Constitutional crisis? Presidential power grab and religious right politics in play? That’s what the Sen Dems want Americans to think. In a small segment of the battle, in Michigan’s stake, that not it at all.
In holding up a vote on 4 Michigander judicial nominees, it’s all about being purely petty for Michigan’s two Dem Senators –Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow. Petty and partisan. Petty as in piddling out political vengeance. No highbrow constitutional arguments in these 4 cases. Not wild eyed radical jurists, either, as some Dem Senators would have us believe and the MSM has willing promoted as the primary justification for filibusters.
Nope, just petty partisan powergrabbin’ vengeful base motives at play here by the Senate’s two “esteemed” Democrats from Michigan.
The four Michigan-based federal nominees caught up in the “threat of filibuster” by Sen Minority Leader Reid are federal judges David McKeague and Richard Griffin (son of a long serving moderate GOP US Senator) and state judges Susan Neilson and Henry Saad. Not one of them can be described as “radical” or “out of the mainstream” –as “Dem Sen in Charge of the Dark Side” Pat Leahy is fond to allege as the reason for holding up judicial nominees.
The problem with these four jurists and the hold on an up/down Senate floor vote is that Sen Levin’s cousin’s wife, state jurist Helene White, wasn’t afforded a hearing in the Spring of 2000 when her blue-slip portfolio was complete. Sen Levin was mad and frustrated that he couldn’t get a family member a lifetime federal appointment to the federal bench. Wait, did I write ‘was” –Hell, he’s still mad. That’s why he’s holding up the four jurists from Michigan who should get floor votes. And just to be complete, Sen Levin and Stabenow also have an ancillary concern about a financial issue(s) raised in state jurist Henry Saad’s confidential FBI report –hence the reason why NARAL and other pro-choice groups have hired former Sen Reid goons to investigate financial issues on judicial nominees (see earlier thread). As in --We can’t leak that information directly, let’s get it confirmed now that we know it.
Oh, gheez, that can’t be correct? Sen Levin and Stabenow would never do something so petty and vengeful, right? Something driven by base motives, right? WRONG. Read about it in their own words… in a Sen Levin press release, no less!
http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=218460
Read it fast, because when the radical Dems find out Levin has actually admitted that his hold on Michigan jurists is because of petty partisan vengeful motives, the political operatives in Sen Leahy’s Dark Side War Room will likely have those comments pulled.
What’s worse, keep reading the release… in it comes the thinly veiled suggestion that maybe if the WH would simply allow an unnamed Helene White (Levin’s family member seeking that lifetime federal appointment) to be one of the vast pool of nominees available for the vacant posts in the 6th Circuit, sunshine and bird-singing could replace the poisoned atmosphere of today.
That’s the Michigan angle on the filibuster threat. Petty, vengeful personal political vendetta. It might be different with other Dem Senators in other states… or maybe not. And that’s also why when the Senate leadership appeared fully willing to use restore majority rule to the Senate, the Dems started to cave on these 4 Michigan jurists. Cause it’s hard to defend petty base motives when you’re shouting constitutional platidues out the other side of your mouth
Full Version: MICH Dem Sen: Purely petty on judges
There's already a thread about the "nuclear option" issue. Please post to that thread in the future on this issue.
JIPster, thanks for the polite suggestion. I think not. This is about Michigan's Democrat Senators... and the motivation behind stalling on judicial nominees.
You got it wrong again, JIPster.
You got it wrong again, JIPster.
"Matt" - Do you know any federal judges there in your neck of the woods?
Yes
Do you really think Levin's supposed reason is worse than what's lying behind the wacko, anti-gay religious Talivangelists' intentions? Do you really agree with them? Are you saying that you agree with Dobson, Robertson, etc.? Do you really think Anthony Kennedy is worse than the Al Qaeda 9/11 terrorists?
Matt you have some anamosity towards the Senate. Maybe you would prefer a unicameral government body? Or maybe a monarchy?
Here are Republican Senators themselves on this insane attempt at turning the Senate into a smaller version of the House to enforce one-party rule. (Credit to People for the American Way.)
Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania
\"I'm going to use every ounce of my energy, Wolf, to avoid confronting the nuclear option, because I think it would be disastrous for America. The Senate has a long, rich tradition for protecting minority rights.\"
CNN's \"Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer,\" 02-27-05
\"I'm going to exercise every last ounce of my energy to solve this problem without the nuclear option,\" he said. \"If we have a nuclear option, the Senate will be in turmoil and the Judiciary Committee will be hell.\"
Washington Post, 02-24-05
Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska
\"It's important that we protect the institution of the Senate and the tools of minority rights because if those are eroded, you will then put the institution on a slippery slope to keep--by straight majority vote. By saying this rule's going to change. This rule's going to change. ... I do not like this approach. It's a dangerous approach. It's an irresponsible approach. And it further erodes the constitutional minority rights element of the Senate.\" CNN's \"Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer,\" 04-17-05
\"We have to sit down ourselves, look each other in the eye and talk not just about short-term consequences but, more importantly, long-term consequences for the institution of the Senate. The Senate was primarily built around protection of minority rights.\"
CBS's \"Face the Nation,\" 05-01-05
\"I don't think it would be wise, in the interests of our country or the United States Senate to let this come to this kind of an explosion in the United States Senate.\"
Bloomberg.com, 05-09-05
Senator Susan Collins of Maine
\"[T]o change the rules of the Senate and to invoke what they are calling the nuclear option ... would so poison the well that I fear that it would be very difficult for us to tackle those major issues that are coming down the road.\"
National Journal, 01-22-05
\"I wish this would pass us by,\" she said, \"because I am concerned about the impact on the Senate of trying to put through a change that does not represent a consensus.\"
New York Times, 04-20-05
Senator John Warner of Virginia
\"I tend to be a traditionalist, and the right of unlimited debate has been a hallmark of the Senate since its inception.\"
Press statement, 04-29-05
\"I just look at this institution as really the last bastion of protecting the rights of the minority.\"
New York Times, 04-20-05
\"We can't do damage to the Senate rules, which would come back to work against the interests of the Republican Party when we're in the minority. ... This is the last bastion, an institution that protects the rights of the minority.\"
Virginia Pilot, 04-29-05
Senator John McCain of Arizona
\"If we don't protect the rights of the minority ... if you had a liberal president and a Democrat-controlled Senate, I think that it could do great damage.\"
CBS's \"Face the Nation,\" 04-10-05
\"`I don't know why in the last 200 years we have not had this kind of crisis before, but we've always been able to work things out,' says Arizona Sen. John McCain, who is now `strongly inclined' to vote against the rule change. `We will not be in the majority forever. History has shown us that.'\"
Wall Street Journal, 04-12-05
Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine
\"I don't believe that at this point we should resort to changing the rules in order to adapt it to this scenario. We ought to try and make it work.\"
Portland Press-Herald, 12-26-04
Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island
\"`Just the word that's being used--the nuclear option--says it all,' Chafee said of the parliamentary maneuver. ... `The acrimony's so thick down here that a step into complete radioactivity isn't good for the American people.'\"
The Providence Journal, 05-17-05
Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas
\"What goes around comes around ... [it is] not in the best interests of either party or the Senate to take this step.\"
Kansas City Star, 05-15-05
Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon
\"I don't want the Senate to become the House.\"
The Hill, 03-02-05
Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee
\"I am one of the Republicans who believe such a rules change is not a good idea--not good for the Senate, not for the country, not for Republicans, and not for Democrats. The Senate needs a body that by its procedures gives unusual protection to minority rights.\" Senate floor statement, 04-12-05
Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio
\"[T]he best thing to do is to have an understanding between the parties. ... [Changing the rules is] probably not going to be the way to do it.\"
Congressional Quarterly, 05-07-03
\"I think it's in the best interest of the country that we work out something. ... This is a confrontation we should not have.\"
Chicago Tribune, 05-18-05
Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
\"`The fact of the matter is that there has been an ability to filibuster judges from the day the Senate was formed,' Murkowski said earlier this year. `And out of protocol, or courtesy, or just a recognition of the Senate's constitutional obligation to give advice and consent on the president's judicial nominees, filibusters weren't even considered up until the 108th Congress. That's where I get frustrated,' she said. `I don't want to have to change the rules because now some people have decided that they can now use it to their advantage to permanently block a president's nominee. It may be that you have four years or eight years of judges that one side doesn't like. But then you've got eight years of judges that the other side likes, so there's an evening of the process,' she said. `I don't like the nuclear option, let's put it that way, and I hope we don't get to the point where we have to institute it.'\"
Miner-News, 04-12-05
Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana
\"`On the fundamental issue, I believe we are skating over very thin ice here with regard to the continuity of life in the Senate as we've known it,' Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) said on CNN's `Late Edition.' `I'm opposed to trying to eliminate filibusters simply because I think they protect minority rights, whether they're Republicans, Democrats or other people.'\"
Los Angeles Times, 05-16-05
Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi
\"It's very important that one faction or one party not be able to ride roughshod over the minority and impose its will. The Senate is not the House.\"
Wall Street Journal, 06-05-03
Senator Robert Bennett of Utah
\"Once we [Republicans] try to change the rules with 51 votes, the precedent is on the table. ... If Hillary Clinton becomes president with a Democratic Senate and wants to appoint Lani Guinier to the Supreme Court, Harry Reid could make that happen with 51 votes.\"
Farmington Daily Times, 05-18-05
Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico
\"I will listen to that debate carefully, but it will be very difficult to get me to vote to change the filibuster rule. ... I always thought that the filibuster rule protected the minority in a rather exceptional way, better than almost any other rule we've got.\"
National Journal, 12-11-04
Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire
\"I'm just thinking through the history and the precedents of changing the rules. Like any rules change, I want to ask the question: If the rule is changed, is it something I'm comfortable with whether I'm in the majority or the minority, whether we have a Republican president or a Democratic president?\"
Wall Street Journal, 04-12-05
QUOTE
Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania
\"I'm going to use every ounce of my energy, Wolf, to avoid confronting the nuclear option, because I think it would be disastrous for America. The Senate has a long, rich tradition for protecting minority rights.\"
CNN's \"Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer,\" 02-27-05
\"I'm going to exercise every last ounce of my energy to solve this problem without the nuclear option,\" he said. \"If we have a nuclear option, the Senate will be in turmoil and the Judiciary Committee will be hell.\"
Washington Post, 02-24-05
Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska
\"It's important that we protect the institution of the Senate and the tools of minority rights because if those are eroded, you will then put the institution on a slippery slope to keep--by straight majority vote. By saying this rule's going to change. This rule's going to change. ... I do not like this approach. It's a dangerous approach. It's an irresponsible approach. And it further erodes the constitutional minority rights element of the Senate.\" CNN's \"Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer,\" 04-17-05
\"We have to sit down ourselves, look each other in the eye and talk not just about short-term consequences but, more importantly, long-term consequences for the institution of the Senate. The Senate was primarily built around protection of minority rights.\"
CBS's \"Face the Nation,\" 05-01-05
\"I don't think it would be wise, in the interests of our country or the United States Senate to let this come to this kind of an explosion in the United States Senate.\"
Bloomberg.com, 05-09-05
Senator Susan Collins of Maine
\"[T]o change the rules of the Senate and to invoke what they are calling the nuclear option ... would so poison the well that I fear that it would be very difficult for us to tackle those major issues that are coming down the road.\"
National Journal, 01-22-05
\"I wish this would pass us by,\" she said, \"because I am concerned about the impact on the Senate of trying to put through a change that does not represent a consensus.\"
New York Times, 04-20-05
Senator John Warner of Virginia
\"I tend to be a traditionalist, and the right of unlimited debate has been a hallmark of the Senate since its inception.\"
Press statement, 04-29-05
\"I just look at this institution as really the last bastion of protecting the rights of the minority.\"
New York Times, 04-20-05
\"We can't do damage to the Senate rules, which would come back to work against the interests of the Republican Party when we're in the minority. ... This is the last bastion, an institution that protects the rights of the minority.\"
Virginia Pilot, 04-29-05
Senator John McCain of Arizona
\"If we don't protect the rights of the minority ... if you had a liberal president and a Democrat-controlled Senate, I think that it could do great damage.\"
CBS's \"Face the Nation,\" 04-10-05
\"`I don't know why in the last 200 years we have not had this kind of crisis before, but we've always been able to work things out,' says Arizona Sen. John McCain, who is now `strongly inclined' to vote against the rule change. `We will not be in the majority forever. History has shown us that.'\"
Wall Street Journal, 04-12-05
Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine
\"I don't believe that at this point we should resort to changing the rules in order to adapt it to this scenario. We ought to try and make it work.\"
Portland Press-Herald, 12-26-04
Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island
\"`Just the word that's being used--the nuclear option--says it all,' Chafee said of the parliamentary maneuver. ... `The acrimony's so thick down here that a step into complete radioactivity isn't good for the American people.'\"
The Providence Journal, 05-17-05
Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas
\"What goes around comes around ... [it is] not in the best interests of either party or the Senate to take this step.\"
Kansas City Star, 05-15-05
Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon
\"I don't want the Senate to become the House.\"
The Hill, 03-02-05
Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee
\"I am one of the Republicans who believe such a rules change is not a good idea--not good for the Senate, not for the country, not for Republicans, and not for Democrats. The Senate needs a body that by its procedures gives unusual protection to minority rights.\" Senate floor statement, 04-12-05
Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio
\"[T]he best thing to do is to have an understanding between the parties. ... [Changing the rules is] probably not going to be the way to do it.\"
Congressional Quarterly, 05-07-03
\"I think it's in the best interest of the country that we work out something. ... This is a confrontation we should not have.\"
Chicago Tribune, 05-18-05
Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
\"`The fact of the matter is that there has been an ability to filibuster judges from the day the Senate was formed,' Murkowski said earlier this year. `And out of protocol, or courtesy, or just a recognition of the Senate's constitutional obligation to give advice and consent on the president's judicial nominees, filibusters weren't even considered up until the 108th Congress. That's where I get frustrated,' she said. `I don't want to have to change the rules because now some people have decided that they can now use it to their advantage to permanently block a president's nominee. It may be that you have four years or eight years of judges that one side doesn't like. But then you've got eight years of judges that the other side likes, so there's an evening of the process,' she said. `I don't like the nuclear option, let's put it that way, and I hope we don't get to the point where we have to institute it.'\"
Miner-News, 04-12-05
Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana
\"`On the fundamental issue, I believe we are skating over very thin ice here with regard to the continuity of life in the Senate as we've known it,' Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) said on CNN's `Late Edition.' `I'm opposed to trying to eliminate filibusters simply because I think they protect minority rights, whether they're Republicans, Democrats or other people.'\"
Los Angeles Times, 05-16-05
Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi
\"It's very important that one faction or one party not be able to ride roughshod over the minority and impose its will. The Senate is not the House.\"
Wall Street Journal, 06-05-03
Senator Robert Bennett of Utah
\"Once we [Republicans] try to change the rules with 51 votes, the precedent is on the table. ... If Hillary Clinton becomes president with a Democratic Senate and wants to appoint Lani Guinier to the Supreme Court, Harry Reid could make that happen with 51 votes.\"
Farmington Daily Times, 05-18-05
Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico
\"I will listen to that debate carefully, but it will be very difficult to get me to vote to change the filibuster rule. ... I always thought that the filibuster rule protected the minority in a rather exceptional way, better than almost any other rule we've got.\"
National Journal, 12-11-04
Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire
\"I'm just thinking through the history and the precedents of changing the rules. Like any rules change, I want to ask the question: If the rule is changed, is it something I'm comfortable with whether I'm in the majority or the minority, whether we have a Republican president or a Democratic president?\"
Wall Street Journal, 04-12-05
Let's see how they actually vote when the time comes...particularly Specter...
Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania
\"I'm going to use every ounce of my energy, Wolf, to avoid confronting the nuclear option, because I think it would be disastrous for America. The Senate has a long, rich tradition for protecting minority rights.\"
CNN's \"Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer,\" 02-27-05
He, of course, used the "tradition" argument when the ultra-right tried to keep him from the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee. Considering that his entire career has been based on flip-flopping between "moderate" and supporting the hard-right party line, I don't trust him one bit.
QUOTE
Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania
\"I'm going to use every ounce of my energy, Wolf, to avoid confronting the nuclear option, because I think it would be disastrous for America. The Senate has a long, rich tradition for protecting minority rights.\"
CNN's \"Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer,\" 02-27-05
Oh, for Pete's sake! What the hell are all those aforementioned senators screaming about? The rules on filibusters have been changed several times before, with the Democrats themselves even attempting to eliminate filibusters altogether.
The simplest answer to all this is let the Senate vote. If a nominee is as "extreme" as the Democrats claim, then enough Republican "moderates" will vote against said nominee, rendering a filibuster moot.
