Reply With Quote
Its funny... election tampering and driving wedges. Sounds like the Repub congress from 93-present.
Its a to be in the minority. But you dont see Harry Reid threatening the nuclear option every 6 weeks like Dr. Frist used to.
No worry, Karl will still make most of dimm-o-craps look what
the are.....stupid!
And speaking of driving a wedge......that is all that the dimms
have done in all matters of government.
Its funny... election tampering and driving wedges. Sounds like the Repub congress from 93-present.
Its a to be in the minority. But you dont see Harry Reid threatening the nuclear option every 6 weeks like Dr. Frist used to.
I feel duped. The dems made history by winning both houses of Congress..do I feel dumb.. great job karl
Ray go back to sleep.
I feel duped. The dems made history by winning both houses of Congress..do I feel dumb.. great job karl
Ray go back to sleep.
Yep, the dimm-o-craps won both houses the last time,
not really that great of a feat. And the most wonderful
thing about it is that the dimm-o-craps have been
raving about it ever since they did. And how many
"hearings" have they since? They really brought the
country together, didn't they?
It's called accountability ray. Had Alberto and King George not fired unloyal Bushies and then lied about it none of this would have happened.
Really, maybe you should read the MSM more often. Then
you would know that there have been more than one hearing.
And accountability! You got to be kidding. The dimm-o-craps
haven't been held accountable for any of their actions.
And besides you should know that the President can fire
anyone he hires, for any reason. That's life. I wont
even mention what Clinton did.
You're just upset that someone finally has the authority to call the President on his BS.
It's about damn time.
Predictable. The problem is, the GOP can't count on the support of conservatives disappointed with the direction of the party. They will stay home.
It may come down to who has more people staying home. Doesn't look like the Democrats are all that energized either.
It actually boiled down to winning 26 elections in strategic districts -- Mostly straddling the Ohio River valley and east towards New England. I'll hand it to the Democrats. They put the emphasis where it was needed to move the gavel.
But, their hold on both houses is rather tenuous, at best. Not that the Republicans are that much more likable at this point.
If they have the prospect of winning back the White House they will be energized. Plus I think the 'middle' is turning their way of late. CA, NY, IL, OH, MI, and PA is a very solid electoral base. And like it or not, the Clintons know how to win presidential elections and be compe ive in some Southern/Border states (LA, AR, TN, KY, VA, and WV).
I could say the same about Republicans...if there's the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency, they'll be energized, as well.
Maybe if it was 2000 or 2004. There's a lot of apathy in the party today, brought on by the genius of Karl Rove.
That's because you believe the propaganda generated by the left. I'll bet you never verified any of it for facts and traceable falsehoods, now did you?
Its funny... election tampering and driving wedges. Sounds like the Repub congress from 93-present.
The nuclear option can only apply to the cons utional authorized appointments. The senate has no right to use their filibuster rules to stop appointments.
As always with dubya's Exec, to find crimes and failures and incompetence, "follow the resignations".
What's to say your sources aren't slanted as well?
My point with the nuclear option example was that the Senate republicans resorted to threats and hammering through legislation.
Filibustering appointments? You want to talk about not doing research and eating up party rhetoric. I bet you believed the statement, "no one has ever used filibusters to block nominees to the federal courts before the Democrats."
Guess again. Republicans did it in 1968 when Johnson nominated Abe Fortas for Chief justice.
Republicans change the rules just as much if not more than anyone else and that act indignant and righteous when someone calls them on their BS.
The cons ution slanted?
Are you high?
It provides the senate to make rules for their conduct. It requires advice and consent. It does not require a supermajority, which the filibuster becomes. Congressional rules do not supercede the cons ution power of the president to pick his appointees. The senate is required to vote on it.
The term 'Nuclear Option' was coined for breaking up the filibuster for appointees. It cannot be used for normal senate operations without the normal operations violating the intent of the cons ution.
Yes, a filibuster was used, but not to block a nomination. I am well aware of this flimsy excuse. The filibuster was used to continue debate and introduce evidence as to why the nominee should not be appointed, not to completely stop a vote for a nominee, without debate. He later resigned from the court in disgrace for illegal activates that were discovered after he was found to lie about the $15,000.
