The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - REVIEW
By Mark Kilmer Posted in Elections — Comments (27) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
We had Howard Dean on Meet the Press threatening to weed out hypocrisy and declaring that "we need more than one party in charge." John McCain (FOX News Sunday) thinks the President's nominees should all receive up-or-down votes, yet he opposes clarifying Senate rules to allow it to happen.
Joe Lieberman, on This Week, said that a compromise would usher in a new era in which moderates would rule the Senate in harmony.
And Lindsey Graham declared that "one of the eight" judicial nominees currently being filibustered would be rejected by a bipartisan Senate. He would not name names, but everything anyone's saying points to Henry Saad.
Read on for the review of the Sunday Shows…
JOHN MCCAIN ON FOX NEWS SUNDAY. Speaking of the magic compromise language on which he is working for the Senate, John McCain exclaimed: "It's tough." He said that the President's judges deserve up-or-down votes, and the deal on which he's working would not throw some out and accept others. He clarified that most would be guaranteed floor votes, and the Dems would decide whether to filibuster the others on a case-by-case basis. (This means, of course, that his deal would sink some nominees.)
Of the snap of Saddam in his skivvies, McCain said: "I regret it deeply." He said that it is violative of the Geneva Convention. Here's a man who evidently had the tar beaten out of him daily in the Hanoi Hilton complaining that snapping a photograph of a man in his underwear violates the Geneva Convention. (Publishing it, as the newspapers did, clearly does not violate the Geneva Convention, per se, since the Sun and the Post are not signatories to that deal.)
McCain noted that any abuse is wrong, but he added that those criticizing us loudest have horrible records themselves, killing babies and other innocents. "It's an unbalanced criticism." Host Chris Wallace thanked the Senator for mentioning this valuable point.
HOWARD DEAN ON MEET THE PRESS. On NBC's Meet the Press, Tim Russert had DNC Chair Howard Dean hold court. Dean thinks that the Senate rule change "will be dreadful for the Democrats" and even worse for the country. He blamed President Bush and the GOP for wanting to "turn Social Security over to the same people who gave us ENRON."
Howard Dean stressed that "48-percent of us" voted against President Bush, and that "we need more than one party in charge." The matter of the judicial nominees is so important, said Dean, not because of the judges themselves, but because "this is the last chance the Democrats have to say anything about public policy."
Howard Dean averred that "the President is not right 100% of the time," adding that "we do need an opposition party. That's what we're trying to build." So the strategy seems to be, build the Democrats into an opposition party by gainsaying whatever the GOP proposes. Saying NO a lot and stomping their feet. (That is political opposition, in its most basic sense, but it's not very creative or useful.)
Howard Dean read the list of accusations against Tom DeLay and declared: "He's why we need more than on party in charge!" Oh, and: "This is an abuse of power." Russert played the Dean quote about DeLay spending time in jail and compared that to Dean's campaign statement about Saddam Hussein being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Howard Dean defended himself by snapping: "He hasn't been convicted yet, but he's being investigated." And, Dean said, Tom DeLay should not be running Congress, why we need two parties in charge, etc.
Later in the interview, Howard Dean said: "I will use whatever position I have to root out hypocrisy." (He needed some help with his own from Russert, and he is still suppressing the realization.)
Howard Dean faulted Tom DeLay for his actions in the Terri Schindler-Schiavo case, asserting that DeLay tried to prevent the two families from "working out their difference in the courts." (Gads!)
Howard Dean accused President Bush of suggesting that Saddam Hussein Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9-11. The President did this "in a nuanced way," Dean claimed. He said that this lie is what got us into Iraq which has made the world a more dangerous place because -- GET THIS -- the "terrorists are now in Iraq, they've migrated there." The world is more dangerous because the terrorists have moved to Iraq?
Howard Dean defended himself from accusations of behavior not becoming of an M.D., where he had recently poked fun at Rush Limbaugh's drug addiction, by accusing Limbaugh of lecturing him on moral values. He does not like being lectured on moral values by hypocrites, he proclaimed. Yes, "I will use whatever position I have to root out hypocrisy."
BOOMER ESIASON ON FOX NEWS SUNDAY. Boomer Esiason -- the former NFL quarterback, current TV sports guy, and father of a son with Cystic Fibrosis -- was interviewed by satellite about tax-payer funded lab experiments on human embryonic stem cells. Esiason is hopeful that this experimentation can one day find something which will help, and he wants taxpayer money to conduct it. When told of the argument that this involves "destroying life to save life," Esaison noted that other countries are doing it anyway, why should we fall behind?
He said that the people making the decisions regarding taxpayer funding of this experimentation just do not understand firsthand the problems of CF or Alzheimers.
He said that he opposes cloning, having "mini-me's running around with all of us."
MCCONNELL AND DURBIN ON FTN. The Senate whips, Mitch McConnell for the majority and Dick Durbin for the minority, were host Bob Schieffer's guests on CBS's Face the Nation.
McConnell would not at first answer Schieffer's question regarding whether or not he had the votes to modify the Senate rules to allow debate on judicial nominees to end with a vote of the majority of Senators. Instead, he explained that for 214 years, nominees with a majority support in the Senate have been confirmed. But the cloture vote will take place Tuesday morning, he said. Asked again if Frist had the votes, McConnell replied: "I believe he'll have the votes." (It's evidently not wrapped up quite yet.)
Durbin alleged that the Republicans were bringing in Dick Cheney for the vote because they knew it would be historic when they "break the rules to change the rules." (Most rule changes are agreed to with 67 votes.) He stipulated that the Constitution tacitly provides for the filibuster of judicial nominees and acknowledged that the moderates could work something out at the last minute: "There's always a chance" for compromise. He referred to the filibuster of judicial nominees as an "important Constitutional tradition." (Is it found in the emanations of the penumbra of the preamble?)
McConnell insisted that Durbin was confusing the possible with the practical. While it has always been theoretically possible to filibuster judicial nominees, it had never been done "until the last Congress." One out of three of the President's appellate court nominees have been filibustered, he said: "The worst record since World War II."
He said that the GOP would not postpone the vote if the moderates said that a deal was imminent. He insisted on "getting back to the business of the Senate," citing energy bills and whatnot.
Durbin said that he had offered McConnell votes on four of the disputed nominees, but the Senator had turned him down. (This was hypocrisy on Durbin's part. If the judges were so bad as to be a dangerous if they sat on the courts, why allow them to be confirmed when otherwise they'd filibuster?)
Durbin said that "the Democrats will not shut the government down." He insisted that they would merely follow the rules. And he noted that "we're going to push an agenda the Republicans don't want to talk about." He listed a few things he might have taken from Teddy Kennedy's crib notes.
GEORGE ALLEN AND JOE LIEBERMAN ON THIS WEEK. Host George Stephanopoulos wanted to know if Senator Allen were worried that the filibuster fight would cost the GOP "seats." Allen explained that real people in the real world don't care much about process, that they think judges deserve an up-or-down vote.
Lieberman said that people wanted them to do health care and energy, etc. He said that the 60-vote requirement for judges "forces the Senate to be more moderate." As if this were a positive thing. He had once disagreed with the filibuster, but he now supports it because the issue is different. It's not majority versus minority thing to him; rather, he's concerned about "extremists on both sides of the aisle."
Allen countered that the Constitution had not changed since Lieberman opposed filibusters. He pointed out that if 60 votes had been required to confirm judges, Thurgood Marshall would not have been confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Lieberman used the canard that Bush has been more successful than was Clinton with judges.
Allen said that he did not know how his fellow Virginia Senator John Warner would vote, but he expressed certainty that "if the Democrats continue to obstruct," they'll have the votes. With or without Warner.
Lieberman said that "moderates, centrists, mavericks, independents" -- six or seven from each party -- are working on a compromise. He called this "historic." But the "Gang of Twelve," according to Lieberman's count, might really be the Gang of Thirteen or Fourteen
The aim, he said, is to get the Republicans to say that they "won't go to the nuclear option in this Congress." [emphasis mine]
Lieberman spoke of the historic nature of the moderates coming to a consensus and saving the day and how it would give birth to a new dynamic. He said he's optimistic that the compromise will prevail.
Allen said that while he agrees with Lieberman "on a lot of issues," he will not settle for casting some of the President's nominees aside "like a slip of paper." He thinks that "we'll get this Constitutional option done."
Allen favors stem cell research, and he favors looking at umbilical cords and pre-existing lines. Steph asked if he had become more restrictive because he will seek the Presidential nomination in 2008, and Allen told Steph to look at his entire statement wherein he opposed cloning.
HAMID KARZAI ON LATE EDITION. Wearing a suit jacket instead of the cool Pashtun outfit with astrakhan hat, Afghan President Hamid Karzai was Wolf Blitzer's first guest on CNN's Late Edition. He's in the country to deliver the commencement at Boston University. Blitzer asked him about the New York Times' assertion that he is doing nothing about the opium poppies. He said that where the "Afghan government took the lead," the poppies were destroyed. He said that in the other places, the U.S., Britain, and the international community were going to fund the fight. They didn't, so it is their fault.
Blitzer asked him if he were afraid to fight poppies because he'd anger the farmers prior to a parliamentary election. He said, "Let's stop this blame game!" He blamed the international community for not providing what they promised. "We have done our job; now the international community" must fight the poppy growth.
Blitzer asked him about another New York Times story, this one with the U.S. military beating prisoners. "We are angry about this," Karzai said. "We want justice." He also explained that "the behavior of one or two soldiers'" does not reflect on the United States. "They're great people," he said of Americans.
Karzai said that the Afghan people own Afghanistan, and that the United States must stop raiding homes without his permission. He said that the refuted Newsweek story was a serious thing but that the riots were "not done by the Afghan people." It was directed at elections and at the peace process, he insisted.
Karzai said, "We not that for sure that [Osama bin Laden] is not in Afghanistan; if he did, we'd catch him." He doesn't know where OBL is, "but we know he cannot possibly be in Afghanistan."
BEN NELSON AND LINDSEY GRAHAM ON LATE EDITION. Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) and Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), both dubbed moderates by Blitzer, were on to talk about their compromise proposal.
Graham said that the threat is "institutionalizing reprisal filibusters," bringing politics to the table on judicial nominees. It will cost us good judges.
Nelson spoke of the "rights of the minority to see to it that you don't have a runaway majority." What's at stake, he argued, is the energy bill and suchlike. He doesn't "know if we're going to be able to get it done or not." He wants "up-or-down votes on as many nominees as possible," allowing for "exceptional circumstances," or judges that make a Senator's skin crawl.
Graham said that one of the eight judicial nominees "would be rejected by the Senate in a bipartisan manner." He wouldn't give the name. He said that he is a YES vote for the rule change if it comes to that, but he does not want to "destroy the judiciary" with "political payback with judges."
Graham said that "there are a couple of YES votes" looking for a compromise.
The term "Group of 12." Six Dems, Six Republicans, six on either side would tilt the balance.
Nelson: "When you have twelve Senators in the room, you have at least fourteen opinions."
Nelson thinks that if a compromise is reached, it will lead to greater harmony in the Senate on other issues. He wants to "find a solution, not just save the fight for another day."
Blitzer showed a poll giving Congress a 33% approval rating and suggested that, because the GOP controls both houses of Congress, this could harm the Republican Party.
Graham said that it affects Democrats as well.
Graham said that "this all started with Bork twenty-years-ago." He accused Bill Frist of "letting this go for over a year."
Asked about the President's threatened veto of public funding for Stem Cell experimentation, Nelson said that he is Pro-Life -- and running for re-election in red State Nebraska -- and against such funding. Graham then spoke strongly against the experimentation.