The simplest answer to all this is let the Senate vote. If a nominee is as "extreme" as the Democrats claim, then enough Republican "moderates" will vote against said nominee, rendering a filibuster moot.
Sen Levin's has now offered to withdraw his opposition to 3:4 judicial nominees from Michigan. He remains opposed to Judge Henry Saad. Why? So that the SenDems can escalate the issue by putting Saad's nomination in the troubled column with the previously highlighted non-Michigan nominees (Brown, et al).
I bet if Sen Levin's family member was nominated by the WH to an appellate post the opposition to Saad would wither quickly.
Petty, petty, petty. Yep, the Senate traditions deserve protection.
I bet if Sen Levin's family member was nominated by the WH to an appellate post the opposition to Saad would wither quickly.
Petty, petty, petty. Yep, the Senate traditions deserve protection.
QUOTE
MiMatt38:
Petty, petty, petty. Yep, the Senate traditions deserve protection.
Which Senate traditions are you talking about? The REAL traditions of filibustering (even by people no one would support now, like Strom Thurmond) by the minority, or the Republicans' false traditions of elitism and elimination of minorities?
Petty, petty, petty. Yep, the Senate traditions deserve protection.
Nope, the bigger Senate tradition --ie, that the Senator from the home state of the judicial nominee(s) can hold-up the Sen Jud Comm hearing, the Sen vote, and has to be consulted by the WH for "approval" before advancing thru the process. The threat of filibuster --hell, the opposing Senators don't even have to go to the floor and work the filibuster anymore-- is part of the Senate tradition on judicial nominees which needs changing.
Some of those Senate "traditions" have fallen by the wayside in the last 5-8 yrs... like the blue slip treatment... but only recently. They should have been done away with years ago --a little democracy in the Senate will go a long way in restoring that august body to something closer to what the framers intended.
2/3rds vote for treaties? Sure. near 2/3rds vote for judicial nominees? I think not.
Time for a little d.
Some of those Senate "traditions" have fallen by the wayside in the last 5-8 yrs... like the blue slip treatment... but only recently. They should have been done away with years ago --a little democracy in the Senate will go a long way in restoring that august body to something closer to what the framers intended.
2/3rds vote for treaties? Sure. near 2/3rds vote for judicial nominees? I think not.
Time for a little d.
And remember, this thread isn't about the filibuster issue per se, it's about the crassly opportunistic, petty, vengeful, trite practice of Senator Levin to w/h consideration of several Michigan-based jurists just because his cousin's wife didn't get on the federal bench.
What a crock of bull --and he indirectly admits it in his own press releases and Senate statements in Sen Jud Comm!
What a crock of bull --and he indirectly admits it in his own press releases and Senate statements in Sen Jud Comm!
"Matt" - Are you employed?
I think he works for Talon News Agency. He might even know Jeff Gannon!
Mmm....he may be a whacko, but Gannon is a hottie - woof! (J/K!)
It's my understanding that the biggest part of the brou-ha-ha in Meeeeeeee-shigan is that the tradition of deference to Senators when considering a nominee from their state has been violated during the previous administration, so this fight in the Wolverine state is not a new thing.
It's my understanding that the biggest part of the brou-ha-ha in Meeeeeeee-shigan is that the tradition of deference to Senators when considering a nominee from their state has been violated during the previous administration, so this fight in the Wolverine state is not a new thing.
Hey RazorB and millerScream, yep and nope on the 2 queries, queeries. Do you guys do a WWW tagteam event these days --wait, that's the usual MO for bullies --2 against 1, right? LOL Smoke it.
And Maryland... the issue is not Senatorial "deference" --what a crock-- the issue is that Democrat Senator Carl Levin (a leader in the go-to-war Democrats camp) was pissed off that his family didn't get a seat on the federal bench when Clinton was playing POTUS.
That's the issue. It isn't about constitutional protection of Senate traditions... it isn't about the nuclear option... and it isn't about representing the 58% of Americans who want to see an up/down vote on judicial nominees. It's about pettiness and abortion radicals wanting their way and obstructionists in govt. At least for Senator Levin and his lapdoggie, Stabenow (now, that's gotta hurt the thighs to have her in your lap, ouch).
Senatorial deference, my ass. Nice try though. Hey, is that Razorback ready for the tag? Go tag 'em Maryland.
And Maryland... the issue is not Senatorial "deference" --what a crock-- the issue is that Democrat Senator Carl Levin (a leader in the go-to-war Democrats camp) was pissed off that his family didn't get a seat on the federal bench when Clinton was playing POTUS.
That's the issue. It isn't about constitutional protection of Senate traditions... it isn't about the nuclear option... and it isn't about representing the 58% of Americans who want to see an up/down vote on judicial nominees. It's about pettiness and abortion radicals wanting their way and obstructionists in govt. At least for Senator Levin and his lapdoggie, Stabenow (now, that's gotta hurt the thighs to have her in your lap, ouch).
Senatorial deference, my ass. Nice try though. Hey, is that Razorback ready for the tag? Go tag 'em Maryland.
As I see it the Dems have lost this round, but may have earned another potential good pick in the draft, to use a sports analogy.
Repubs get their "straight up or down vote" on two judges previously considered unacceptable by the Dems, and the Dems get clear polls showing the public think the Repubs chose the wrong side on the filibuster issue, which may make it more difficult to use it again. Added to the Terri Schiavo circus and the Iraq tragedy, etc. they have work to do to, even maintaining the trust of their extreme wing.
Caution and modesty are not Repub characteristics (they DO speak for God after all) so I would not be surprised if they step right back into that cowpad again.
The only thing that will stop this extremism are the interim elections in 2006, and Karl Rove's PR instincts may be slipping. The recent protests at Bush's graduation speech at a Catholic University may be a sign of that, no matter how deftly Rove spins it.
