Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] "they all deserve up or down votes"

[Vern Green <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

> 
> It is unfortunate that we live in a day and age when an address by a
> US senator is presumed inaccurate until proven otherwise.  

First I have no doubt Feinstein spoke those words, I also know what
kind of person Feinstein is, remember I currently live in California
and have listened to her half-truths and distortions for many years.
> 
> Yes; the point was that in many cases, who blocked whom was never made
> public at all.  That's pretty slimey.  Obviously, Democratic senators
> have had no luxury of anonymity recently.
> 
Right, so how many of these were blocked by democrats in committee? We
don't know that, this table does not show it, so to blame republicans
for all of these would be a stretch wouldn't it? Or perhaps not since
the republicans are so evil.

> As far as Jesse Helms goes...I fail to see your point?  Helms was a
> Republican.  A very powerful Republican, but only because nobody in
> the GOP had the guts to confront him.  If anybody in the GOP ever
> feels embarrassment or discomfort over Jesse Helms, then let that be a
> lesson.
> 
No point really, an observation, one of the only names that appears
here for blocking these appointments. I know Helms was a republican, I
was merely saying his name is one of the only ones I saw.

> Most didn't even get hearings.  But, Vern: surely you see the pattern?
> 
> Democrat nominates judges when GOP controls Senate:
>   judges blocked in/at/before committee controlled by GOP.
> 
> Republican nominates judges when GOP controls Senate:
>  judges blocked at a later point in the process because GOP thoughtfully
>  schedules hearings and sends nominations on with even a party line vote.
> 
So then how do you explain the lower approval rating of Bush's
appointments in the republican controlled Senate? Surely if these evil
and all powerful republicans wanted to get every judge appointed they
would figure out how to get them through a committee hearing. A
republican in the white house, a republican backed Senate and still a
lower approval rating. I am not saying the democrats are obstructing
them either. If they are, they are not alone.

> Ouch; take a much closer look at that table, please.  What it shows ME
> is that up until Clinton started nominating judges, presidents had
> 80%+ of their nominees go through.
> Same thing continues in 1993-1994.  Then, with Bob Dole as Senate
> Majority Leader, the percentage goes way down.  I think it would be
> very tough to argue that Clinton suddenly started nominating worse or
> even more liberal judges after losing Congress in 1994; it was kind of
> the opposite, actually.  Clinton even nominated Republicans for
> Cabinet posts and ambassadorships (and had one of those famously shot
> down).  I think he also nominated some Republicans for judgeships, and
> some of those were, in fact, confirmed.
> 
I never said the table made the republicans look good, but it does
point out to me that a republican president is not having any better
luck with a republican controlled senate than a democrat did. Why is
that?
> 
> Once again, Vern, YOU miss the point entirely.  The only difference in
> blocking stuff on the floor of the senate, in the full view of the
> public, and doing it secretly by not scheduling hearings in the
> Judiciary Committee is that one of these methods does in fact leave
> you guessing about who was blocking whom for what reason.

Ahh but they are not, as the table shows, there are judges being
blocked in committee that are not ever making it to the senate floor,
the only difference I see here is whether a committee approved
candidate is going to get a vote on the senate floor. Don't you see
that? The democrats want to halt a senatorial vote on judgs
confirmation on the floor, something that has only been done once in
200 years.

You see it as an outward expression of democrats standing tall, in
front of the camera, I see it as their inability to stall the
candidates in committee like they have done many other ones and using
this as a last ditch effort to keep them from getting a confirmation
vote. Interestingm they were willing to filibuster them until the deal
come down, then all of sudden these evil appointments are not worth
filibustering anymore are they?

> 
> I am completely uninterested in the distinction here, although I can
> see that you are.  The point is, I believe, that *something* happened
> to the process of appointing and confirming judges when Clinton came
> to office, and what we're seeing now is some combination of:
> 
> 1) Retribution for what the GOP did to nominations in the 1990s.
> 
> 2) An actual fact that Bush has appointed the kind of judge who would
> have gotten
>    blocked before at a higher rate.  (There is little question his
> nominees have been
>    much more conservative than his father's, or possibly even most of Reagan's.
> 
> 3) A feeling that now we do live in an age when the appointment of
> judges is thoroughly
>    politicized.
> 
I would agree with you. I think these points are clear indications of
what is happening. I think the distinction between the two lies in
where they are making the block. You see, I have not heard one
republican come out complaining about judicial nominees being blocked
in committee, have you? The only complaint came when they (the
democrats) decided to use a tool that has in the past rarely been used
on juducial appoinments. The filibuster.

This distinction, even though you want to dismiss it, really is at the
heart of the matter. This was the question that was raised, this was
the complaint that led to the nuclear option. Frisk did not threaten
the nuclear option to get the appointments out of committee.
> 
> Now, again, my *immediate* point is that the history depicted in this
> table is not a history that is consistent with the GOP being a party
> that favors up or down votes on judges in any meaningful sense.  So
> let's not pretend that argument is sincere, at least right now, when
> it doesn't look that sincere.

You are absolutely right, if you want to say that a republican led
senate has not been very friendly to getting judicial appointments out
of committee, then you are correct, that is very clear, no matter WHO
the president is.
-- 
Thanks
F Vernon Green

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion