[maxelson]

168 confirmed to the bench. 4 fought. Find the figures yourselves at senate.gov
Oddly enough, one side of the Senate floor would have you believe the Dems are playing DESPICABLE political tricksies on the American People.
Not long back, I asked one of our favorite posters- one of the more... uh... vehement ones- to respond to the fact that, at the time, there were three unconfirmed judges to 128 confirmed. No answer. None. Well, nothing but derision.
Today, that number is 168 confirmations to 4. FOUR. And that one side of the floor is still crying foul. And lots of folks eat that up. Those treasonous liberals.
Now, I also seem to recall us having this discussion at non confirmation number one.

Now what we got here are numbers. Numbers don't lie. Hell, it is even hard to statistically whip these around and spin them. 168 to 4. 168 "yeas", 4 "nays". Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems as if that would be better than 95%. I'm no mathematician. But I think I am close.
And yet, for the last 2 weeks, I hear the majority squealing like stuck pigs about how the other side of the aisle is preventing the senate from "doing it's duty".
How patriotic.
They even accuse the other side of the aisle of being racists (check race of nominees).
I'd like to compare these numbers with the "blue slipping" what went on when the power was in other hands.

And I'll be interested in the justification for using such language, for pushing that sentiment. Of course, it is true that the dirty tricks are used- by both sides.
In this case, though, it seems that one side wants EVERYTHING... regardless of the democratic process. THey got the WHite House. They got the Senate. They got the house. Now they want the bench. ALL of them, apparently.
One might think that these four nominees- all of whom stepped WAY outside the mainstream to the far right- were popped in there as a no lose situation.
If they are confirmed, the Administration wins by getting a far righty on the bench (makes me squeam to say it- the bench should have NO political leanings- but that is just naive lil' ole me)
if they don't, the Administration can call the dissenters "bigots"- as they are now.
Seems custom tailored to me.
Dirty tricks indeed.

[maxelson]

Apologies. Hit wrong button. Asked to be Xfered to Pols.

[deedar]

98%

[Timo]

nice legwork, max

[thunderous_funker]

Don't you traitors know there is a war on?!?!?!?

[maxelson]

bar's closed. i gotta do something.
subversion, sedition and treason are on my to do list.

[DBursey]

As long as we're being incredibly esoteric, I'd like to mention the number 512.

[boots]

Originally posted by maxelson:
bar's closed. i gotta do something.
subversion, sedition and treason are on my to do list.

Meh. My bar is still open. Come on over for a couple of drinks and some political dishing....

[maxelson]

No. Esoteric it would be if I had titled the thread "potato salad" and then launched into a thought about bench confirmations.
Oooo, ya Canadian.

[boots]

Originally posted by DBursey:
As long as we're being incredibly esoteric, I'd like to mention the number 512.

If we were being esoteric, the number would be 42.

The topic, for those not catching it, is the current debate over Bush's judicial nominations. The Dem's have cried "ney" on only four of them. Yet the Repub's think this is abuse of power and political trickery to hold off the vote on these four.

[DBursey]

Ohh ... bench confirmations. Gotcha. You Americans and your fledgling democracy. Mmmm potato salad!

[spacefreak]

At issue is the use of the filibuster in disallowing confirmation votes - the first time in the nation's history that filibusters have been used to block votes on federal court nominees. With the Democrats liberally declaring a filibuster when they see fit, the Republicans are going to put them to the test and make them actually filibuster the old-fashioned way.

Estrada withdrew, so there are 3 judges still waiting. But there are at least another 4 judges in the pipeline who are also set to be deprived of a confirmation vote because of such filibusters.

It takes 51 votes to confim a judicial nominee, not 60 - which is what the Democrats' liberal use of the filibuster has amounted to as requiring.

[maxelson]

So, you have no answer to this, then?
According to the Senate Majority, what you describe is not quite the case.
Well, unless calling an entire side of the floor "bigots" falls within your description of the issue.

[boots]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
At issue is the use of the filibuster in disallowing confirmation votes - the first time in the nation's history that filibusters have been used to block votes on federal court nominees.

[snip]

It takes 51 votes to confim a judicial nominee, not 60 - which is what the Democrats' liberal use of the filibuster has amounted to as requiring.