I'm sure the moderate Dems justify their promise to vote against what may be their better judgement to save the system, as the best only way to preserve minority rights in the Senate and the comity of the US democratic process. But they may be called on to repeat this highwire act enough times for it to become unsavory, or unworkable, in the long run.
Eventually they'll miss that last second free-throw and the whole system will have to deal with the loss.
Repubs get their "straight up or down vote" on two judges previously considered unacceptable by the Dems, and the Dems get clear polls showing the public think the Repubs chose the wrong side on the filibuster issue, which may make it more difficult to use it again. Added to the Terri Schiavo circus and the Iraq tragedy, etc. they have work to do to, even maintaining the trust of their extreme wing.
Caution and modesty are not Repub characteristics (they DO speak for God after all) so I would not be surprised if they step right back into that cowpad again.
The only thing that will stop this extremism are the interim elections in 2006, and Karl Rove's PR instincts may be slipping. The recent protests at Bush's graduation speech at a Catholic University may be a sign of that, no matter how deftly Rove spins it.
I'm sure the moderate Dems justify their promise to vote against what may be their better judgement to save the system, as the best only way to preserve minority rights in the Senate and the comity of the US democratic process. But they may be called on to repeat this highwire act enough times for it to become unsavory, or unworkable, in the long run.
Eventually they'll miss that last second free-throw and the whole system will have to deal with the loss.
QUOTE
MiMatt38:
Hey RazorB and millerScream, yep and nope on the 2 queries, queeries. Do you guys do a WWW tagteam event these days --wait, that's the usual MO for bullies --2 against 1, right? LOL Smoke it.
Awwwww, poor widdle Matty. Mommy, mommy, they're being mean to me!!Hey RazorB and millerScream, yep and nope on the 2 queries, queeries. Do you guys do a WWW tagteam event these days --wait, that's the usual MO for bullies --2 against 1, right? LOL Smoke it.
Maybe the military would toughen you up "Matt."
Coward.
Tag out Millerbeach.
[ May 24, 2005, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]
QUOTE
sportinlife:
As I see it the Dems have lost this round, but may have earned another potential good pick in the draft, to use a sports analogy.
i'm not so sure the dems lost this round. at first, i thought they may have come out a little behind in the deal, but the way frist was protesting the compromise, i had to reconsider. the dems have the potential to come out ahead, if everyone sticks to their agreement (which i doubt will happen, then it will get really ugly). it seems certain that the president will get to nominate a supreme court justice, likely as soon as this summer. the dems have retained the filibuster trump card and can play it at that time. in essence they are trading two rookies with potential for a starter.As I see it the Dems have lost this round, but may have earned another potential good pick in the draft, to use a sports analogy.
of course, that is if everyone lives up to their end of the deal.
Hey razorback, I don't whine. I kick bully butt. After it's made to submit. 
And hey sportinglife, I think you may have the facts wrong again... wow, you'll be warmly greeted and in good company with some of the folks in here.
It isn't Catholic U --it was Calvin College. Please see thread on how the Dem's used the unwitting Calvinists to foment some tepid protest. And the protest was anything but high on the utility scale. Gheez. Rove losing his touch? Nope, sportinglife just getting it wrong.
And really? The republicans and conservatives are losing? The right has been vanquished? Are you eating cheese on the moon???
Kind of interesting approach... I guess it's: "they" are losing cause they can't win anything elese right now?
I guess you can say that 'cause they control the White House, they control the House of Representatives, they control the Senate, they control the Supreme Court, control most of the federal judiciary and will soon control major media markets on talk radio.
Facts are facts, no matter how "deftly" YOU try to spin them. Karl Rove could take a lesson from you and Fantomas on a) getting the facts wrong and
ignoring where it places you.
What a crack up.
It isn't Catholic U --it was Calvin College. Please see thread on how the Dem's used the unwitting Calvinists to foment some tepid protest. And the protest was anything but high on the utility scale. Gheez. Rove losing his touch? Nope, sportinglife just getting it wrong.
And really? The republicans and conservatives are losing? The right has been vanquished? Are you eating cheese on the moon???
Kind of interesting approach... I guess it's: "they" are losing cause they can't win anything elese right now?
I guess you can say that 'cause they control the White House, they control the House of Representatives, they control the Senate, they control the Supreme Court, control most of the federal judiciary and will soon control major media markets on talk radio.
Facts are facts, no matter how "deftly" YOU try to spin them. Karl Rove could take a lesson from you and Fantomas on a) getting the facts wrong and
ignoring where it places you.What a crack up.
QUOTE
MiMatt38:
It isn't Catholic U --it was Calvin College.
I stand corrected on the University. The rest I stand by.
It isn't Catholic U --it was Calvin College.
QUOTE
MIB:
The simplest answer to all this is let the Senate vote. If a nominee is as \"extreme\" as the Democrats claim, then enough Republican \"moderates\" will vote against said nominee, rendering a filibuster moot.
and vote against Bush and the fundie neo-cons who are in charge of the Republican Party? You're kidding right?The simplest answer to all this is let the Senate vote. If a nominee is as \"extreme\" as the Democrats claim, then enough Republican \"moderates\" will vote against said nominee, rendering a filibuster moot.
You're funny!
Yep, MIB has it exactly correct. Great post; nailed it perfectly. How can reasonable, sane minds disagree with the clean logic of that offering?
If the nominees are so radical, guys like McCain, Snow, Collins, Chaffee and others won't vote for 'em.
It's called democracy --you know, TheoDad, we're trying to teach it as an advanced course to the Afghans and Iraqis right now. We'll get to the Saudis and French later. And the Senate Dems.
It all goes back to hanging chads....