Asked about John Bolton, Nelson said he is leaning towards voting for confirmation: "He wouldn't be my choice, but he is the President's choice." Again with enthusiasm, Graham backed Bolton as "the kind of person we need at the U.N."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If anyone knows anyone who could send me advance lists of guests and issues for these shows, I'd very much appreciate it. I also appreciate a nice waltz now and again, but that's another story.
« Question and answer time: the Wes Clark thing. — Comments (50) | The Sunday Morning Talk Shows — Comments (0) »
The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - REVIEW 27 Comments (0 topical, 27 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Ian Schwartz at The Political Teen has the vid and audio --
And Captain Ed liveblogged it.
The greatest indicator of where the 'constitutional option' stands today could be found by watching the body language and reaction to each other's statements.
Sen. Lieberman is trying to push the 'centrist' idea for some type, any type, of compromise in order to save face, while Sen. Allen knows the GOP has the votes to implement the 'constitutional option' despite the fence sitters.
... even without Warner's vote. Lindsey Graham is on board, which had been a question. With Hagel and his Presidential aspiration, he'll probably vote for it if it comes to that.
I sensed something from McCain. I won't predict that he'll vote for it, but I thought I detected some movement.
he misspoke on that issue actually, and I think he did. But I was wondering why Russert didn't correct him or Dean's PR guy didn't just walk up to him and smack him in the back of the head. Neither happened, that scared me.
"If you have 51 votes, changing the rules of the Senate, nominations of the president is next, and then legislation follows that. And we will now become an institution exactly like the House of Representatives. That's not what our founding fathers envisioned when they created a bicameral legislature."
Yes I'd say that's movement, movement toward the Democratic (sic) position and away from Frist and the Presidents position.
Thank you John McCain, a principled conservative, proving the species is not yet extinct.
Look, we're talking about changing the rules of the Senate with 51 votes, which has never happened in the history of the United States Senate....
If you have 51 votes, changing the rules of the Senate, nominations of the president is next, and then legislation follows that. And we will now become an institution exactly like the House of Representatives. That's not what our founding fathers envisioned when they created a bicameral legislature.
Senator Graham is certainly going to vote for the nuclear option barring a compromise
I'm a yes vote for changing the rules if we have to be, but I'm willing to back off and not vote yes and vote against the nuclear option if we can get a compromise that will allow these eight nominees to be fairly treated and deal with the future in a more traditional way.
You don't get clearer than that
However, Nelson will clearly vote against the nuclear option. The only possible defectors remains possibly Murkoski, Sununu, DeWine, Specter and likely or certainly Warner, Chafee, the two Mainers, and McCain. If more of the "possible" defectors oppose the nuclear option than the "likely or certainly" support it, it will be defeated.
. . .smacked him on the head every time he said something idiotic, he'd have been in a coma months ago. Heck, this show alone would have had Dean sounding like Rocky Balboa by the time it was over.
Of course, being perpetually punch-drunk would explain a lot of what Doctor Howie says and does.
- I was wondering why Russert didn't correct him
My hunch is that wiser heads in the Democratic Party believe that Mistakes Were Made during the recent DNC election. The question is how to gracefully exit the situation without angering the good doctor's many supporters.
The answer is to allow the man to fall on his face. And soon, while there is still time to recover from his short time in office.
"If you have 51 votes, changing the rules of the Senate, nominations of the president is next, and then legislation follows that. And we will now become an institution exactly like the House of Representatives. That's not what our founding fathers envisioned when they created a bicameral legislature."
To correct Senator McCain, the word "filibuster" doesn't appear in the US Constitution.
As to the issue of whether 51 US Senators can change the rules of the Senate, perhaps Senator McCain is unfamiliar with Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution which states: Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business.......
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.....
Also, Senator McCain should have been reminded that from 1789 to 1806 the US Senate operated similar to that of the US House, where a simple majority of Senators could end debate and vote on an issue before the Senate.
In addition, in 1975, the Senate excercised its Constitution option and thereby changed it rules regarding cloture so that 3/5ths would be required to end debate rather than 2/3rds. This was originally done in disregard of Rule V, the rule passed in 1959 which demands that a 2/3rds vote is required to end debate on subsequent rules changes.