Just because it hasn't been used doesn't mean it is wrong.

The argument also goes that this method of disruption is a protection put into the constitution for exactly this reason. to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

So the real question is...does the republican majority's wishes constitute an abuse of power. Some say yes, some say no. I'm not sure where I stand, but it seems like the republicans are making much ado about nothing.

[mr. natural]

According to this Washington Post column: "Fifty-five Clinton judicial nominees never got a hearing and 10 more never got a vote in the Judiciary Committee."

Doing a cursory google search I also found this TESTIMONY OF MARCIA D. GREENBERGER, CO-PRESIDENT
NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER,
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, COMMITTEE ON THE
JUDICIARY OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE,
ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS, FILIBUSTERS AND THE CONSTITUTION, May 6, 2003.

according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), cloture votes have become increasingly common. While there were only 23
cloture votes in the entire period of 1919 through 1960 (and in at least 24 of those years, there were no cloture votes at all), in just one recent Congress (1997-98), the Senate voted on 53 cloture motions and invoked cloture 18 times.

Ok, who wants to toss these numbers into the republican salad and spin.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
Washington Post column: "Fifty-five Clinton judicial nominees never got a hearing and 10 more never got a vote in the Judiciary Committee."

How many were denied votes by filibuster?

[davesimondotcom]

Max, I think the problem that you aren't seeing with the numbers is that:

a) The Democrats aren't in the majority

b) Because of that, they are using a pseudo-filibuster (not a real roll-out-the -cots-we're-in-for-the-long-haul kind) to block judicial appointees based on a litmus test - and requiring 60 votes for them to get through

c) Some of these appointees have gotten MORE than 50, some as many as 55+ votes. Not enough to break a "filibuster" but enough to have the majority of the US Senate on their side

d) No justice nominees in the past were ever denied a seat with a majority of the Senate confirming them.

Both sides ARE playing politics. That's the point, isn't it?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by boots:
Just because it hasn't been used doesn't mean it is wrong.

The argument also goes that this method of disruption is a protection put into the constitution for exactly this reason. to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

Then as per the constitution the filibusters will be held - just like the old days...stand up in the chamber and talk, talk, talk until you drop. Not like this modern filibuster, where 41 senators simply sign a piece of paper and move it to the head of the chamber.

A minority of Senators are now seeking to establish that judicial nominees can be defeated by filibusters. If judicial nominees required 60 votes for confirmation, that would have been the law. - not the 51 votes needed to confirm (which is the law).

[DigitalEl]

You Americans and your fledgling democracy. Mmmm potato salad!

LOL - Very funny, DBursey. You, too, thunderous_funker.

Although I'm looking @ things from the Left, davesimondotcom has one thing right. Both sides are playing politics. It's amazing anything gets done... Oh, wait a minute.

[maxelson]

In my view, to say that the filibuster IS the issue is veiling the issue. I don't see the fact of the filibuster to be anywhere NEAR the issue.

If it were, why not just SAY so? Naive, I know.
Politics and power is the point- as you imply, dave.

Now, of these 4 nominees- I think 4 were not recommended by several different entities. Correct? THis is what they have in common. I would be interested to see what, if any, lines can be drawn between those who HAVE been confirmed to those who have not.

I would be interested to see if it really IS the case that their records are showing outside mainstream right on a comparative basis.

The conservatives used "blue slipping". The lefties are using filibustering. Just tools to get nothing done, right?

Sometimes watching CSPAN is like watching a Jr High spitball fight.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by boots:
If we were being esoteric, the number would be 42.

*SNIP*

Ahhh... the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything"

So long and thanks for all the fish.

[boots]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Then as per the constitution the filibusters will be held - just like the old days...stand up in the chamber and talk, talk, talk until you drop. Not like this modern filibuster, where 41 senators simply sign a piece of paper and move it to the head of the chamber.

I agree. Like I said, I'm on the fence here as to whether or not I think it's being handled properly.

Give me a good old-fashioned phone-book read any day over this abbreviated still-have-time-for a good-dinner kind we have going. If it's that important, you can spend the time on it.

Having said that, I still do think a filibuster is a useful tool. I'm just not sure it's being used properly. I'll keep reading what y'all post and make my mind up later...

[finboy]

Originally posted by maxelson:

Dirty tricks indeed.

