Redstate

Only one of those animals could consider being called on to keep a promise as bad form.

I assume that's OK since it seems to be the chosen debate tool of Democrats.

These little kinglets are so full of themselves it's funny in the extreme.

has also renigged on his campaign promise to not filibuster judges.  Blatant lying in the campaign; quite sad.

Maybe it's time - no, past time - that it "is done."

While it's one thing to say "Attack the argument, not the person making it" - that's a sentiment I can agree with - there's nothing improper about pointing out that another Senator's actions are inconsistent with his/her past words.  

It's not so much calling another Senator on the carpet, although I think we'd all be better served if we brought more policy and less personality to all this.

What former Senator Johnson was saying that it is just not done for one Senator to personally antagonize the other Senator from that same state.

Republican or Democrat, both Vitter and Landrieu have to work together on a whole lot of issues which affect their (and my) state of Louisiana. We have a huge problem with costal erosion which needs federal assistance on the level that was given to save the Florida Everglades. We need to get our fair share of off-shore oil revenue, so that we can improve the infrastructure which supports most of the off-shore drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. We need the same kinds of transportation funding that all the other states get.

Personal attacks between same-state Senators will hinder that process, quite frankly. Now, I certainly voted for Senator Vitter in large part because I knew he would stand firm on judges. And I think it will be very legitimate criticism in her reelection campaign for many people to point out how she essentially promised a group of hispanic voters down here to support a vote on Estrada but then failed to meet that promise (she denies it was a promise; the voters will ultimately decide).

But I don't particularly care to see my state airing its own dirty laundry in public this way.

the judges during Clinton's tenure that did not get up or down votes?  Everyone seems to forget about that.

. . . a diary entry on the issue of coastal erosion in Louisiana?  You seem to have a passion for it and it's the sort of issue that we ought to cover more of at RedState.

It's actually a huge problem. I worked on the staff of our last governor here, and it was really the last big issues we started to push on. I'll work something up and post it next week.

  I found it very interesting that two former Senators with over 40 years of experience didn't mention how abnormal it was to filibuster judicial nominees. As for the "shock", I would be shocked if I wasn't corrected when I reversed my position. Who better to know what I promised the people of my state then the other Senator.

   I found the explination of why the filibusters were happening to be the gem of the story "In her letter to Vitter, Landrieu said that Owen's appointment and those of a handful of others are being held up over process, not credentials. She urged him to consider the Senate's "proper role" in appointment and confirmation." So she considers the nominee to be qualifed and is still holding up the nomination? How does that square with the advise and consent clause?

Find me one that had majority support in the Senate and I'll concede that you perhaps might have a point.  Didn't they get committee votes?

about that - it's just that it is no germane to the discussion.  First, many of these 60-or-so (particularly the 41 who were "left" when Clinton's term ended) were either submitted too late to be considered or clearly did not garner majority support in time for them to be considered.  IIRC, Bush re-nominated 2 of the candidates in former category, both of whom were quickly confirmed by the then-GOP controlled Senate.

We can all see how much good that little bit of bipartisanship served him.

Second, Clinton's record of "lost" nominees was at least as good as Bush 41's if not better, though both were slightly worse than Reagan's.  What is important to note is that these three situations were of presidents of one party who ended their presidencies with senates controlled by the other.

Thus, the negative of the current situation is not 1995-2000, it's 1993-1994.  I think you will find Clinton's confirmation record during that period to be quite good.

no.  A number did not even get to go before the committee because they were blocked by other procedural moves that Hatch moved to weaken or dismantle after Bush won the WH in 2000.  I can't give you an exhaustive rundown, but the one that jumps to mind if James Wynn...nominated to the Fourth Circuit and as qualified as any in the current crop to be a circuit judge.  He didn't get a committee vote because Jesse Helms did not return the blue slip on him.

And the problem with showing you that they had majority support is most didn't even get to the point of being considered by the majority.  One example, though, is Paez.  He was eventually confirmed, but his confirmation was held up somewhere around 4 years and the republicans attempted to filibuster his confirmation vote, but were unsuccessful.

Strange, but I didn't hear the republicans clamoring for everyone to get an up or down vote then, but then again, they didn't control the WH.  This whole thing stinks of hypocrisy (on both sides) and the fact that it is wrapped up in "principle" is simply nauseating.

