Frist busted on "constitutional" argument

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Schumer: "Isn't it correct that on March 8, 2000, my colleague [Sen. Frist] voted to uphold the filibuster of Judge Richard Paez?

Frist: "The president, the um, in response, uh, the Paez nomination - we'll come back and discuss this further. Actually I'd like to, and it really brings to what I believe - a point - and it really brings to, oddly, a point, what is the issue. The issue is we have leadership-led partisan filibusters that have, um, obstructed, not one nominee, but two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, in a routine way."



Argument over.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/18/162029/556

[Joe Republic]

OMG BURN

[Blue Rectangle]

Filibustering by the minority in order to prevent a confirmation when everyone knows that a majority would vote to confirm is very different from voting to extend debate when the confirmation vote is in doubt or when a majority opposes confirmation.

And the partisan hacks at DU and Daily Kos should quit accusing someone of lying when that person simply has a different subjective view of an issue.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Filibustering by the minority in order to prevent a confirmation when everyone knows that a majority would vote to confirm is very different from voting to extend debate when the confirmation vote is in doubt or when a majority opposes confirmation.

And the partisan hacks at DU and Daily Kos should quit accusing someone of lying when that person simply has a different subjective view of an issue.

How are they different? Many of Clinton's appointees never made it to an up or down vote. They were blocked in commitee or with holds by Republicans hoping for a Republican President. Sure enough, there were a sh**tload of vacancies on the courts  when our court appointed President took office.

In any case, anyone arguing this is the "constitutional" option is a hypocrite.

[Blue Rectangle]

Filibustering by the minority in order to prevent a confirmation when everyone knows that a majority would vote to confirm is very different from voting to extend debate when the confirmation vote is in doubt or when a majority opposes confirmation.

And the partisan hacks at DU and Daily Kos should quit accusing someone of lying when that person simply has a different subjective view of an issue.

How are they different? Many of Clinton's appointees never made it to an up or down vote. They were blocked in commitee or with holds by Republicans hoping for a Republican President. Sure enough, there were a sh**tload of vacancies on the courts  when our court appointed President took office.

In any case, anyone arguing this is the "constitutional" option is a hypocrite.

"Blocked in committee" means that they couldn't get a majority vote in committee.  Therefore it was pointless to have a floor vote.  The majority disapproved of the nominee and therefore the nominee was not confirmed.  How is this a problem?  How is this any different than what the Constitutions describes for the power of the Senate?

The Constitution does not require a supermajority vote for the confirmation of judges.  Therefore the filibuster of judges for the sole purpose of requiring supermajority approval is a power not found in the Constitution.  Filibuster for the purpose of extending debate (in good faith, not to simply impede the majority) is consistent with the Constitution.

[nick]

Schumer was on point today.

[Blue Rectangle]

Schumer was on point today.

Frist is a poor debater and he certainly got schooled by Schumer, but that doesn't make Frist a liar and it doesn't make Frist's position wrong.

[nick]

Schumer was on point today.

Frist is a poor debater and he certainly got schooled by Schumer, but that doesn't make Frist a liar and it doesn't make Frist's position wrong.

I know.  To be perfectly honest Im not a huge Schumer fan, but today I was very impressed.

[WalterMitty]

frist is a poor debater, a poor leader, a poor senator....probably a poor doctor...but who knows?

[nick]

....probably a poor doctor...but who knows?

Can HIV be transferred through tears?

[TexasGurl]

I personaly don't care about the whole issue.
It's just mind boggling how hypocritical the republicans are being just to get their way.

[J. J.]

I disagree that there is a constitutional issue here, but I feel that the fillabuster is exceptionally bad procedure, and should be changed.

[TheresNoMoney]

Can HIV be transferred through tears?

Of course! You can also get it from sitting on toilet seats!

[Jake]

In any case, anyone arguing this is the "constitutional" option is a hypocrite.

Exactly why, the actions of fifty odd GOP senators definitely don't represent the will of the other millions of people opposed to the filibuster.

[A18]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Judicial%20Nominations--May%2014.htm

57% of Americans say that "Senate rules should be changed so that a vote must be taken on every person the president nominates to become a judge."

Opposition to Democrats' retaliation has increased to 55% in the current survey.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Judicial%20Nominations--May%2014.htm

57% of Americans say that "Senate rules should be changed so that a vote must be taken on every person the president nominates to become a judge."

Opposition to Democrats' retaliation has increased to 55% in the current survey.

Removal of fillibustering I recently saw at around 59% disapproving...the American public sure is easily swayed by question changing.

[TexasGurl]

I did enjoy watching schumer speak.

[A18]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Judicial%20Nominations--May%2014.htm

57% of Americans say that "Senate rules should be changed so that a vote must be taken on every person the president nominates to become a judge."

Opposition to Democrats' retaliation has increased to 55% in the current survey.

Removal of fillibustering I recently saw at around 59% disapproving...the American public sure is easily swayed by question changing.

At the voting booth, those two questions should be asked. Anyone who answers them differently should be disenfranchised for the next 12 elections.

[J.R. Brown]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Judicial%20Nominations--May%2014.htm

57% of Americans say that "Senate rules should be changed so that a vote must be taken on every person the president nominates to become a judge."

Opposition to Democrats' retaliation has increased to 55% in the current survey.

I'm suprised you're not supporting the fillabuster. Don't you believe that a democracy is majority tyranny. Why would you oppose a rule that empowers the minority? Probably because it's only majority tyranny if the majority disagrees with you, and try not to respond by calling me a ing idiot, that's really getting old. Maybe when you get out of high school you'll be able to formulate a more intelligent way of offending people.

[Joe Republic]

Maybe when you get out of high school you'll be able to formulate a more intelligent way of offending people.

Philip is homeschooled, or so I've been told.

[nick]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Judicial%20Nominations--May%2014.htm

57% of Americans say that "Senate rules should be changed so that a vote must be taken on every person the president nominates to become a judge."

Opposition to Democrats' retaliation has increased to 55% in the current survey.

From Polling Report:

Time Poll  conducted by Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas (SRBI) Public Affairs. May 10-12, 2005. N=1,011 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Some Republicans in the Senate want to eliminate the ability of Democrats to use the filibuster, or extended debate, to block the Senate from voting on some of President Bush's judicial nominees. Do you think the Republicans should or should not be able to eliminate the filibuster in this case?"

Should: 28%
Should Not: 59%
Unsure: 14%

[J. J.]

One of the other polls said:

"How do you feel about this issue? Do you favor or oppose changing the rules of the Senate to stop the use of filibusters against judicial nominees?"
 
       
 
Favor  28%

Oppose 37%

Unsure   35%
 
 5/11-15/05

I'm not seeing the public being really solid on this issue one way or the other.

[A18]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Judicial%20Nominations--May%2014.htm

57% of Americans say that "Senate rules should be changed so that a vote must be taken on every person the president nominates to become a judge."

Opposition to Democrats' retaliation has increased to 55% in the current survey.

I'm suprised you're not supporting the fillabuster. Don't you believe that a democracy is majority tyranny. Why would you oppose a rule that empowers the minority? Probably because it's only majority tyranny if the majority disagrees with you, and try not to respond by calling me a g idiot, that's really getting old. Maybe when you get out of high school you'll be able to formulate a more intelligent way of offending people.

I've answered this question in several other threads.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Judicial%20Nominations--May%2014.htm

57% of Americans say that "Senate rules should be changed so that a vote must be taken on every person the president nominates to become a judge."

Opposition to Democrats' retaliation has increased to 55% in the current survey.

So? Word that a bit differently and something like 62% support the Democrats.

[Blue Rectangle]

How about this statement on original intent and constitutionality?

The Founding Fathers certainly intended that the Senate "advise" as to judicial nominations, i.e., consider, debate and vote up or down. They surely did not intend that the Senate, for partisan or factional reasons, would remain silent and simply refuse to give any advice or consider and vote at all, thereby leaving the courts in limbo, understaffed and unable properly to carry out their responsibilities for years.

--Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) May 10, 2000