The supermajority idea is in fact a "dirty trick". It's the equivalent of taking your ball and going home because the other kids won't let you win.

Sure, the number FOUR seems puny, but one of the main issues in this controversy was the length of time it took for confirmations to take place, at least under Tom Daschle/Democrats. At one point, if I remember correctly, the committee went for well over a year without confirming ONE appointee. The numbers at senate.gov (under the Judiciary committee and nominations) say nothing about that.

Without some consideration of the timing and rules end-runs, the actual numbers lose their importance. And no, I'm not going to waste time looking up timing to try to convince the unwashed -- I remember hearing it live on CSPAN-Radio when it was going on, week after week, with press and Democrat rebuttal interwoven. Reading/hearing it one time is enough.

[Millennium]

Most of the objection to the Dems' behavior over these judges isn't that they aren't confirming the judges, but that they're holding them in limbo over factors which aren't relevant. If you want to fight, then fight; holding things in perpetual limbo, not allowing any progress towards any result, positive or negative, is childish. There's a little thing called majority rule, you see; it's the center of modern democracy and all that. Holding up a vote is not a democratic thing to do.

The most popular technique for this seems to be the filibuster, a ridiculous tactic which all sides of the political fence have used in the past, but which needs to be stopped once and for all.

[thunderous_funker]

Again, how is 168 confirmations evidence of dirty tricks, not playing fair or putting everything in limbo?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Millennium:
There's a little thing called majority rule, you see; it's the center of modern democracy and all that. Holding up a vote is not a democratic thing to do.

So Gore should be president then, right? The US Constitution in general, and the US Senate in particular, are very explicitly NOT based on majority rule.

[Echelon]

Originally posted by BRussell:
So Gore should be president then, right? The US Constitution in general, and the US Senate in particular, are very explicitly NOT based on majority rule.

the US system is largely based on majority rule. The single member district system of electing representatives and senators allows the people to vote. Whoever receives the most wins. The most doesn't have to be a majority, and this is more likely with more candidates in a race, but given the dominance of the 2-party system, you do have majority rule in those elections.

The presidential system is different, but almost always the man who receives enough electoral votes is the man who wins the popular vote as well.

The Constitution doesn't set the nitty gritty details of running the Senate--the Senate itself created its (often dumb and undemocratic) rules, and they are free to change them as well. But the Senate itself doesn't have to be democratic--only the method in which they are chosen, so the Senate doesn't reflect at all on the US democracy.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
According to this Washington Post column: "Fifty-five Clinton judicial nominees never got a hearing and 10 more never got a vote in the Judiciary Committee."

Originally posted by Millennium:
Most of the objection to the Dems' behavior over these judges isn't that they aren't confirming the judges, but that they're holding them in limbo over factors which aren't relevant. If you want to fight, then fight ; holding things in perpetual limbo, not allowing any progress towards any result, positive or negative, is childish. There's a little thing called majority rule, you see; it's the center of modern democracy and all that. Holding up a vote is not a democratic thing to do.

The most popular technique for this seems to be the filibuster, a ridiculous tactic which all sides of the political fence have used in the past, but which needs to be stopped once and for all.

So, the Democrats are throwing up a roadblock here. What does it matter where it's at? The Republicans just set their roadblocks earlier. From the above quoted Washington Post column, they've been much more obstructive than the Dems.

The point is Republicans won 98% approval of their appointees(168 to 4). For them to throw a hissy fit just because they haven't won 100% is childish and partisan to the extreme. If they expect to get 100% approval all the time, what's the point of having a judicial review in the first place? If they want carte-blanche acceptance of their appointees than give it to them. As long as they are willing to grant the same to Democrats when they are in the majority. You think they'd agree to that? Not bloody likely.

This just goes to show how whacked our political system is. If it's not the big money in campaigns or a big money Lobby, to special prosecutors for made up controversies (Travelgate, Monica-gate) our political system is being hijacked by extremists on both sides of the spectrum. It's the tyranny of the minority. I wonder why our voter turnout is so low?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Echelon:
the US system is largely based on majority rule. The single member district system of electing representatives and senators allows the people to vote. Whoever receives the most wins. The most doesn't have to be a majority, and this is more likely with more candidates in a race, but given the dominance of the 2-party system, you do have majority rule in those elections.

