Quote:

---

Quote:

---

But pbrinker, this is not what is happening with the judicial nominees. My understanding is that the committees are not bringing up the nominees to a vote. Blocking judicial nominees is normal, not bringing them up for a vote is unprecedented, right?

---

"...Republicans have repeatedly asserted that using a filibuster to block a judicial nominee is unprecedented. History books and contemporary news accounts, however, generally depict Justice Abe Fortas's unsuccessful bid in 1968 to become chief justice to have been filibustered by Republicans... "

Clickey

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

But pbrinker, this is not what is happening with the judicial nominees. My understanding is that the committees are not bringing up the nominees to a vote. Blocking judicial nominees is normal, not bringing them up for a vote is unprecedented, right?

---

"...Republicans have repeatedly asserted that using a filibuster to block a judicial nominee is unprecedented. History books and contemporary news accounts, however, generally depict Justice Abe Fortas's unsuccessful bid in 1968 to become chief justice to have been filibustered by Republicans... "

Clickey

---

Not to say that it is right to filibuster an appointment of a chief justice, but this is comparing apples to oranges--he was already a justice. What we have now is filibuster to block a person from becoming a federal judge at all. Has the filibuster ever been used by Dems. or Reps. to block a judicial nominee?

---

Quote:

---

“Hatch claims that no federal judicial nominee has ever been filibustered, but he is wrong. President Johnson’s 1968 Supreme Court nominee, Abe Fortas, was the victim of a GOP filibuster. Over 50 Clinton nominees were denied a vote on the Senate floor and many didn’t even get a hearing. How is that any different?”

---

Quote:

---

Ok, (a) is an isolated instance from 36 years ago really relevant?

---

Quote:

---

And (b), the number of Clinton appointees confirmed by a Republican Senate are very comparable to the number of Reagan appointees confirmed by a Republican Senate.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Ok, (a) is an isolated instance from 36 years ago really relevant?

---

Uh…yes. It is an event that happened, therefore it is by definition a precedence. The question was “Has the filibuster ever been used by Dems. or Reps. to block a judicial nominee??” I answered that question.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And (b), the number of Clinton appointees confirmed by a Republican Senate are very comparable to the number of Reagan appointees confirmed by a Republican Senate.

---

I included the quote to show that the Senate has blocked judicial nominees from moving through the whole confirmation process. You are adding that this also happened in the Reagan years. Thanks!

---

Quote:

---

The fact is that judicial confirmations have been held up without votes for years. The thought that the current situation is "unprecedented" because one strategy involved not bringing the nomination to a vote in committee, while the other involves not bringing the nomination to a vote on the floor is a distinction without a real difference.

---

Quote:

---

Many more judges are being confirmed now than when Clinton was President, however.

---

Quote:

---

So? My question is, how is it relevant?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And (b), the number of Clinton appointees confirmed by a Republican Senate are very comparable to the number of Reagan appointees confirmed by a Republican Senate.

---

I included the quote to show that the Senate has blocked judicial nominees from moving through the whole confirmation process. You are adding that this also happened in the Reagan years. Thanks!

---

No, I am pointing out that under both Clinton and Reagan, judicial nominees were confirmed at an equitable rate. You cannot say that the filibuster of Bush appointees is payback for some evil concocted by the Republicans against Clinton appointees.

---

Quote:

---

Jokerman, I don’t know what’s wrong with you. You are twisting my argument AGAIN to mean something that was not said.

---

Quote:

---

Ok, it’s not relevant to YOUR argument or questions. It does directly answer Zaibatzu’s. If you can’t see that, no one can make you see it.

---

Quote:

---

Jokerman, I don’t know what’s wrong with you. You are twisting my argument AGAIN to mean something that was not said. I didn’t say it was payback or anything of the sort. I only said that it happened.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Jokerman, I don’t know what’s wrong with you. You are twisting my argument AGAIN to mean something that was not said.

---

What else is new?

---

Quote:

---

The Republicans don't need to file a lawsuit. They need to have the Parlimentarian declare the filibuster out of order. Then approve the judge on a normal majority vote. The Democrats would be the ones filing a lawsuit. I don't know how it would be decided, but it would be better than just whining about it.