If the nominees are so radical, guys like McCain, Snow, Collins, Chaffee and others won't vote for 'em.
It's called democracy --you know, TheoDad, we're trying to teach it as an advanced course to the Afghans and Iraqis right now. We'll get to the Saudis and French later. And the Senate Dems.
It all goes back to hanging chads....
SportinLife, if you're sticking by your post... except for the Calvin College mistake... one more little mistake... isn't it 3 judicial nominees that will be voted on?
Not two as you indicate?
Wasn't the deal for Owen, Brown and Pryor?
No need to correct or edit your post for accuracy.
Not two as you indicate?
Wasn't the deal for Owen, Brown and Pryor?
No need to correct or edit your post for accuracy.
QUOTE
MiMatt38:
Yep, MIB has it exactly correct. Great post; nailed it perfectly. How can reasonable, sane minds disagree with the clean logic of that offering?
If the nominees are so radical, guys like McCain, Snow, Collins, Chaffee and others won't vote for 'em.
It's called democracy --you know, TheoDad, we're trying to teach it as an advanced course to the Afghans and Iraqis right now. We'll get to the Saudis and French later. And the Senate Dems.
It all goes back to hanging chads....
SHUTYep, MIB has it exactly correct. Great post; nailed it perfectly. How can reasonable, sane minds disagree with the clean logic of that offering?
If the nominees are so radical, guys like McCain, Snow, Collins, Chaffee and others won't vote for 'em.
It's called democracy --you know, TheoDad, we're trying to teach it as an advanced course to the Afghans and Iraqis right now. We'll get to the Saudis and French later. And the Senate Dems.
It all goes back to hanging chads....
UP
You're too scared to handle opposing viewpoints, whether they be on politics, government, religion, or anything.
It's called democracy: the minority have rights as well. We'll be offering it as a remedial course to you...
QUOTE
MiMatt38:
one more little mistake... isn't it 3 judicial nominees that will be voted on?
It is interesting you mention that. Why does Pryor not appear in the photo ops with Dr Frist, as do Owens and Brown? Is he so objectionable that he would put off even the supporters of the nuke option? Or does having a white man there make them all seem a little less sympathetic? The Repubs have become adept at playing the race and fem cards to push an agenda.one more little mistake... isn't it 3 judicial nominees that will be voted on?
QUOTE
metromathis13:
SHUT
UP
I think that's exactly the kind of response they want metro. Shouting matches keep you from thinking through the illogic in their point of view. SHUT
UP
QUOTE
MiMatt38:
It all goes back to hanging chads....
On that we agree, wholeheartedly.It all goes back to hanging chads....
[ May 24, 2005, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]
Ok SportinLife, it is three judicial nominees not 2; I checked. And Ms. Owen is now a federal Circuit Court Judge for life. One down, two to go... well, maybe four to go... and the 3 Michigan nominees, except for Saad, are scheduling their White House photo ops.
It only took Owen 4 years to get confirmed. Progress doesn't always have to be incremental.
Oh, and on the issue of why Pryor wasn't in any photo ops with Sen Frist... don't know, but I doubt it's some wild conspiracy to play out a race card. Probably more pragmatic reason --like he was somewhere else.
Metro, wow, I'll take the remedial course on minority rights in a democracy, you get to that anger management course quickly. I think I handle divergent viewpoints well... a lot better than most posters do here of the conservative viewpoint. And please, I'm not whining.
I love the irony tho... it's rich. You're asking the majority to be more tolerant of the minority and left opinions expressed here and the gay left is a hotbed for practicing intolerance against others, spinning wild conspiracies, and adopting political strategies that lead to marginalization and inefficient advocacy.
Gotta love the irony.
It only took Owen 4 years to get confirmed. Progress doesn't always have to be incremental.
Oh, and on the issue of why Pryor wasn't in any photo ops with Sen Frist... don't know, but I doubt it's some wild conspiracy to play out a race card. Probably more pragmatic reason --like he was somewhere else.
Metro, wow, I'll take the remedial course on minority rights in a democracy, you get to that anger management course quickly. I think I handle divergent viewpoints well... a lot better than most posters do here of the conservative viewpoint. And please, I'm not whining.
I love the irony tho... it's rich. You're asking the majority to be more tolerant of the minority and left opinions expressed here and the gay left is a hotbed for practicing intolerance against others, spinning wild conspiracies, and adopting political strategies that lead to marginalization and inefficient advocacy.
Gotta love the irony.
I'm glad you love irony MiniMatt....you should have a heaping serving of irony as a gay man living in America with these new judges.
MillerBeach, nope --no irony and I don't "fear" this round of judges on gay rights, personal freedoms, or societal progress issues because I didn't buy into the spin HarryR, TeddyK and the MSM offered on what this round of judges will "do" to our agenda... and unlike some here, I didn't plug my blind loyalty badge into the abortion rights powerline just to able to sit at the table and watch abortion rights advocates, union labor types, blacks, and others leave us high and dry and alone when it came time to address gay rights issues.
Some here did, do, and will continue to buy that spin and see that approach as advocacy; I don't and many friends don't.
I don't see our community as one dimensional. So, no, I don't think there will be any irony dished out other than, once again, our comuunity's "leaders" have allied themselves in a way which made our interests marginal and inconsequential, at best. And for what? A chance to cheer on BabsBoxer? What a waste.
Some here did, do, and will continue to buy that spin and see that approach as advocacy; I don't and many friends don't.
I don't see our community as one dimensional. So, no, I don't think there will be any irony dished out other than, once again, our comuunity's "leaders" have allied themselves in a way which made our interests marginal and inconsequential, at best. And for what? A chance to cheer on BabsBoxer? What a waste.
