Redstate

That's one of the main differences between Republicans and Democrats.

Democrats believe in fighting for what they believe in, no matter how horribly misguided their beliefs and values are. They will use any rule, any procedure to their maximum advantage and to their opponents' maximum disadvantage.

Republicans believe in fighting for what they believe in until the fight gets the attention of the mainstream media. Then the Republicans either surrender to the Democrats or they go into their "let's make a deal" mode.

For example, when Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas were nominated to the US Supreme Court (Bork in 1987, Thomas in 1991), the Democrats threw everything, including the kitchen sink at these Republican nominees. They leaked confidential information to smear Clarence Thomas and turned the whole confirmation vote into a question of "Do you support or oppose sexual harrassment against women in the workplace?" They did this with only microscopic "evidence" (if it could even be called that) that Clarence Thomas was guilty of anything beside being an African-American conservative.

Fast forward to the 1993 and 1994 confirmation battles over the Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer nominations to the US Supreme Court during the Clinton administration.

Oh. Did I say "battles?" There really wasn't much of a battle at all. Ginsberg and Breyer basically sailed through and their reputations were not soiled in the process. Very few Americans knew then or know now that Bill Clinton nominated someone (Ruth Bader Ginsberg) who endorsed lowering the age of sexual consent to the age of 12 and supported co-ed prisons. That's because the Republicans acted like above-the-frey, bi-partisans.

So, you'd think that the Democrats would reflect on this and think, "Gosh. The Republicans were so gentle with our nominees to court. Maybe we should respond in kind instead of trashing Republican nominees to the court like we did during the Bork and Thomas hearings."

Not exactly.

In 2003 the Democrats decided that elections didn't matter. Not Presidential elections. Not US Senate elections (the Democrats had just lost control over the US Senate in the 2002 elections). They began using the 60 vote cloture rule as a means of stopping Bush's nominees from getting an up or down vote.

In some sense, they were treating Bush's nominees worse than they had treated Bork and Thomas, because at least those two nominees received an up or down vote on their nomination. But the Bush nominees were just left hanging there, neither confirmed nor defeated.

If was only when the Republicans had beefed up their majority in the US Senate and it looked like the Republicans might close the 60 vote cloture loophole in the Senate rules when Democrats decided to cave a little. But even then, the Democrats, with only 45 seats in the Senate, demanded some conservative scalps. And they got them, thanks to the Gang of 14.

If I had it my way, I'd junk the 60 vote cloture rule and put in its place a 51 vote cloture rule.

That way, when the Democrats win the White House and the US Senate simultaneously, they get their Left Wing Justices. And when the Republicans win the White House and the US Senate simultaneously, we get our Constitutionalist Justices.

The way it works under the current arrangment is:

When the Democrats have the votes, they use them and the Republicans vote with the Democrats.

When the Republicans have votes, they check with the Democrat minority and find out if its okay if they get their nominees confirmed.

The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Who did Reagan consult with prior to the Bork and Thomas nominations? Who suggested those nominations to him? What was their political affiliation?

Now the same questions about Clinton and the nomination of Ginsburg?

Answer those questions honestly and you will see one striking similarity and one striking difference.

Answer this as well.
How many of Clinton's judicial nominees were left hanging until those positions could be filled by Bush?
How many of Bush's judicial nominees have been left hanging until he had to choose someone else?
Answer those questions honestly and your argument falls apart.

These questions are irrelevent to the points I was making.

The point I was making is that when Ruth Bader Ginsberg was nominated by Bill Clinton, the Republicans didn't fight the nomination, even though Ruth Bader Ginsberg was ACLU's General Council, was on record supporting reducing the age of sexual consent to age 12 and supporting co-ed prisons.

The attitude the Republicans took was, "Ginsberg is academically qualified to be on the US Supreme Court."

Robert Bork was also academically qualified to be on the US Supreme Court as was Clarence Thomas.

But the Democrats didn't look at the confirmation issue that way. The had clear priorities. Getting along with Republicans was one of them.

The Democrats priorities in the Bork/Thomas confirmations were:

(a) Smear these conservative nominees in the public debate so that public opinion might turn against Bork and Thomas. Given that most people had no idea who these people were, they were working with a blank slate. Given that supporters of Bork and Thomas weren't prepared to run a 50 state - presidential like - campaign for a US Supreme Court vacancy, it was hard for supporters of confirmation to fight back.

(b) Put pressure on all Democrats to vote against the nominee. Make the vote on confirmation a proxy vote for "Are you a Democrat? Or are you in the back pocket of Reagan or George Herbert Walker Bush?"

(c) Ruin the nominees reputation. This way, even if the nominee is confirmed, Republican US Senator who vote for the nominee will have to explain their vote over and over and over, while opponents of the nominee's confirmation will have no questions asked of them.

Of course, the Democrats took their 1987 and 1991 smear campaigns against Bork and Thomas to a new level when Bush became president and the Republicans took back the majority in the US Senate in 2003.

The Democrats could no longer rely on using the Senate Judicial Committee as a show trial for Republican nominees. And they could no longer be sure that they would win "up or down" votes on the Senate floor.

So, they began using the 60 vote cloture rule as a loophole to prevent votes on Bush nominees that they feared they would lose.

Some Democrats say, "Well, the Republicans stopped Clinton judicial nominees." But that was when Republicans were in the majority, not the minority, and that's why they didn't need to use the 60 vote cloture rule. They knew that if a vote in the US Senate was held, they could vote down the nominee.

But the Democrats of 2003 decided to go a bit more partisan than the partisan Democrats of 1987 and 1991. They decided that they would use the principle of minority rule over judicial nominees.

The attitude of the Democrats was simple, during the Bork and Thomas confirmation battles and during the judicial filibusters: "Even though we lost the elections to the White House and the US Senate, we still think that we are entitled to power over the most powerful courts in the country."

And the Republicans didn't use the Byrd option.

You can bet that if the Republicans ever dared filibuster a Democrat judicial nominee, the Democrats would use the Byrd option in a nanosecond.

That's the difference between the parties. And in this case, it's high time the Republicans started acting more like Democrats.

The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.

My bad. I should have hit "reply to this" under the other posting.

It won't happen again.

The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.

I don't agree with you - more accurately, I don't think that it's the only explanation - but no huhu.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

All the house & senate have to do is not pass anymore bills with funds for the war in Iraq. The dems DO have a majority in both houses and should be able to make that stick. Bush can't veto a bill that doesn't exist.

==== 13 ====

True. Congress doesn't have to pass anything.

But the Democrats fear the public opinion backlash that would likely result if they took it upon themselves to refuse funding for our troops and our troops didn't get the equipment they needed while in battle. Further, they want defeat in Iraq to be something Bush and the Republicans are responsible for.

That's why they want Bush to sign legislation that would ratify the Democrat agenda of retreat and defeat.

The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.

Bush won't let them off the hook either. If they really want to defund the war, they have the power to do it. It's a political game of chicken. So far, the dems keeps blinking. But they still have to feed their base now & then.

==== 13 ====

If President Bush vetoes the only war funding bills the Congress passes, then guess what? The war is still defunded.

So I think Moe's question is still open, heh.

HTML Help for Red Staters