The presidential system is different, but almost always the man who receives enough electoral votes is the man who wins the popular vote as well.

The Constitution doesn't set the nitty gritty details of running the Senate--the Senate itself created its (often dumb and undemocratic) rules, and they are free to change them as well. But the Senate itself doesn't have to be democratic--only the method in which they are chosen, so the Senate doesn't reflect at all on the US democracy.

Well, to me the essential elements of the US Constitution are the Bill of rights and the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government.

Bill of rights: those are some damn undemocratic paragraphs. You've got these rights, and it doesn't matter how many votes someone else has to take them away.

Legislative branch: the very idea of the Senate is that a simple proportionally elected Congress like the House wasn't good enough.

President: elected in a downright undemocratic fashion.

Judicial Branch: again, completely undemocratic. They have the power of judicial review, which means they can overturn laws that were democratically approved!

As far as Senate rules, right, they can change them, and they have been changed many times. But IMO the Senate is by nature an institution that Constitutionally doesn't give a wit about simple majority rule, because no matter how large the population of your state, you get 2 votes in the Senate. And they have a long history of giving non-majorities more power than you would expect in a simple rule-by-majority democracy.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Well, to me the essential elements of the US Constitution are the Bill of rights and the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government.

Bill of rights: those are some damn undemocratic paragraphs. You've got these rights, and it doesn't matter how many votes someone else has to take them away.

Legislative branch: the very idea of the Senate is that a simple proportionally elected Congress like the House wasn't good enough.

President: elected in a downright undemocratic fashion.

Judicial Branch: again, completely undemocratic. They have the power of judicial review, which means they can overturn laws that were democratically approved!

As far as Senate rules, right, they can change them, and they have been changed many times. But IMO the Senate is by nature an institution that Constitutionally doesn't give a wit about simple majority rule, because no matter how large the population of your state, you get 2 votes in the Senate. And they have a long history of giving non-majorities more power than you would expect in a simple rule-by-majority democracy.

Maybe it's because we don't have a Democracy?

[Echelon]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BRussell:

Bill of rights: those are some damn undemocratic paragraphs. You've got these rights, and it doesn't matter how many votes someone else has to take them away.

They were created in a democratic process--amending the Constitution--and can be edited, repealed, or expanded by that same democratic process managed by elected officials. The Bill of Rights is inherently democratic because those amendments are their to preserve democracy and spell out certain 'inalienable' rights that the people or their representatives, perhaps one day in a panic or wave of ignorance or insecurity, might choose to vote away.

Legislative branch: the very idea of the Senate is that a simple proportionally elected Congress like the House wasn't good enough.

I deal with this at the bottom as part of the last point.

President: elected in a downright undemocratic fashion.

that's where we disagree. It is democratic by definition because the people's votes elect him (indirectly: the electors cast their votes, but they mirror how the state's people vote). Simply because he isn't elected by popular vote doesn't make it undemocratic. And the Constitution itself has a mechanism to alter it by way of elected officials, an ultimately democratic process--one which has been used to grant women's suffrage, abolish slavery, create an income tax, impose prohibition, repeal prohibition, and then change the way Senators are elected (which nullifies your point about having a Senate in the first place).

Judicial Branch: again, completely undemocratic. They have the power of judicial review, which means they can overturn laws that were democratically approved!

this is part of the checks and balances of the US system. Federal judges are appointed by the President, an elected official, and server 'for life' in order to preserve their impartiality and immunity from political pressure and administrative changes. Such a check and balance exists precisely to preserve democracy. Remember, federal judges overturn laws based on being unconstitutional. In that way, with that power, the judicial branch protects the Constitution's guarantees of freedoms and democratic mechanisms, preventing Congress, the President, and even the people from eroding their own democracy.

