The Senate filibuster...

[Taxman]

Gentlemen, don't make me treat you like two year olds. Play nice.

[bradedit]

LOL, I am a woman!

[Taxman]

LOL My chauvinism is showing, huh? Make that Gentlepeople...

[crazytimes]

Is this the Off Topic thread or what?? So how about those filibusters...*

[luvmetender]

You can make an argument for whatever you want when you back it up with "statistics." Numbers are very easily manipulated. BTW, my earlier post about the 31% was taken from a conservative site.

[twonky]

Originally Posted by luvmetender

You can make an argument for whatever you want when you back it up with "statistics." Numbers are very easily manipulated. BTW, my earlier post about the 31% was taken from a conservative site.

Are you saying that you think the chart from the Department of Justice is made up or manipulated?

Do you have another source that contradicts these numbers?

See, this is how a debate normally works.

You asked Mayor to prove his point. He showed up with some statistics. Hard numbers that prove his point. Now it's your turn to prove him wrong by showing the statistics, or hard facts that support your views.

[FUNdamental]

Originally Posted by mayor

Ok, I can see you aren't going to quote any reliable sources. Why is it you think that Newsweek magazine (blatantly biased) is going to give you all the facts? What you have just quoted is not hard data in any manner, shape or form. So let's just look at some hard numbers and discern the truth here.

EVERY Clinton nominee that was reported out of the Judiciary Committee received a floor vote, and were ALL confirmed.

Those that were "blocked" were never reported out of committee, and the majority of them were appointments advanced in the last few months of Clinton's tenure when he through caution to the wind and sent up the most liberal of judges since he was leaving office anyhow. The committee wasn't going to stand for it.

But the telling statistic is the "overall confirmation rate", which tracks all nominations sent to the Senate, and takes into account all those confirmed vs. the total sent up. In Clinton's case, this number was about 53%. With GWB, its about 35%. So, who is blocking who?

What the Senate Democrats have done with their filibuster of nominees sent to the floor is unprecedented and it is setting a DANGEROUS precedent for the future.

Mayor

In order to bring some semblance of historical accuracy here, let's look at
the circumstances of some of the Clinton nominees:

Elena Kagan and Allen Snyder were nominated unsuccessfully to vacancies on
the D.C. Circuit by President Clinton. Elena Kagan and Allen Snyder were
never allowed a Committee vote or Senate consideration. By the way, Dean
Kagan, now heads the Harvard Law School, a position of prestige, stature, ans accreditation higher in many circles than that of Federal Judge.

Another treated with little respect was District Court Judge Richard Paez of
Los Angeles, a Hispanic American, who was originally nominated to the 9th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in January 1996. The Senate Judiciary
Committee, however, took no action on his nomination for more than two
years. Then in 1998, the committee finally held a hearing on his nomination
and approved it, but the Senate leadership refused to allow a full Senate
vote. President Clinton nominated him again in January 1999, but the Senate
still refused to take action. Finally, after pressure mounted against the
Senate for its continued stalling of federal judicial nominees, Paez
received a vote and was confirmed in March 2000, more than four years after
he was nominated.

Another Republican block was James A. Beauty, Jr., who was approved by the
Senate Judiciary Committee but was blocked from reaching a full Senate vote
by then Senator Helms, a man who had repeatedly rejected non white nominee's
to the 4th Circuit Court. Later, Senator Helms rejected James Wynn, another
African American to the 4th Circuit, leaving the 4th Circuit with all white
judges and a vacancy. Two other African-American nominees, Roger Gregory
and Andre Davis, were nominated to the 4th Circuit in 2000, but, again,
neither were even were given the respect of a hearing.

Are you saying, mayor "the last few months of Clinton's Tenure" started in
early December, 1999 when my former Naples, Florida, neighbor Phyllis
Schlafly blamed liberal judges for the Columbine high School tragedy and urged the Senate all future Clinton Judicial nominations be blocked? Are you content to believe that on December 20, 1999, when Senator James Inhofe and 12 other Republican Senators threatened to block all future Clinton's Judicial nominee's that the Republican's weren't setting a dangerous precedent for future third year Senate inactions for four year tenured presidential terms? Given these two dates, Are you claiming that when you refer to "the last few months of Clinton's tenure" you were actually labeling at least 13 months as a "few," and this period in question was over a year before the President left
office, and a month before the first ballot was cast in the New Hampshire
primary?

Here you have it for the new board of Religion and Politics, Names, dates,
facts, presented in clear form.

[twonky]

Originally Posted by FUNdamental

In order to bring some semblance of historical accuracy here, let's look at
the circumstances of some of the Clinton nominees:

<snipped for bevity>

No one is denying that there were blocks done both ways, at least I don't think that's what people are saying.

But you've only covered a handful of the blocked judges on the side you support. Do you have anything else?

Do you also dispute the charts from the Department of Justice web site?

[luvmetender]

Welcome back FUNdamental! Not too many of "us" on here lately.

[FUNdamental]

The chart in question only looks at the first two years of the presidency.

[twonky]

Originally Posted by FUNdamental

The chart in question only looks at the first two years of the presidency.

I'm sure you were trying to make some kind of point with this statement. Would you care to elaborate?

Again, you only brought up a handful of judges. What about the rest? Do you dispute the charts accuracy?

[Taxman]

Originally Posted by luvmetender

Welcome back FUNdamental! Not too many of "us" on here lately.

Time out...

There are no "us" or "them" here, ok? We're all just members of DoD who happen to have differences of opinion on certain subjects. OK?

Carry on...

[mayor]

Originally Posted by Taxman

There are no "us" or "them" here, ok? We're all just members of DoD who happen to have differences of opinion on certain subjects. OK?

Thank you, Taxman. Last time I looked we were all Americans.

Mayor

[bradedit]

Of course we are all Americans(well I don't think Angus is, at least not yet)but I guess Luv could have said it was good to see more liberals posting.

[angusmcgee]

Originally Posted by mayor

Thank you, Taxman. Last time I looked we were all Americans.

Mayor

Don't let King Cantona hear you calling him an American, mayor..

He's a soccer watchin', fish n' chips eatin', good ol' Englishman.