[linskyjack]

Will they reach a compromise-it appears that the compromise would maintain the fillibuster and confirm some of the 7 radical right wing judicial activists that have been held up.

[Mulderator]

Linsky--you need to explaint this more--very few people follow that issue.

[linskyjack]

Oh--I thought it was the biggest thing since swiss cheese---Actually everyone I think knows about the fillibuster. I just read that Luger, McCain and a couple of the other moderate Republicans are working feverishly with some moderate Democrats to come up with a compromise. The idea would be that the fillibuster would stay intact, but democrats would throw their votes to maybe half of the nominees that are being held up,and thus they would be confirmed. By the way, I like the compromise--only because I really believe in the fillibuster. As a guy who tends to vote Democrat, it would be to the party's advantage if Frist tries to push for the rule change. As an American I think it critical that they compromise and retain the fillibuster. Mulder you might be right and maybe lots of people aren't watching this, but as far as I am concerned it is a very important moment in the Bush presidency.

[Ciberblade]

I am thinking they will not...I do not wish to re-hash the filibuster as a whole...but for this handful of judges, it seems that they are pushing for the full-out vote.

[Ciberblade]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Will they reach a compromise-it appears that the compromise would maintain the fillibuster and confirm some of the 7 radical right wing judicial activists that have been held up.

You've mentioned the radical part before...but I have yet to see you produce any rulings or cases that support that claim. These people have had a successful career thus far for a reason

[linskyjack]

The judges in question (one in fact actually said this) believe that the ascendency of Roosevelt and the New Deal programs that were passed by Congress are unconstitutional As a whole, they have ruled against plantiffs in sexual harassment suits, enviornmental suits and they tend to think that corporations can do no wrong. As I posted somewhere else, this administration has had more judges confirmed then any administration in the last 25 years. I think its something like 208 out of 215. Two of the judges from Michigan are being held as payback for what the Republican controled judiciary did to 63 of Clinton's nominees. None of them even got to the floor of the Senate. There are a whole bunch of tricks (like the blue slip trick) that were used to keep them from getting an up or down vote. The Blue Slip, used against Clintons Michigan nominees essentially allows the two senators from that state to hold up a vote on the floor of the Senate.

[Mulderator]

I think they will reach a comrpromise of 55 votes needed to end a fillabuster!

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

The judges in question (one in fact actually said this) believe that the ascendency of Roosevelt and the New Deal programs that were passed by Congress are unconstitutional As a whole, they have ruled against plantiffs in sexual harassment suits, enviornmental suits and they tend to think that corporations can do no wrong.

So where's the problem?

[linskyjack]

I didn't think of that possibility---you would still need 5 democrats and that would have to be part of the deal---Maybe its 55, and the democrats guarantee the Republicans that several but not all of the judges nominated will get some votes. I could live with that.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

I didn't think of that possibility---you would still need 5 democrats and that would have to be part of the deal---Maybe its 55, and the democrats guarantee the Republicans that several but not all of the judges nominated will get some votes. I could live with that.

No--that's was a joke because there are 55 Republicans--its a reference to when the Dems changed the rule from 67 to 60 when they had 60 Senators!

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by Mulder

So where's the problem?

BTW--this was a joke also! (except for the sexual harrasment part--I would like to see that law struck down! )

[Ciberblade]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

The judges in question (one in fact actually said this) believe that the ascendency of Roosevelt and the New Deal programs that were passed by Congress are unconstitutional As a whole, they have ruled against plantiffs in sexual harassment suits, enviornmental suits and they tend to think that corporations can do no wrong. As I posted somewhere else, this administration has had more judges confirmed then any administration in the last 25 years. I think its something like 208 out of 215. Two of the judges from Michigan are being held as payback for what the Republican controled judiciary did to 63 of Clinton's nominees. None of them even got to the floor of the Senate. There are a whole bunch of tricks (like the blue slip trick) that were used to keep them from getting an up or down vote. The Blue Slip, used against Clintons Michigan nominees essentially allows the two senators from that state to hold up a vote on the floor of the Senate.

You keep adding in other nominations to increase the total number to 63 -- it was 20 judges, and the Republicans did not control the judiciary at that time...they garnished a very small seat lead during the next election cycle...We are seeing now just now hwo a small lead in seats is still not enough to have sweeping control.

[linskyjack]

Sorry Ciber--I'm not making this up:

Spurring Democrats’ anger is Republican hypocrisy in complaining of obstructionism, given the 63 highly capable, moderate Clinton nominees who were never confirmed. The rancor culminated as Republicans staged a 30-hour “reverse filibuster” in mid-November to protest Democrats’ persistence. The debate ended in failed cloture votes to halt debate on three of the president’s most controversial nominees. Here is the website; http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/mai...sappointments/
Here's another one http://www.blogd.com/archives/000358.html

Mulder, I 'm a sleep at the wheel---you got me and I am not happy.

[Ciberblade]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Sorry Ciber--I'm not making this up:

Spurring Democrats� anger is Republican hypocrisy in complaining of obstructionism, given the 63 highly capable, moderate Clinton nominees who were never confirmed. The rancor culminated as Republicans staged a 30-hour �reverse filibuster� in mid-November to protest Democrats� persistence. The debate ended in failed cloture votes to halt debate on three of the president�s most controversial nominees. Here is the website; http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/mai...sappointments/
Here's another one http://www.blogd.com/archives/000358.html

Mulder, I 'm a sleep at the wheel---you got me and I am not happy.

Why is it when Clinton nominates a judge...that person is a moderate, but when Bush does it...that person is automatically a radical?

Also, you make the assumption that a nominee has the same political philosophy as the person who nominated them...and then willing to act politically rather than legally.

[linskyjack]

Thats not the issue---the issue is that the Republicans availed themselves of the rules to block many of Clinton's nominees. The Democrats are doing the same---now the Republicans want to change the rules. If these guys are only concerned with up or down voting--then why the hell did they use every rule under the sun to stop Clinton from getting the men he wanted on the Senate floor for an up or down vote?