---

Quote:

---

Conservatives and members of the Senate Republican leadership say that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) is committed to using a controversial procedural tactic that would rewrite the chamber’s filibuster rule.
...
The push by prominent conservative activists and legal experts to strip the minority of the power to block judges gained new momentum yesterday when Republicans failed to stop a Democratic filibuster of William Myers, a nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Republicans expect Democrats to filibuster two other nominees to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, David McKeague and Richard Griffin, both of whom lawmakers passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday.
...
Since Democrats launched a permanent filibuster against Miguel Estrada, whom Bush nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the first time a judicial nominee was subjected to a series of failed cloture votes, conservatives have discussed ways to eliminate such blocking tactics. Rewriting the Senate rules has been an option long under consideration. But as Democrats have used a once unprecedented tactic repeatedly against Bush’s nominees — Myers is the seventh nominee to be filibustered — the support among conservatives for stripping the minority of the ability to filibuster has swelled.
...
Frist could pursue the so-called constitutional or “nuclear” option. One variation of the tactic would entail asking the vice president or a member of the majority presiding over the chamber to issue a ruling from the chair invalidating filibusters of judicial nominees. Democrats would be certain to object to such a ruling, but their objection could be overruled by a majority vote. Rulings of the chair have been used in the past to change the filibuster rule, most notably in 1977 when then-Vice President Walter Mondale (D) ruled out of order a post-cloture filibuster by Sens. James Abourezk (D-S.D.) and Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio). Another tactic would be to extend the legislative day over the course of many calendar days, taking advantage of the rule that a lawmaker can only speak twice on the same subject during a legislative day. Such a tactic would exhaust the ability of Democrats to filibuster a nominee or group of nominees.

---

Quote:

---

Would you say that the Senate could change its rules to require a 3/4 majority on a veto override?

---

Quote:

---

I heard yesterday that a lesbian couple who were married in Mass. is trying to get their marriage recognized in Florida and Florida refused, so they have filed a case in federal court to force Florida to recognize the marriage.

This kind of lawsuit is what people supporting the FMA have been saying would happen all along while lawmakers have been saying that should be left up to the states. If this case is successful, then it won't be up to the states anymore, they will be forced to recognize any type of marriage from any other state.

We are picking up speed on that slipperly slope that those 5 judges started in Mass.

---

Quote:

---

I heard yesterday that a lesbian couple who were married in Mass. is trying to get their marriage recognized in Florida and Florida refused, so they have filed a case in federal court to force Florida to recognize the marriage.

This kind of lawsuit is what people supporting the FMA have been saying would happen all along while lawmakers have been saying that should be left up to the states. If this case is successful, then it won't be up to the states anymore, they will be forced to recognize any type of marriage from any other state.

We are picking up speed on that slipperly slope that those 5 judges started in Mass.

---

Quote:

---

I took into account every section of the CONSTITUTION that you cited. Senate rules do not the Constitution amend.

---

Quote:

---

No, this whole opposition of judges for political purposes began with Robert Bork. I won't deny that some Republicans have wrongly denied a committee vote on appointees from their state. Democrats have done the exact same thing (e.g., Carl Levin). But the wholesale filibuster of groups of nominees to an appeals court for idealogical reasons is unprecedented.

---

Quote:

---

They will use Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution for their case.

---

Quote:

---

Not to say that it is right to filibuster an appointment of a chief justice, but this is comparing apples to oranges--he was already a justice. What we have now is filibuster to block a person from becoming a federal judge at all. Has the filibuster ever been used by Dems. or Reps. to block a judicial nominee?

---

Quote:

---

...The Constitution does not guarantee a nominee for any office a vote by the full Senate. It says only that the Senate will provide its advice and consent, and defines what vote is necessary for consent. The consent of the Senate is obtained when a vote occurs in accordance with its rules. This is includes the rule on cloture, or ending debate.

---

Quote:

---

Actually, the use of a fillibuster to prevent a judicial nominee from being voted on goes back at least to 1967, when Johnson's nomination of Abe Fortas was filibustered by Republicans.

---

Quote:

---

I would contest the assertion that "whole groups of nominees" have actually been filibustered. Of all the President's judicial nominees, I can think of 5 or 6 (out of over 200) that have had consideration blocked.

---

Quote:

---

I just don't see any difference in the end between the current actions of Senate Democrats and the actions of Senate Republicans during the Clinton administration. Whether blocked before they reached Committee or after, the Republicans blocked "whole groups" of Clinton's judicial nominees for ideological purposes. If you are th majority, you don't need the filibuster, because you control the agenda.

---

Quote:

---

The Republicans have not reacted asa you suggest they should because they believe (quite rightly, IMO) that the Democrates would then filibuster all business in the Senate until the decision was reverersed. That would make them look stupid, and they are many things, but the Senate leadership is not stupid.

---