You should note that the 90th senate had 64 democrats and 36 republicans. The cloture vote was 45-43. I'm not going to look the vote up again (I debated this before) but the fact that so many democrats turned away from Fortas should say something...
Duh...
From wiki:
Abe Fortas:
Abraham Fortas (June 19, 1910–April 5, 1982) was a U.S. Supreme Court associate justice. He served in that role from October 4, 1965 until May 14, 1969, when he resigned under pressure.Now what wiki doesn't say about this is that he lied to the senate about it. Isn't that illegal?When Chief Justice Earl Warren announced his retirement in June 1968, Johnson nominated Associate Justice Fortas to replace Warren as Chief Justice. However, the Warren Court's cons utional jurisprudence had angered many conservative members of the United States Senate, and the nomination of Fortas provided the first opportunity for these senators to register their disenchantment with the direction of the Court. Fortas was the first Chief Justice nominee ever to appear before the Senate, and he faced hostile questioning about his relationship with Lyndon Johnson. Johnson had consulted with Fortas about political matters frequently while Fortas was on the Court.
Also controversial was Fortas's acceptance of $15,000 for speaking engagements at the American University law school. While not illegal, the size of the fee raised much concern about the Court's insulation from private interests, especially as it was funded by Fortas's former clients and partners. Upon learning of this problem, President Johnson decided to help Fortas win a majority vote, but only as a face-saving measure, according to Johnson aide Joseph Califano:
Also see:Fortas remained on the bench, but in 1969, a new scandal arose. Fortas had accepted a secret $20,000 retainer from the family foundation of Wall Street financier Louis Wolfson, a friend and former client, in January 1966. Fortas signed a contract with Wolfson's foundation; in return for unspecified advice it was to pay Fortas $20,000 a year for the rest of Fortas's life (and then pay his widow for the rest of her life). Wolfson was under investigation for securities violations at the time and expected that his arrangement with Fortas would help him stave off criminal charges or help him secure a presidential pardon; Fortas denied that he ever helped Wolfson. Wolfson was convicted of violating federal securities laws later that year and spent time in prison, and Fortas returned the retainer.
Hatching A New Filibuster Precedent: The Senator From Utah's Revisionist History:
Supreme Court Justices; Abe Fortas (1910-1982)
Whatever. It's obvious you don't research the propaganda you listen to from others. Need I say more?
Ohkkayy... so the filibuster was whether the Senate should even consider the nomination instead of the nomination itself. Both filibusters had the same result, and arguing how they ended up in the same place is missing the bigger point of the Republicans themselves setting a precedent of terminating a judicial appointment. You're grasping for straws. You even gave me ammo for my argument in your links:
And your point that he liked to take bribes is noted. It was for the best that he didn't get through. Just as history will vindicate the Democratic filibusters as for the best. You ended up getting Roberts and Alito without a filibuster, I'd say that's pretty good.
Good job on trying to seem objective though
You missed the major point, or you refuse to acknowledge it. The republicans used the filibuster to keep debates going, to show why he shouldn't be nominated. They were prepared for a vote after they introduced all their evidence. If they had a chance to introduce all their evidence, he wouldn't ever had received a nominating vote. The democrats did not use the filibuster to keep debates going, but to suspend an up or down vote indefinitely.
Big difference in the usage. Wouldn't you say?
FYI... Senator Nixon a.k.a. president Nixon was against the filibuster for any reason. He was likely one of the 45 to invoke cloture. I'll bet it was democrats who chose not to vote. Twelve no votes... Assuming the republicans were in mass to filibuster, all voting no, That leaves 9 from democrats voting no and 12 no shows. If some of the no shows were republican, then even more democrats voted to continue debate hearing republican evidence!
Not real partisan, is it?
I'm not ready to devote to the specifics of researching the names of this vote. It would be appreciated if anyone wanted to take such time. The basics are easy to find, but this is before daily congressional computer records. Makes the correct data harder to find.
