.

This is Senator Kyl in 2005...

John Kyl (R-AZ)
"For 214 years it has been the tradition of the Senate to approve judicial nominees by a majority vote. Many of our judges and, for example, Clarence Thomas, people might recall, was approved by either fifty-one or fifty-two votes as I recall. It has never been the rule that a candidate for judgeship that had majority support was denied the ability to be confirmed once before the Senate. It has never happened before. So we're not changing the rules in the middle of the game. We're restoring the 214-year tradition of the Senate because in the last two years Democrats have begun to use this filibuster. (...) This is strictly about whether or not a minority of senators is going to prevent the president from being able to name and get confirmed judges that he chooses after he's been elected by the American people. And it's never been the case until the last two years that a minority could dictate to the majority what they could do." (NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, "Judicial Wars," 4/25/05)

Now, in order to avoid being called a hypocrite, perhaps you should avoid the assumption that congressional Democrats will ride roughshod over the GOP minority until they explicitly state their intention to do so.

since Kyle was rebuffed in 2005, the rules have changed
of course an asshole like you cant see that

 

[Cecilie1200]

are you actually denying that both sides have done this?

If you're insisting the GOP has filibustered a Supreme Court nominee, it should be easy for you to cite me the nominee's name and the date it happened. Please do so now.

i don't believe they have....they have been on a filibuster binge so it wouldn't suprise me....but as someone pointed out they don't have the votes.......

anyway the point of this thread was to predict the behaviour of the dems ..... but you knew that and wanted to divert the discussion.....

I never said the GOP doesn't filibuster. It does, and even holds the record for the longest filibuster. But it has always made a policy of not filibustering Supreme Court nominees, and I see no reason to sit around, working everyone into a froth speculating over them suddenly growing a pair and becoming confrontational over something they've never been confrontational over before.

And yes, I "knew" that a thread about the GOP filibustering was actually a clever attempt to discuss the DEMOCRATS, and I just wanted to divert it from its true intention by underhandedly discussing the stated premise. Brilliant logic there; almost as good as "Let's discuss the hypocrisy that will be evident when the GOP does something it's never done before and has given no indication it's going to do now."

 

[Immanuel]

I never said the GOP doesn't filibuster. It does, and even holds the record for the longest filibuster. But it has always made a policy of not filibustering Supreme Court nominees, and I see no reason to sit around, working everyone into a froth speculating over them suddenly growing a pair and becoming confrontational over something they've never been confrontational over before.

In fact, wasn't it true that when the Dems tried it for the first time against President Bush, that doing so was the first time either party had attempted to block a Supreme Court nominee with a filibuster?

I must say Cecilie, that I disagree with you regarding the GOP not attempting it this time around and your reasons, but that doesn't mean that I am right in my beliefs that they will do so. Truthfully, I expect them to squawk about the whole thing as I expected the Dems to do then. Obstructionists was a hard word to use against the Dems when they tried it. I wouldn't even be surprised if someone went back to my postings from that time and found one or two times that I used it. But, I think having been on these sites, I've grown up a little bit since then so I would not expect to do it again nor to ***** and moan that the President is exercising his right to nominate whomever he chooses.

As for the GOP growing a pair, I don't think we have that to look forward to anytime in the near future.

Immie

 

[Againsheila]

The Rs will find some cloudy and obscure rule to get around being filibuster proof.

ya they will probably pull in represenatives from all 57 states...

 

[jillian]

of course jillian wouldn't understand it.....LOL

she frequently only writes

idiot

in response to my posts or threads, so i thought maybe she must be like really smart and stuff because she can defeat my whole argument with like one word and stuff and that one word like shows how i'm an idiot and how like smart she is

my bad

I love discussing things with the smart right-wingers.

you just happen not to be one of them. and if i bother to write the word "idiot", that's actually generally more attention than you deserve. (like this was about 30 seconds of my life I'll never get back).

 

[Cecilie1200]

They won't try to filibuster, because they know they can't hold it. They will, however, pander to their base.

We'll hear a lot about how the majority is suppressing the rights of the minority. How, they are being mistreated and ignored. How the Democrats are abusing their power to push the most liberal judge in America on the people. How the country is going to hell in a hand basket, because the President has nominated someone who will legislate from the bench and reinterpret the Constitution rather than uphold it.

It ought to be quite interesting.

Maybe we should pull up some soundbites (maybe from Youtube) and so that we can all laugh at how things have changed since Bush was President... Republicans condemning Democrats then and Democrats condemning Republicans today. It would be funny to see.

Immie

I'd be fascinated if you could cite me the last time the GOP did any of that during a Supreme Court nomination. I seem to remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg going through Congress rather peacefully.

Oh, pundits and commentators will certainly say that stuff, and rightfully so, but the GOP in Congress? Puhleeze.

No one has said that the Republicans filibustered a Supreme Court nomination in the past.

Bullypulpit:

It's not an accusation...it's a fact. Congressional Republicans are a bunch of obstructionist weenies.

manu1959:

each side has done it in the past......this isn't new behaviour.....

Yurt:

are you actually denying that both sides have done this?

Awful lot of "no ones" spouting off until I called them on it. And if you're now going to try to give me the "Oh, well, the thread's about filibustering Supreme Court nominees, but I wasn't talking about THAT, I was talking about OTHER filibusters" crap, don't even bother. You all tried to bullshit, you got nailed, you're backtracking. End of story.

What has been said, and I think you are missing the point of the discussion is that when President Bush gave us his nominees and the Democrats played their obstructionist game, the Republicans called them all kinds of nasty names. The tables will, I believe, be turned this time around.