As far as Senate rules, right, they can change them, and they have been changed many times. But IMO the Senate is by nature an institution that Constitutionally doesn't give a wit about simple majority rule, because no matter how large the population of your state, you get 2 votes in the Senate. And they have a long history of giving non-majorities more power than you would expect in a simple rule-by-majority democracy.

then perhaps you don't understand the intent of the Senate. Senators were originally appointed by the States themselves, giving the state a voice along the nation's people. This is like Germany's Bundesrat, where each of Germany's 16 states gets 3-6 votes. The Senate was a way to let small states have an equal voice with large states in a house of Congress. The House of Representatives was for the people, and its numbers based on a state's population. The 17th Amendment made it so that the people, by popular vote, elected a state's two senators. In summary, the creation of the Senate may not have been by itself a concern for majority rule, but it acts as a part of Congress to be a democratic system in a federal system of government.

[BRussell]

Can someone explain to me what the hell they're doing right now? The Republicans are filibustering to protest filibustering?

[Echelon]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Can someone explain to me what the hell they're doing right now? The Republicans are filibustering to protest filibustering?

they're full of crap. Just like the dems. Both parties blow.

[Spliffdaddy]

When the Democrats get caught doing something childish - it's OK because the Republicans have either a) thought of doing it OR b) have done it already.



There is no excuse for the behavior of these adults. But you guys can keep trying to excuse them if you want.

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by Echelon:
Both parties blow.

Amen. Jack Ryan for president.

[maxelson]

A fine discussion.
See? It CAN happen here.
My thanks to participants for being... uh... nice.

[boots]

So how does one fight the status quo? How would a "normal" person get elected and make a difference in situations like this? How do you fight the standard practice?

Kinda makes me reconsider the idea of electing a political "outsider" unless we as a country can decide to clean house...

[maxelson]

Well.There you have it. What you said. We as a country need to decide to clean house.
The WHOLE house. Return to fundamentals. Take a long hard look at what the original plan was (because this sure as shite wasn't it).
Ain't gonna happen. But, well, one can have hope.
Problem is, and I don't think there is any real arguing this point, America does not like to take responsibility for its leadership. They simply want to be led.

Me? Well, I'm just getting started on a local level. In my town. Got to start somewhere. That, and I think I need to head back to teaching. It was hard. Hardest job I ever had. But at least I knew I was doing something.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
When the Democrats get caught doing something childish - it's OK because the Republicans have either a) thought of doing it OR b) have done it already.



There is no excuse for the behavior of these adults. But you guys can keep trying to excuse them if you want.

Why not? You excuse your "party" on a regular basis- except you call it "common sense" or "fact" or "saving the planet from the liberals" or whatever it is you are calling it this week. What makes you above all this? The answer is: you're not. And your party engages in it WHOLESALE. Are you excusing them? Or do you simply choose to ignore it? DO you care? Or do you simply wish to be led?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by boots:
So how does one fight the status quo? How would a "normal" person get elected and make a difference in situations like this? How do you fight the standard practice?

Kinda makes me reconsider the idea of electing a political "outsider" unless we as a country can decide to clean house...

What's wrong with what's happening with these judicial appointments? This whole minority-of-Senators-can-block-action thing is the essence of the Senate rules. Do we really want to change it? Clean house - over this? Dems complained when things didn't go their way, now Republicans are complaining that only 98% of these appointments are going their way. Them's the rules, folks. They've agreed to them, knowing that it may hurt their side sometimes.

[Spliffdaddy]

huh?

How did the point of this escape some folks?

[maxelson]

“Men are so simple and so much inclined to obey immediate needs that a deceiver will never lack victims for his deceptions.”

This is the point.

[einmakom]

Originally posted by maxelson:
“Men are so simple and so much inclined to obey immediate needs that a deceiver will never lack victims for his deceptions.”

This is the point.

"All the ammerriras are the hog" was the old sig, I recall.

But let's consider.

Here are some interesting facts that would be true if 99% were good enough (sources: Insight, Syncrude Canada Ltd., Communications Division & Motorola Inc.):

* 22,000 cheques will be deducted from the wrong bank accounts in the next 60 minutes.

* 1,314 phone calls will be misplaced by telecommunication services each minute.

* Twelve babies will be given to the wrong parents each day.

* 2,488,200 cases of soft drinks produced in the next 12 months will be flatter than a bad tire.

* Two plane landings in a single day at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago will be unsafe.

* 18,322 pieces of mail will be mishandled in the next hour.

* 880,000 credit cards in circulation will turn out to have incorrect cardholder information on their magnetic strips.

* 107 incorrect medical procedures will be performed by the end of the day today.