Senator Walter Mondale of Minnesota was the leader of that effort.
So, regardless of whether the Senate chooses to change the Senate rules or Senate precedent regarding judicial nominations, 51 Senators can, with a friendly chair (Vice President), change the rules whenever they wish.
about how the Senate operates.
Please review the rules of the Senate regarding extended debate, cloture and tabling motions then get back to me.
You may consider this assignment punishment for your clueless attempt to educate the rest of us as to how the Senate actually operates.
In addition, in 1975, the Senate excercised its Constitution option and thereby changed it rules regarding cloture so that 3/5ths would be required to end debate rather than 2/3rds. This was originally done in disregard of Rule V, the rule passed in 1959 which demands that a 2/3rds vote is required to end debate on subsequent rules changes.
Senator Walter Mondale of Minnesota was the leader of that effort.
So, regardless of whether the Senate chooses to change the Senate rules or Senate precedent regarding judicial nominations, 51 Senators can, with a friendly chair (Vice President), change the rules whenever they wish
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the facts. In reality, 51 Senators can change the rules at the commencement of a new Congress. This is because it is understood each Congress (chronologically speaking, rather than between the House and Senate) is equal and a past Senate can not bind a future one if at the begining of the Senate it reject the past rules. However, this has not happened. We are well into the current Congress and have acted under the previous rules up to this point. By acting under the these rules, the Senate has both formally and functionally acknowledged the validity and binding nature of the previously agreed upon Senate Rules. Ironically, filing a cloture motion, which is provided for under the very rule they wish to change, itself invalidates the nuclear option.
The 1975 rule change happened at the begining of the Congress and was bipartisan(long pdf) in nature. Had this rule been tackled at the opening of the 109th Congress, it would stand on firm legal ground.
Kennedy was guest bloviator on Saturday's Capital Gang (before Dean's Sunday appearance). Kennedy pretends to think Dean is doing just fine:
Maybe he could have used other words, but I think Howard Dean is doing a first rate job. He has traveled the country. He is really willing to take on the tough issues. They're looking for someone to take on and speak for the Democrat Party. He's working on organizations, he is giving help and support to party-building in states that haven't got an infrastructure. I think he is a breath of fresh air.Sure, once in a while he may overstate or misstate a particular situation but I think he is working hard, he is doing well, he is attracting a lot of support. I think he is doing a good job.
Durbin said that he had offered McConnell votes on four of the disputed nominees, but the Senator had turned him down. (This was hypocrisy on Durbin's part. If the judges were so bad as to be a dangerous if they sat on the courts, why allow them to be confirmed when otherwise they'd filibuster?)
That wasn't my understanding of what Durbin said. I thought he said that they offered votes on 4 nominees -- 4 of the others in the system, not any of the ones that have been filibustered.
But you're probably right. We can check it after a transcript comes out.
That's 4 of the 10, now 7.
Specificaly they don't want Saad, Owen or Brown.
And as far as the business of the
Senate, let me tell you, I came to the floor this week and said to Senator McConnell, `If you
want four circuit judges at this moment on a bipartisan basis, let's vote on them.' He objected
and said, `No, let's stay in the mode that we're in.'
That doesn't look to me like Durbin was agreeing to allow any of the disputed judges to get a vote. His offer seems to be a vote on 4 others, nothing involving the disputed 7.
I ran that Kennedy quote through Babelfish. and darn if this didn't come out:
There is no reason for Democrats to listen to the whispers coming from the Clinton camp. I, Teddy Kennedy, patriarch of the Democratic Party, say that Howard is off to a good start. Screw the Clintons. Everything they do is for them. Since they came on the scene, we've lost control of both houses of Congress, a majority of the Governorships, and even a majority of state legislators. Howard wants to fix this. He's out there building party infrastructure where that Clinton stooge McAuliffe let it die on the vine. So don't listen to Hillary, and for Heaven's sake don't listen to Bill.