Again, I am saddened that people continue to argue on the side of democrats and fail to do any homework. That's why I use words like "Lemmings" and "Kool-Aid Drinkers." When you lefties start checking up on your sources and stop repeating the outrageous propaganda from others, I can start respecting you all. Nobody likes those who continually repeat unfounded gossip.
No I wouldn't say thats a big difference at all. Both sides used a filibuster to get what they wanted. To assume the Republicans would have been prepared for a vote is speculation. You have no idea what would have happened because it didn't get that far. The fact is that they were willing to use a filibuster as a means to derail a judicial nomination PERIOD. Voila precedent.
All speculation and assumption. Could it be that those 9 Democrats voted no to protect the minority right to filibuster and not to hear Republican evidence? You don't know, so why are you acting like you know why they voted?
Do you even read the articles you post?
Man, if I'm accused of being a lemming, you sir are a major revisionist and extrapolator of history.
The republicans used the filibuster for what it was intended for. Continuing debate. The democrats did not use it for that with president Bush's appointments. They used it without continuing debate.
Think about the difference. To be ably to indefinitely be able to suspend debate and the vote is a far different thing.
It is not an assumption. It is a fact. If you read interviews of the people at the time, or go into the senate transcripts, it is apparent.
I'll accept the term 'derail' but it was for cause. There was a clear and valid reason to not want Fortas as a Chief Justice. He was a criminal! The republicans just wanted to continue debate to offer the evidence. Congress would have been insane to confirm him after the were aware of the evidence. There was no fear of ending the filibuster after the evidence was submitted.
As for precedent, no. What I didn't mention is that the rules for a filibuster were different then. It would have been impossible for republicans to use it like the democrats did recently.
Now this part I don't recall the history on. I think they wanted to hear the rest of the evidence.
Yes, one of them seemed counter productive to my point, yet it had key truths in it even though it was against the filibuster of the time.
Are you denying that Fortas left the bench in disgrace?
Are you denying the democrats used the filibuster to end the confirmation rather than extend debate?
What have I said that is revisionistic?
What isn't said in the articles is that the nomination was withdrawn because everone knew the nomination would never make it with the additional evidence offered by republicans. Obvious history would have been different if the nomination was not pulled.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 08-15-2007 at 06:48 PM.
Same thing. They both served their purposes of blocking the progress of a nomination. You said it yourself, the rules were different back then. But the essence of the filibuster was the same. The Republicans used the stalling tactic to force the withdrawal of the nomination, just like the Democrats did.
False. Time Magazine: Friday, Oct. 04, 1968:
So, this argument of yours that they used the filibuster to extend debate to air evidence that had previously been unknown is completely wrong. Everyone knew the evidence. It had already come out in Judiciary Committee. The Senate Majority Leader Mansfield knew about it and the Minority Leader Dirksen knew about it. And guess what? This evidence didn’t matter to 15 of the 37 Republicans. And even then Republicans like Dirksen only voted against cloture because they felt bound by duty to their party, not on principle against Fortas’ actions. Dirksen was fearful of Griffin overthrowing him more than anything and that’s why he voted in unison with the others.A formal vote to, close off a filibuster will not come until this week, but it is foredoomed. Fortas' opponents, led by Michigan Republican Robert Griffin, have considerably more than enough votes to block cloture and keep the talkathon going until the Administration gives up.
If there had been any doubt about Fortas' fate, none remained after Minority Leader Everett Dirksen pulled a 180° switch and announced that he now felt "duty bound" to vote against cloture. Last summer Dirksen gave the President his approval of the appointment. But as opposition to Fortas swelled—22 of the Senate's 37 Republicans are now against him—Dirksen's leadership has grown shaky, and he is not unmindful that as a rambunctious Congressman in 1965, Griffin helped turn aging Charles Halleck out of the House minority leadership.
During the debate, the charges raised repeatedly against Fortas in Judiciary Committee hearings were aired anew. No one questioned his legal brilliance. Fortas' opponents complained instead about his status as the appointee of a lame-duck President, and his role in enhancing the Warren Court's supposed softness on pornography and criminals.