QUOTE
MiMatt38:
Oh, and on the issue of why Pryor wasn't in any photo ops with Sen Frist... don't know, but I doubt it's some wild conspiracy to play out a race card. Probably more pragmatic reason --like he was somewhere else.
I'm sure that neither you nor Judge Pryor would ever be part of any conspiracy.Oh, and on the issue of why Pryor wasn't in any photo ops with Sen Frist... don't know, but I doubt it's some wild conspiracy to play out a race card. Probably more pragmatic reason --like he was somewhere else.
At least none that used taxpayer funds to promote a bigoted agenda like this one
QUOTE
Pryor's brief likens homosexuality to incest, necrophilia, pedophilia, prostitution and adultery. He also argues in the brief that sodomy is a chosen behavior unworthy of constitutional protection, and fails to recognize GLBT individuals as people worthy of the same constitutional rights and protections that other Americans take for granted.
Who needs a conspiracy? He was on the taxpayer dole. Everything was perfectly legal.[ June 01, 2005, 12:32 AM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]
Yeah, where's MiniMatt on this one? Seems pretty clear that inclusion is NOT winning. I am still amazed that any gay man or woman could, with sane thinking, consider themselves Republicans. The evidence is pretty clear...those neo-con nut jobs would be happy with nothing less than the death of every gay person on the planet, teachings of Jesus be damned.
So let me get this right...
Some nominees (Owen, Brown, Pryor, et. al.) are so unacceptable, so extreme, that an up-or-down vote must not even be permitted; just filibuster them. They cannot be permitted on the appeals courts under any circumstances.
Suddenly there is this ridiculous "agreement," and these previously absolutely, under-no-circumstances-can-they-be-confirmed judges are now miraculously acceptable enough to be voted on and confirmed? This only proves that the Democrats previous opposition to them was petty and patently unfair; or it proves that the Democrats are a spineless party without principles.
It's bad enough that Republicans couldn't lead their way out of a paper bag. Now the Democrats have been revealed to be petty, unprincipled fools.
Some nominees (Owen, Brown, Pryor, et. al.) are so unacceptable, so extreme, that an up-or-down vote must not even be permitted; just filibuster them. They cannot be permitted on the appeals courts under any circumstances.
Suddenly there is this ridiculous "agreement," and these previously absolutely, under-no-circumstances-can-they-be-confirmed judges are now miraculously acceptable enough to be voted on and confirmed? This only proves that the Democrats previous opposition to them was petty and patently unfair; or it proves that the Democrats are a spineless party without principles.
It's bad enough that Republicans couldn't lead their way out of a paper bag. Now the Democrats have been revealed to be petty, unprincipled fools.
MIB, I guess you missed this post. Let me review...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pryor's brief likens homosexuality to incest, necrophilia, pedophilia, prostitution and adultery. He also argues in the brief that sodomy is a chosen behavior unworthy of constitutional protection, and fails to recognize GLBT individuals as people worthy of the same constitutional rights and protections that other Americans take for granted.
Yeah, that's right. Keep on thinking Democrats are petty and unfair when YOUR party has you in a concentration camp for gays.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pryor's brief likens homosexuality to incest, necrophilia, pedophilia, prostitution and adultery. He also argues in the brief that sodomy is a chosen behavior unworthy of constitutional protection, and fails to recognize GLBT individuals as people worthy of the same constitutional rights and protections that other Americans take for granted.
Yeah, that's right. Keep on thinking Democrats are petty and unfair when YOUR party has you in a concentration camp for gays.
QUOTE
DallasUNC:
Matt you have some anamosity towards the Senate. Maybe you would prefer a unicameral government body? Or maybe a monarchy?
can I be queen?
Matt you have some anamosity towards the Senate. Maybe you would prefer a unicameral government body? Or maybe a monarchy?
QUOTE
millerbeach:
MIB, I guess you missed this post. Let me review...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pryor's brief likens homosexuality to incest, necrophilia, pedophilia, prostitution and adultery. He also argues in the brief that sodomy is a chosen behavior unworthy of constitutional protection, and fails to recognize GLBT individuals as people worthy of the same constitutional rights and protections that other Americans take for granted.
Yeah, that's right. Keep on thinking Democrats are petty and unfair when YOUR party has you in a concentration camp for gays.
And you missed my point. If Pryor is so bad, so unacceptable, that an up-and-down vote shouldn't even occur, then why did the Dems go with this so-called Deal of 14? After all, one result was that Pryor and the others were suddenly acceptable enough to receive a confirmation vote.MIB, I guess you missed this post. Let me review...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pryor's brief likens homosexuality to incest, necrophilia, pedophilia, prostitution and adultery. He also argues in the brief that sodomy is a chosen behavior unworthy of constitutional protection, and fails to recognize GLBT individuals as people worthy of the same constitutional rights and protections that other Americans take for granted.
Yeah, that's right. Keep on thinking Democrats are petty and unfair when YOUR party has you in a concentration camp for gays.
It appears obvious that the Democrats' principle was nonexistent.
So, MIB, the Democrats should have let the "nuclear option" go through? Only to have the Republicans blame the Democrats for the shut-down of the U.S. Government? I don't think so. Yes, the Dems are going to have to take some lumps because of their willingness to compromise, but at least they compromised on the issue, which is far more than I can say for the Republicans. The Repubs seemed all to willing to allow for the shut-down of government, only to be able to blame the Dems for the shut-down. When, MIB, oh when, will the Republicans get out of the losing "blame game"? You know, 2008 is right around the corner. Bitterness and division is hardly the way to run a country.
[ June 02, 2005, 11:57 PM: Message edited by: millerbeach ]
[ June 02, 2005, 11:57 PM: Message edited by: millerbeach ]
MillerB, I didn't know that the GOP was in the "losing blame game" --I thought that was the exclusive province of the victims in the WeScream4HowieDean team party? Yeah, you guys have the monopoly on that approach.
