< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://www.sotr.us" >
Republic. I like the sound of the word. It means people can live free, talk free, go or come, buy or sell, be drunk or sober, however they choose. Some words can give you a feeling that makes your heart warm. Republic is one of those words. - John Wayne

Thursday, April 28, 2005
Orrin Hatch on the Judicial Nominee Process
by Cordeiro
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) took to the Senate floor yesterday to do battle with the Chicken Little Senate Democrats, led by Senate Minority Leader Dusty Harry (D-NV).

Senator Hatch took the arguments of people like Patrick "Leaky" Leahy, "Tricky" Dick Durbin, and various left wing talk show pundits and shredded them like cheddar cheese over a burrito.

How did he manage this feat? He used facts - historical facts - that prove the lifeless liberal arguments supporting their supposed "right" to filibuster judicial nominees are without merit or fact.

I commend to you Senator Hatch's remarks from the Senate floor.

Now, if you wish to comment on this, go right ahead, but if you choose to use baseless emotional whinings as a rebuttal to Senator Hatch's facts, find someone else to whine to.
7 Comment(s):
This debate is so ridiculously boring. Hatch had some good points, but it is sad how politically polarizing this issue has become that such a strong statement is made over something so mundane.

Only 10 out of 204 of Bush's nominees have been filibustered and we are at the lowest vacancy on the court in over 14 years!

Nuclear or not? Who cares? Hopefully, the Republicans will keep hold of their power or their nuclear option might come back to haunt them! 

Posted by theprisoner6
Nothing said to refute Hatch's facts, therefore there is nothing to answer. 

Posted by Cordeiro
"Nothing said to refute Hatch's facts, therefore there is nothing to answer.  "

hmmm... is it because the question is "who cares"? Hatch or any Democrat can come up with examples this way or that for this filibuster tradition, but like anything else, it's not the thing itself, but how it is used.

What a pissing contest over nothing! Why not something more impressive like Social Security, massive Debt, etc? 

Posted by theprisoner6
Sorry. "Who Cares?" doesn't qualify as refutation of anything except Henry Waxman's nostrilitis. The bottom line is your guys are trying to create a new hurdle for conservatives in the judicial nominee arena, and its not going to work.

If you want to have a discussion on Social Security, we've already done that - search the archives, but I'll settle the debate with one simple phrase:

Its my money, dammit!  

And, by the way, the politically correct phrase for 'pissing contest' is 'urinary trajectory contest'. We try to cater to the sensitivities of our readers. 

Posted by Cordeiro
Unfortunately, in my morning perusal of news I came across this from today's NY Times article:

Since 1789, the Senate has rejected nearly 20 percent of all nominees to the Supreme Court, many without an up-or-down vote.

In 1968 Republican senators used a filibuster to block voting on President Lyndon B. Johnson's nominee for chief justice of the Supreme Court. During the debate, a Republican senator, Robert Griffin, said: "It is important to realize that it has not been unusual for the Senate to indicate its lack of approval for a nomination by just making sure that it never came to a vote on the merits. As I said, 21 nominations to the court have failed to win Senate approval. But only nine of that number were rejected on a direct, up-and-down vote."

I think that is a refutation of Hatch's "facts".

More here.
Sorry, Prisoner. To use Fighter Jock Lingo, No Joy.

Senator Mitchell did make some good points, none of which refuted Hatch's main arguement.

While the filibuster may have been used against judicial nominees, not once has it been used against a nominee who would have had majority support if said nominee had been given the constitutionally mandated up or down vote.

Case and Point - Clarence Thomas. If ever there was a nominee the minority wanted to can, it was Justice Thomas. Why, pray tell, was the filibuster not used against this man? Did the Dems simply not think of it? The make up of Senate Dems hasn't changed much since then - except there are far fewer of them. Did they just discover the filibuster?



Not quite. Is there really evidence to support there were judges filibustered and blocked, but would have had majority support? Do the current judges have an overwhelming majority support now?

I am not asking rhetorically. I just can't find any proof that any of the 20% filibustered SC nominees had majority support. Is there a poll source you have for this?

Listen... I'm not arguing that hard for the filibuster because I think it is another elitist element to our democracy, like the Electoral College, to be honest with you. So, I won't shed any tears if or when it goes away.
Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger eXTReMe Tracker

Mormon Temple
Dusty Harry Reid Dusty Harry Reid Drunk Ted Kennedy Sons of the Republic