A typical objection came from Dirksen's son-in-law, Tennessee Senator Howard Baker: "In continuing to counsel the President on such matters as the Viet Nam war, the riots, legislative proposals and the 1966 State of the Union address, Justice Fortas not only has committed a judicial impropriety but also has flagrantly violated the traditional separation-of-powers concept."
Even Mansfield was less than ardent, though he favored confirmation. It was "unfortunate," he said, that Fortas accepted $15,000 for 18 hours of lecturing this summer at Washington's American University. "One would hope," Mansfield added gently, "that Mr. Fortas no less than any of the other members of the Court would henceforth bear these distinctions in mind.”
Furthermore:
http://law.jrank.org/pages/6985/Fortas-Abe.htmlMatters worsened for Fortas, in 1969, when Life magazine reported that he had accepted a $20,000 fee from a foundation established by the family of Louis Wolfson, a financier under federal investigation for SECURITIES violations. The fee was the first of a series of annual payments that were to be made to Fortas for the duration of his life, and thereafter to his widow until her death, in exchange for Fortas's guidance of the foundation's programs. The arrangement was terminated in 1966 when Fortas returned the money upon Wolfson's indictment.
Despite Fortas's ultimate return of the money, his initial acceptance of it troubled many senators. It was alleged that Fortas had done more than foundation work, giving Wolfson legal advice. The Life article noted that Wolfson had used Fortas's name in the hope of helping himself. Fortas issued an ambiguous statement that did not resolve the situation. The Nixon administration and Republican senators hinted that Fortas should be impeached for his actions, which were contrary to the ethical provision that judges must be free of the appearance of impropriety. Fortas ended the controversy by resigning from the Court May 14, 1969, though he contended he had done nothing wrong. This was the first time in U.S. history that a justice resigned under the threat of impeachment.
So again. The evidence you are so insistent that they had to air was already known. And the scandal which forced Fortas from the bench did not come out until 1969, well after the filibuster of 1968.
Regardless, Fortas was not a good choice. They were right to block his nomination. He obviously lacked the moral fiber to make politically impartial judgments and keep the separation of power between the branches intact. Which I might add is one of the main reasons the Democrats filibustered Bush’s nominees. IMO, both filibusters were warranted.
Time Magazine
Friday, Oct. 11, 1968
The Fortas Defeat
Face it. It was a filibuster plain and simple. Your unfounded assertions that these Republicans romantically and righteously used this unprecedented action of filibustering a nomination in order to introduce evidence that would sway everyone against Fortas were wrong. The conservatives of both parties just didn't like this guy. And Griffin was on a power trip and decided he could do whatever the he wanted with a lame duck president and a minority leader he obviously didn't respect.When Abe Fortas was nominated last summer as Chief Justice of the U.S., few doubted that he would win swift approval. He had, after all, already been before the Senate and been confirmed as an Associate Justice, and even Fortas' critics acknowledged that his is one of the nation's best legal minds. Gradually, however, opposition mounted, partly because confident Republicans wanted to name a new Chief Justice themselves come January. The most senous argument against Fortas was that he remained a close adviser to Lyndon Johnson after joining the court. There was also Fortas' imprudence in recently accepting $15,000 for 18 hours of lecturing at American University.
Fortas finally became the hapless focus of conservative unrest over court decisions on pornography and the rights of criminal suspects. The attack developed into an assault on the whole Warren court, impairing its prestige severely in the process (see THE LAW). Last week the nomination that once looked like a sure thing went down to an embarrassing defeat.
Cons utionally Tragic. "Never in our history," cried Michigan's Democratic Senator Philip Hart, "has a matter of the nomination of a Justice to the Supreme Court been resolved by a filibuster." But shortly after Hart spoke, the Senate refused to cut off debate on whether it should even take up the Fortas nomination, thereby killing his chances. The vote was 43 against cloture to 45 in favor—14 short of the two thirds needed to stop the anti-Fortas filibuster.