When did you decide to reduce control of the WH, the Executive Office, the Senate, the House, the SuprCt and the majority of states to "losing"?
LOL. Gotta hand it to you, you never let reality get in the way of your opinion.
When did you decide to reduce control of the WH, the Executive Office, the Senate, the House, the SuprCt and the majority of states to "losing"?
LOL. Gotta hand it to you, you never let reality get in the way of your opinion.
QUOTE
millerbeach:
So, MIB, the Democrats should have let the \"nuclear option\" go through?
If they believed in their principles, yes. It was obvious they didn't believe, and that they were just being blatantly unfair and petty in the whole thing--not to mention hypocritical (calling Mr. Leahy, calling Sheets Byrd). Why do you think so many on the Left--Soros, Neas, et. al.--were so pissed at this so-called compromise?
So, MIB, the Democrats should have let the \"nuclear option\" go through?
MiniMatt, for the last time, I want nothing to do with Howard Dean. Why you keep quoting his website almost makes me think that YOU are Howard Dean. We certainly wouldn't want that kind of confusion, now, would we. Yes, my friend, the Rebublicans are losing the blame game, and they are losing it badly. When you have an administration that continues to manipulate the media, lying about things that did/didn't occur when they said/didn't say they occured, you've got a severe credibility problem. That's when it become oh so easy to blame someone, say Bill Clinton, for things this man obviously have or had no control over.
MIB, so you think the "nuclear option" should have gone through just because of principles? If it had, I was told the government would have come to a grinding halt. If that were to have happened, I imagine all of those federal employees would be laid off without pay. Imagine what that would have done to our economy. I'm glad their principles are exactly where they are. I know you have mentioned on this board that you are a judge. I don't know which court you preside over, but if you are a federal judge, would you be willing to work for no pay if the government had stopped running? If you're really a working man like me, you know all too well that those mortgage payments really pile up fast if you are without income.
MIB, so you think the "nuclear option" should have gone through just because of principles? If it had, I was told the government would have come to a grinding halt. If that were to have happened, I imagine all of those federal employees would be laid off without pay. Imagine what that would have done to our economy. I'm glad their principles are exactly where they are. I know you have mentioned on this board that you are a judge. I don't know which court you preside over, but if you are a federal judge, would you be willing to work for no pay if the government had stopped running? If you're really a working man like me, you know all too well that those mortgage payments really pile up fast if you are without income.
QUOTE
millerbeach:
MiniMatt, for the last time
Promise? wink I mean, it's been established what he is and what he posts here for, and that it's best not to feed him.MiniMatt, for the last time
QUOTE
MIB, so you think the \"nuclear option\" should have gone through just because of principles? If it had, I was told the government would have come to a grinding halt. If that were to have happened, I imagine all of those federal employees would be laid off without pay.
What would've happened (theoretically) is that the business of Congress would've have basically shut down because the Democrats in the Senate would have used every obscure, or usually waived, parliamentary rule to slow things down so that little or no legislation would go through. Now eventually that would've presumably led to no budget being passed and unless there's a budget or continuing resolution, government functions considered non-essential would've shut down. This has happened in recent years, most notably in a showdown between Clinton and Newt that in part led to Clinton's re-election. Once a budget was finally enacted Congress passed legislation so that all employees who were out of work for any period of time got paid anyway.
QUOTE
millerbeach:
MIB, so you think the \"nuclear option\" should have gone through just because of principles? If it had, I was told the government would have come to a grinding halt. If that were to have happened, I imagine all of those federal employees would be laid off without pay. Imagine what that would have done to our economy.
Probably would have helped. What's the difference? There are federal employees here already who spend 5 hours or more per day posting so much that they're well past 10,000 posts. Doesn't sound like they're "working" anyway. MIB, so you think the \"nuclear option\" should have gone through just because of principles? If it had, I was told the government would have come to a grinding halt. If that were to have happened, I imagine all of those federal employees would be laid off without pay. Imagine what that would have done to our economy.
[ June 06, 2005, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]
Maybe if some of these judge nominees ever SMILED, people might like them more.
I don't think I've seen anything but a scowl on the face of that Priscilla lady. Then again, if that was my name I would probably be scowling too. wink
I don't think I've seen anything but a scowl on the face of that Priscilla lady. Then again, if that was my name I would probably be scowling too. wink
Illini, maybe if you were as uptight and bitter as she is, you'd have a tough time smiling too!
QUOTE
illini n milwaukee:
I don't think I've seen anything but a scowl on the face of that Priscilla lady. Then again, if that was my name I would probably be scowling too. wink
I'd love to see the look on the face of your boyfriend. I don't think I've seen anything but a scowl on the face of that Priscilla lady. Then again, if that was my name I would probably be scowling too. wink
The march of progress continues... one judge in, then another judge, three in waiting, four more set without fanfare... where's the outrage and irrationalism of the Left who, along with Sen Reid and Sen Babs, saw these jurists as imminent threats to American jurisprudence?
No where. They lost. Not Frist, not the Republicans, not the jurists, not Pres Bush. They won. The Left lost.
Game, set, match. I hope the Left can get it's head around being in the minority for a generation --cause that's what's coming their way.
No where. They lost. Not Frist, not the Republicans, not the jurists, not Pres Bush. They won. The Left lost.
Game, set, match. I hope the Left can get it's head around being in the minority for a generation --cause that's what's coming their way.
Nothing like winning graciously, is there MiMatt. Oh wait, I forget, you have no idea of the meaning of the words winning gracefully. Aw, just get back to your dance routine of slide and shuffle.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.