"about that - it's just that it is no germane to the discussion."

That makes no sense.  If the republicans are so fired up about every judge getting an up or down vote (to the extent that they claim that the Constitution REQUIRES it), why did they acquisce to all of the procedural moves during the Clinton years that prevented his nominees from coming up for a floor vote?  

"First, many of these 60-or-so (particularly the 41 who were "left" when Clinton's term ended) were either submitted too late to be considered or clearly did not garner majority support in time for them to be considered. "

Wait a sec...I though that senators should VOTE.  Frist keeps saying (along with many of the others on this board) "vote yes, vote no, but just vote."  If the right to an up or down vote is sufficiently enshrined in the constitution to override senate procedure, then it shouldn't matter whether a nominee has the support of 1 senator or 100.  That's a red herring argument that has no basis in reality.

Can't speak to the timing of Clinton's nominations...I'm sure you're correct on some of them.

"IIRC, Bush re-nominated 2 of the candidates in former category, both of whom were quickly confirmed by the then-GOP controlled Senate.

We can all see how much good that little bit of bipartisanship served him."

THe only one I'm familiar with is Gregory on the 4th (can't remember the circumstances on the other).  Bush's renomination of Gregory had a lot less to do with bipartisanship than it did with politics.  Gregory was the first african-american judge on the 4th Circuit, which has a huge african-american population (might be the highest of all the circuits).  Gregory was put on the 4th by a recess appointment (which I strongly disagree with).  If Bush had not renominated Gregory, he would have been accused of being responsible for pulling the only african-american judge on the 4th off the bench.  It worked on the bi-partisan front as well, but, in reality, it was a situation where it made much better political sense on other fronts.

"Second, Clinton's record of "lost" nominees was at least as good as Bush 41's if not better, though both were slightly worse than Reagan's.  What is important to note is that these three situations were of presidents of one party who ended their presidencies with senates controlled by the other."

So what?  If every nominees is entitled to an up or down vote (as a matter of Constitutional propriety or fairness or whatever the excuse du jour is), then every nominee should come up for an up or down vote...right?  The history of what happened under Bush 41, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, etc., etc. would have absolutely no bearing on that.  

"Thus, the negative of the current situation is not 1995-2000, it's 1993-1994.  I think you will find Clinton's confirmation record during that period to be quite good. "

Nice try, but your argument doesn't jive with the current justification and proposed method for jettisoning the judicial filibuster.  Your arguments would hold a lot more sway and would be far more persuasive if we were talking about amending senate rules through the normal process to get rid of the judicial filibuster (i.e. 67 votes for rules change)...but that's not what we're talking about.

All these rules of statesmanship in the Senate are a bunch of bullmalarkey.  I think Senator Vitter is showing his principles and strength by challenging his fellow Senator to stop the filibuster foolishness.  As a former Louisianian, I'm glad to see a Senator from the Bayou state with some fire in his belly and intestinal fortitude to challenge these old dinosaurs.  Shake up the Senate, David, it's not so sacrosanct of an institution that it could not stand a little shaking up every now and then.

The last point was the best.  The supposed collegiality and statesmanship of the Senate--and Congress in general--is nowhere to be found most days, only something to hide behind when one is "called out" on an issue.  Seems to me what Senator Vitter said to/about Senator Landrieu is a mere molehill, especially given Senator Harkin's inexcusable mention of Representative DeLay the other day (apparently, it is a clear violation of parliamentary procedure to speak ill of members of the other house of Congress.

As for the issue at hand, I think I know what should be done, in spite of the Republicans' complete inability to handle majority status.  What Senator Frist should be doing is couching the filibuster issue in terms of doing what is right.  He should be making clear that filibustering is perfectly all right for legislation and possibly even non-judicial appointments, but that it SIMPLY ISN'T AN OPTION when the Senate considers judicial nominees.  Furthermore, what either party has done in the past, or what past Presidents' confirmation records are, should be irrelevant.  This is an opportunity for the Senate to properly execute its constitutional duty vis-a-vis the judicial branch.

Personally, I say let the Democrats filibuster.  Let them open as many mouths and insert as many feet as possible.

is the former (thankfully) Senator Johnston familiar with the term "Well TS"?