Sure, they want their guy back in at the DNC. Hillary wants to run for president. But so what? There's a whole party to worry about, not just them. Let's see how Howard does. He's got a lot of energy, he has a lot of fans, and he can't possibly leave us in worse shape than McAuliffe did.
If Howard tries to pull a McGovern and stack the rules for his own run, I'll be the first to jump down his throat. But for right now I think we ought to let him go, no matter how badly Hillary wants him out of there.
This means little or nothing.
Walter Mondale exercised the "constitutional option" in February 1975. Does the fact that the Congress was already more than one month old mean that the 51 to 40 vote in favor of his point of order mean any less? No.
Here are some more examples of changes in Senate procedure that occured by majority vote.
In October 1977 Majority leader Robert Byrd changed Senate precedent regarding post-cloture filibusters. Byrd's "tabling motion" carried 79-14. This changed the way the Senate operates without changing the text of Senate rules.
In November 1979, Byrd led a majority of Senator to change Senate procedure regarding amendments to appropriation bills. Byrd's "motion to table" carried 44-40.
In March 1980, Byrd led the Senate Democrats in changing the Senate's procedures for the consideration of Presidential nominations. Byrd's Democrats voted on party lines to reject the ruling of the Chair by a vote of 38-54.
In 1987, Byrd changed Senate precedent again regarding dilatory tactics used by the minority.
Bottom line: If the majority wants to change the way the Senate operates, they can. This was true when Robert Byrd was Majority Leader and it is true today.
This means little or nothing.
It means everything in the case of rule changes. The constitution indicates that each House shall determine its own rules. Those rules are binding within the Congress that crafted them and all future Senates (or Houses) that adopt them by unanimous consent, as in the case for the 109th Senate. The "Constitutional option" refers to changing the rules before they have been adopted as is the Senate's right under the Constitution (thus the name). The "Nuclear Option", as it was dubbed by Senator Stevens and Senator Lott several years ago, involves trying to do the same thing when such an action would violate the rules (thus the name).
Senator Byrd called for a change in interpretation, or precedent. The procedure for precedent change is entirely different from that of Rule Change. Enforcing a pre-existing Senate Rule is fundamentally different from changing a rule. Post-cloture filibusters were prima facie out-of-order by Rule XXII and he merely asked the Senate to agree that was the plain reading. Precedent involves the interpretation of the rules. In 79, an amendment that was not germane to the subject of appropriations bill was proposed, but by Rule XVI - " On a point of order made by any Senator, no amendment offered by any other Senator which proposes general legislation shall be received to any general appropriation bill, nor shall any amendment not germane or relevant to the subject matter contained in the bill be received;" - again it was the plain interpretation of the Senate Rule. In 1980, the Chair indicated that the motion of Byrd did not violate Senate rules. The motion was to go to a specific nominee on the Executive Calendar rather than just to the Executive Calendar. At most, this was an minute interpretation change of scheduling and not a radical violation of the rules of the Senate. In 1987, the Chair ruled with Mr Byrd on the advise of the Parliamentarian regarding his motion on the obstruction of reading the Journal into the record via stacking excused votes and the majority of Senators agreed on the narrow precedent regarding on the Senate Journal.
However, there is no interpretation of the rules that indicates judicial nominees are exempt from filibuster. Indeed, the Rule XXII explicitly says filibusters involve "the debate upon any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate." No reasonable reading could exclude nominations.
Bottom line if the Senate changes its rules mid-session by a bare majority, it will be doing so in violation of its own rules. That is the path to fascism. That the party of conservatives would even consider gutting the Senate in order to get seven judges that aren't even needed through boggles the mind.
I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this.
Since from 1789 to 1806, there was no filibuster at all and the original Senate enacted all of its rules by a majority vote, including a "previous question" rule, which allowed a majority of its members to end debate and move to a vote on any issue, it's hard to see how 51 members deciding that judicial filibusters should be ruled out of order is "fascism."
After all, if 51 Republicans vote to end judicial filibusters via a motion to table an appeal of the ruling of the chair, the result will simply be that the full Senate will be allowed to vote on these pending judicial nominations.
