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└:
Quote from: Blue Rectangle on May 18, 2005, 04:48:04 PM
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:
Quote from: jfern on May 18, 2005, 04:52:46 PM
Quote from: Blue Rectangle on May 18, 2005, 04:48:04 PM
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page