* At least 200,000 incorrect drug prescriptions will be filled each year

*_ We'd have unsafe drinking water almost four days per year and no electricity, water, or heat for about 15 minutes each day.

So much for that argument.

More than that, let's consider why this is important. It isn't about stacking the bench, as FDR began attempting so long ago.

This is about two things: getting justices who don't give an indication of practicing judicial activism, legislating from the bench, and moreover:

Sen. Schumer says Republicans want to have the President’s nominees “rubber stamped.”_ Sen. Schumer is wrong._ Big surprise._ We are not asking for a “yes” vote._ We’re just asking for a vote…period._ He and Hillary and all the other senators are absolutely free to vote "no" if they desire.

“I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination.”
– Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD)

“I think the Senate is entitled to a vote in this matter, and I think the president is entitled for the Senate to vote, and I think the country is entitled for the Senate to vote.” – Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT)

“Vote the person up or down. They are qualified or they are not. But to impose all of the burden on the executive branch and to step away from our responsibility I don’t think is fair.”
– Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL)

“This body should act on the qualifications of those men and women to serve on the court, not based upon the Republican or Democratic composition of the court.” – Senator John Edwards (D-NC)

“It is true that some Senators have voiced concerns about these nominations. But that should not prevent a roll call vote which gives every Senator the opportunity to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no.’”
– Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA)

“The basic issue of holding up judgeships is the issue before us, not the qualifications of the judges, which we can always debate . . . It is an example of Government not fulfilling its constitutional mandate because the President nominates, and we are charged with voting on the nominees.”
– Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY)

“A nominee is entitled to a vote. Vote them up; vote them down.”
– Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

“I consider it a judicial emergency when a judgeship is vacant for one day more than necessary.”
– Senator Bob Graham (D-FL)

“I submit to my colleagues, however, that if there is one subject that should remain immune from political games and pressure it is our federal judicial system.” – Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)

“Hispanic or non-Hispanic, African American or non-African American, woman or man, it is wrong not to have a vote on the Senate floor.”
– Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD)

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
huh?

How did the point of this escape some folks?

It certainly has escaped me, so explain it to me, please. Does the Senate not work like this? Do both sides not know that this is how the Senate works? Have both sides not been forced to invoke cloture for a whole variety of issues in the past? Did the Senate not approve a smaller proportion of Clinton's nominees than Bush's? Enlighten me, please.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by einmakom:
"All the ammerriras are the hog" was the old sig, I recall.

But let's consider.

Here are some interesting facts that would be true if 99% were good enough (sources: Insight, Syncrude Canada Ltd., Communications Division & Motorola Inc.):

* 22,000 cheques will be deducted from the wrong bank accounts in the next 60 minutes.

* 1,314 phone calls will be misplaced by telecommunication services each minute.

* Twelve babies will be given to the wrong parents each day.

* 2,488,200 cases of soft drinks produced in the next 12 months will be flatter than a bad tire.

* Two plane landings in a single day at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago will be unsafe.

* 18,322 pieces of mail will be mishandled in the next hour.

* 880,000 credit cards in circulation will turn out to have incorrect cardholder information on their magnetic strips.

* 107 incorrect medical procedures will be performed by the end of the day today.

* At least 200,000 incorrect drug prescriptions will be filled each year

*_ We'd have unsafe drinking water almost four days per year and no electricity, water, or heat for about 15 minutes each day.

Nice rhetoric. And what does it have to do with any of this? NOTHING. AT ALL.
As you say:

"So much for that argument."

More than that, let's consider why this is important. It isn't about stacking the bench, as FDR began attempting so long ago.

This is about two things: getting justices who don't give an indication of practicing judicial activism, legislating from the bench, and moreover:

Sen. Schumer says Republicans want to have the President’s nominees “rubber stamped.”_ Sen. Schumer is wrong._ Big surprise._ We are not asking for a “yes” vote._ We’re just asking for a vote…period._ He and Hillary and all the other senators are absolutely free to vote "no" if they desire.