Since the Constitution doesn't require a supermajority for the confirmation of judicial candidates (unlike overriding a veto (2/3rds) or treaties (2/3rds) or amending the Constitution (2/3rds) or removing an impeached President (2/3rds), it seems to be a real stretch to say that simply taking the "yeas" and "neas" on a judicial candidate is fascism.
Thurgood Marshall was confirmed with less than 60 votes. So was Richard Paez (Clinton) and Abner Mikva (Carter).
This is a non issue really. The Republicans should change Senate precedent and get back to up and down votes on judicial nominees.
Enough is enough. We have been inundated by the media (MSM and blogoshpere) on this non-issue. Just acknowledge the fact that the Congressional Democrat Party is in opposition to the Congressional Republican Party. Both Parties have their own proprietary and diametrically opposing vision for this country.
Seeing the same faces pontificating on television only serves to enhance already sizable egos. Put the matter to a vote now and quit wasting our time.
Seolach
John McCain (FOX News Sunday) thinks the President's nominees should all receive up-or-down votes, yet he opposes <u>clarifying </u>Senate rules to allow it to happen.
There is no current rule against filabustering Judicial nominees to be clarified...It has happened, according to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, 17 times since 1949. It happened with Fortas. It happened with Paez. To say it hasn't happened on the basis of some tortured definition of what a filabuster is or is not, is similar to Bill Clinton arguing about what the meaning of is, is.
No, it is not CLARIFYING; it is CHEATING. It is not even changing the rules in the middle of the game, which it would be if the republicans had 67 votes to change the Senate rules, it is CHEATING. It is a naked power grab by people who are hell bent on getting their version of the law enshrined in legal decisions by "judicial legislators".
If all they wanted was judges who would not "legislate from the bench" it would be a simple matter to find 10 who would be acceptible to both dems and republicans by a large majority, certainly over 60, in the Senate.
But they want radicals like Janice Rogers Brown and Pricilla Owens who will legislate from the bench on the appellate courts and they will CHEAT if they have to to make it happen.
My bet is that cooler heads will prevail and there will be some kind of compromise, which will at the very least "kick the can down the road" to buy some time.
We can only hope.
Please come back when you have something of substance to say, other than pointing and screaming "THE REPUBLICANS ARE CHEATING!". That dog won't hunt.
I'm reminded of an old Abe Lincoln joke: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a horse have? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
If you don't want to accept that this kind of change has been made before in the Senate (four times by the Democrats, overly documented in multiple threads here), you don't have to; you can also say a horse has 5 legs. We don't have to listen to you in either case.
but assuming he did use something similar to this...then he was cheating, too.
When you break the rules to change the rules, that's cheating, by definition....
If your only argument is it's not cheating because it's been done before...that argument falls of its own weight...
Cheating has been going on in this world for a long time, but that doesn't make it something other than what it is, cheating...
But more than that, the reason which republicans give for the need to "cheat" is specious. It would be quite easy to find 10 judges who won't legislate from the bench and who believe in stare decisis. But they don't want that. They want to have their own crew legislating from the bench.
I still think there will be some kind of compromise but at the last minute, as most compromises occur at that point in key negotiations like this.
On the abortion question, Dean repeated something that is a well known myth concerning abortion statistics.
'Cheating' is a loaded word in this context. Using it only increases the heat, not the light. It's similar to calling downloading music in violation of copyright 'stealing'. You're trying to stick a label on an action with meanings that are favorable to your point of view.
That's known as 'spin'.
I quite simply refuse to acknowledge your spin as having any validity whatsoever. If you really believe what you posted, I'm waiting for you to call on Senator Byrd to resign from the Senate for his four episodes of 'cheating'. Then I might take what you have to say a bit more seriously. Otherwise, you're all spin and no forward motion.
Howard Dean accused President Bush of suggesting that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11.
You are too kind. What Howard Dean actually said was that Bush lied to us when he said that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. In fact he said that twice.
With Howard Dean, the hits just keep on comin'.