What has been said, and the point YOU'RE missing, is that it's outrageous that the GOP is going to do something they've never done before, or ever shown an inclination to do, and haven't even suggested they were going to do this time, based solely on "the Democrats acted like assholes, so we expect EVERYONE to act like assholes, and boy, we really hope the GOP is as badly behaved as the Democrats, because we SOOOO want to be outraged, and we're pissed off right now at our unfounded belief that they're going to do this".

Yeah, the GOP called them nasty names . . . justifiably. And I'm still calling you on where you get off believing "the tables will be turned". Based on what? It sure isn't past performance.

Also, I'm not only speaking of Congress, but those of us here on these kinds of boards, radio/tv personalities (I'm actually looking forward to hearing what Rush and Sean have to say on this!), Congress, The President himself etc. Everyone will reverse their roles this year. It will actually be kind of funny to play Rush during the Democrat Filibusters followed by Rush Today.

Oh, really? This is a thread about filibustering Supreme Court nominees, but you're not talking just about Congress? Who else, pray tell, has the ability to filibuster anyone or anything? Last time I checked, the people on this board, the people in the media, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the President don't have any say in filibusters.

And it's only going to be funny to play Rush during the Democrat filibusters if the GOP filibuster. Same question you still can't answer: on what basis do you assume they would even try? What's really funny is how you admit your assumptions are full of shit, and still cling to them and insist on discussing them as fact.

That is what I am trying to say here.

Republicans won't even hint of a filibuster this time around because they know it is a lost cause, but the rumblings will be evident. At least I believe they will be.

Immie

Actually, they won't hint at a filibuster because they don't filibuster Supreme Court nominees, and you have a hell of a goddamned nerve sitting there, insisting that you "know" they really want to, and just aren't because of all these other reasons. Who are you, Miss Cleo? You can read minds and tell that THIS time, out of all the times they haven't filibustered, it's because they can't, not because they don't believe in it?

I just love how the Democrats get defended for the bad things they do, and the GOP gets excoriated for the bad things idiots assume they secretly want to do. Very even-handed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If the GOP was smart (and their not but if they were) they would give Obama's nominee an quick up or down vote just like they demanded for Alito. Don't make a big ta-do about it up front but let the behind-the-scenes guys/gals play it up in the media.....they have nothing to lose replacing a liberal with a liberal, and nothing would make the Dems look worse than the GOP living up to the standard they requested and didn't receive from the (D)'s and the sitting president.

I think that is what will happen. No blocking.

Of course it's what will happen, because it's what ALWAYS happens. They've stuck by their principle of giving Supreme Court nominees up-or-down votes every single time, not that it does them any good, because dimwits like the ones on this board promptly forget it and accuse them of Democrat behavior anyway.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Gosh...the GOP about shat itself blind when the Democrats threatened to filibuster Chimpy McPresident's judicial nominees. Seems they don't like being reduced to playing the minority role. **** 'em, they brought it on themselves.

Funny how some people can't see Democrat hypocrisy when it crawls up their own pants leg, but scream themselves hoarse over Republican hypocrisy that hasn't even happened yet.

Call me when they ACTUALLY filibuster, rather than when someone simply assumes they're going to.

Jon Kyl, the second-ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate, warned president-elect Barack Obama that he would filibuster U.S. Supreme Court appointments if those nominees were too liberal. - Senator John Kyl (R-AZ)

No need to assume what has already been explicitly stated.

This is Senator Kyl in 2005...

John Kyl (R-AZ)
"For 214 years it has been the tradition of the Senate to approve judicial nominees by a majority vote. Many of our judges and, for example, Clarence Thomas, people might recall, was approved by either fifty-one or fifty-two votes as I recall. It has never been the rule that a candidate for judgeship that had majority support was denied the ability to be confirmed once before the Senate. It has never happened before. So we're not changing the rules in the middle of the game. We're restoring the 214-year tradition of the Senate because in the last two years Democrats have begun to use this filibuster. (...) This is strictly about whether or not a minority of senators is going to prevent the president from being able to name and get confirmed judges that he chooses after he's been elected by the American people. And it's never been the case until the last two years that a minority could dictate to the majority what they could do." (NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, "Judicial Wars," 4/25/05)

Now, in order to avoid being called a hypocrite, perhaps you should avoid the assumption that congressional Democrats will ride roughshod over the GOP minority until they explicitly state their intention to do so.

Now, in order to avoid being called an imbecile - whoops, too late! - perhaps you should read 1) my post, and 2) your own frigging link.

I said, "Call me when they ACTUALLY filibuster". Have they done so? No. They never, EVER have, and they certainly haven't yet, so you're STILL a dumbass getting yourself all worked up into a froth over something you just KNOW is going to happen in the future, sometime, eventually, but you can't really say why.

Second, not once in your big "Gotcha!" link was Senator Kyl ever quoted as saying he intended to try to filibuster. Go read your own story. I think there were two direct quotes from him, neither of which had anything to do with filibustering. The entire rest of the story was the journalist asserting that he said it, and he was going to do it. Do you know why reporters do that, telling you someone said something instead of actually quoting them? It's because that person NEVER SAID IT. If he had, they'd have quoted it. Hell, they'd have had the direct quote in the subheading.

Third, I never said a damned word about the Democrats running roughshod over anyone, so you will kindly spare me your outrage at unfounded accusations toward the Democrats that haven't been made at the same time that you spare me your outrage at unfounded accusations toward the Republicans that have.

Oh, by the way, Noah Webster, you mind telling me what's "hypocritical" about me pointing out the historical fact that the GOP hasn't filibustered any Supreme Court nominees, and the painfully obvious fact that they certainly haven't filibustered anyone THIS time?