“I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination.”
– Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD)

“I think the Senate is entitled to a vote in this matter, and I think the president is entitled for the Senate to vote, and I think the country is entitled for the Senate to vote.” – Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT)

“Vote the person up or down. They are qualified or they are not. But to impose all of the burden on the executive branch and to step away from our responsibility I don’t think is fair.”
– Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL)

“This body should act on the qualifications of those men and women to serve on the court, not based upon the Republican or Democratic composition of the court.” – Senator John Edwards (D-NC)

“It is true that some Senators have voiced concerns about these nominations. But that should not prevent a roll call vote which gives every Senator the opportunity to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no.’”
– Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA)

“The basic issue of holding up judgeships is the issue before us, not the qualifications of the judges, which we can always debate . . . It is an example of Government not fulfilling its constitutional mandate because the President nominates, and we are charged with voting on the nominees.”
– Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY)

“A nominee is entitled to a vote. Vote them up; vote them down.”
– Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

“I consider it a judicial emergency when a judgeship is vacant for one day more than necessary.”
– Senator Bob Graham (D-FL)

“I submit to my colleagues, however, that if there is one subject that should remain immune from political games and pressure it is our federal judicial system.” – Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)

“Hispanic or non-Hispanic, African American or non-African American, woman or man, it is wrong not to have a vote on the Senate floor.”
– Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD)

TO which I say: if you make the rules, you'd best be prepared to play by them.
Right?
You think throwing in a bunch of quotes by folks with a "D" next to their name manes anything to me? You're playing the same partisan game.
And avoiding the issue. Perhaps you might consider going into politics. You did a good job.
Again. All lovely and irrelevant.

One side is "threatening democracy" by evading, the other is "threatening democracy" by manipulating the rules.
One side is "threatening democracy" by stacking the bench.
The other side is "threatening democracy" by disallowing a process.

What difference? So what. You defend one side or the other. And what happens.
Nothing.

[zigzag]

Blocking judicial nominations is an old game that both sides exploit to the hilt when it's politically expedient (for those who think it's one-sided, the Republicans blocked 167 out of 544 Clinton nominees - that's 30% - most without hearings!).

When Democrats are in power and Republicans block nominees, the Democrats cry foul and the Republicans claim that they're acting out of principal. Now that the Republicans are in power, the roles are reversed. It's as predictable as the Eagles announcing another reunion tour that's "not for the money." Hearing Orrin Hatch accuse the Democrats of bigotry is quite comical.

That's not to say that there are never legitimate reasons for blocking nominations. While there's probably no such thing as a completely impartial judge, I don't want judicial extremists either, and they exist on both the left and right. The conservative claim to "strict constructionism" is mostly illusory - the Constitution is full of ambiguities, and both sides interpret them as they see fit. Anyone who thinks the Bush v. Gore decision was "strict constructionism" and wasn't judicial activism is kidding themselves.

I tend to agree with BRussell that these things are meant to be messy. Two things you don't want to watch being made: law and sausage.

[daimoni]

.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by zigzag:


That's not to say that there are never legitimate reasons for blocking nominations. While there's probably no such thing as a completely impartial judge, I don't want judicial extremists either, and they exist on both the left and right.

Agreed.

Again, what's the point of having a judicial review in the first place if you expect and demand that all your appointees be confirmed?

[maxelson]

well said, vmpaul.

[boots]

Originally posted by BRussell:
What's wrong with what's happening with these judicial appointments? This whole minority-of-Senators-can-block-action thing is the essence of the Senate rules. Do we really want to change it? Clean house - over this? Dems complained when things didn't go their way, now Republicans are complaining that only 98% of these appointments are going their way. Them's the rules, folks. They've agreed to them, knowing that it may hurt their side sometimes.

As I said before...this kind of "blocking" action was specifically implemented for the purpose of sheltering the minority from majority tyranny. So I don't have a problem with the idea that Dem's are trying to block the appointments. I'm undecided as to whether or not the practice they are using is warranted...if its this important (which I do not doubt) then why play the subtle games? Put on an old fashioned filibuster and draw attention to it. If you're going to make a stand, have the balls to do it right.

My questions were actually more general in nature. We have a bunch of people claiming that one side or the other (or both in some cases) is acting like kindergardeners. If you feel that the political system is bankrupt, how do you fix it. It was an attempt to get people to think about why things are done the way they are done. Perhaps it was too subtle a point to convey on a BB.

But I absolutely agree with your perspective.

PS You probably don't want to watch anyone make tamales either. Not pretty.