Next day, at Fortas' request, Lyndon Johnson withdrew the nomination. It was a profound humiliation for the President. Said Johnson: "The action of the Senate, a body I revere and to which I devoted a dozen years of my life, is historically and cons utionally tragic." Johnson was referring to the fact that the Senate had never actually voted on the merits of the nomination, only on the procedural question of giving it formal consideration. All but forgotten was another loser in the affair: Homer Thornberry, who was to have replaced Fortas as an Associate Justice on the court. Since Fortas will now keep his own seat, there is now no room for Thornberry; his nomination lies in a legal limbo.
The Fortas defeat was a notable victory for Michigan Republican Robert Griffin. As leader of the anti-Fortas fight, Griffin had taken to wearing on his lapel a golden miniature of the mythological beast that is his family's namesake. In the legends of ancient Greece, a griffin had the body of a lion and the head and wings of an eagle, and served to guard the gold of the realm. Griffin's wife recently told him: "You are opposing the President, the Supreme Court, the minority leader of the Senate, the majority leader of the Senate and the American Bar Association. Who do you think you are?" In reply, Griffin only smiled. In fact, at the end, Griffin even forced Minority Leader Everett Dirksen to abandon his original support of Fortas' nomination. Two weeks ago, when he recognized that Griffin had enlisted a solid majority of Senate Republicans against Fortas, Dirksen abruptly reversed himself.
Determined to Persevere. The President now has several options open to him. He could wait until January, when the new Congress has convened and just before his own term expires, to confer with the congressional leadership and offer a noncontroversial nominee. He could nominate a Senator like Hart. He could appoint another nominee immediately, before the Supreme Court gets far into its new term. Among the other names currently bruited about in Washington, though with no real conviction that any will be submitted: former Associate Justices Tom Clark and Arthur Goldberg, Defense Secretary Clark Clifford, Treasury Secretary Henry Fowler and Viet Nam Negotiator Cyrus Vance.
One thing at least was clear: Fortas aims to stay on the court to vindicate himself, if for no other reason. When Arthur Goldberg spoke at a New York University convocation last week, he said that his wife Dorothy had telephoned Fortas after the Senate vote. During the conversation, Dorothy Goldberg had quoted Benjamin Franklin: "We must not in the course of public life expect immediate approbation of our services. But let us persevere through abuse and even injury." Midway through his own 40-minute speech on the 14th Amendment, Fortas won an ovation when he turned to Gold berg and declared: "Tell Dorothy that so far as I am concerned, I shall persevere."
Don't you think if the Republican's (especially Griffin) had all this new evidence at their disposal it would have shown up in these articles? All the evidence was already out there. People knew Fortas was a crook, and they were going to let him slide through anyway. The Democrats and some republcians were going to rubber stamp him through until Griffin stood up to them.
Same damn thing as 2005. This time it was a Republican rubber stamp Congress.
Last edited by ggoose25; 08-15-2007 at 10:11 PM.
Again, I am saddened that people continue to argue on the side of democrats and fail to do any homework. That's why I use words like "Lemmings" and "Kool-Aid Drinkers." When you ARCH CONSERVATIVES start checking up on your sources and stop repeating the outrageous propaganda from others, I can start respecting you all. Nobody likes those who continually repeat unfounded gossip.
A filibuster under the 1968 rules could not stop a vote indefinitely like the democrats did against president Bush.
Where did I say it wasn't a filibuster?
The rules were different.
It was used differently.
Yes, the end result was derailing the nomination. I never denied that either. You keep going around that as if I am saying otherwise. You fail to acknowledge what I am saying. I am saying there was merit to use the filibuster then, and no merit in the way the democrats did against president Bush’s nominees.
As for the rules. The filibuster during this timeframe could only be maintained as long as those using it could speak. What was the number? 18 republicans? It could only last as long as these 18 could take turns, one turn each, standing on the senate floor and actually speaking. It is impossible under the past rules to deny a vote indefinitely! It can be denied indefinitely with the current senate rules, because the rules changed so they don't have to actually use the filibuster for debate!
Again, a filibuster under the 1968 rules could not stop a vote indefinitely! Show me otherwise!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
