Red Mosquito

I vaguely remember Democrats threatening to filibuster lots of Bush II's judicial appointments, and then some sort of compromise was reached? I'm hazy on the details.

B wrote:Be sad. Say, "I hope Bush nominates a candidate that we can confirm quickly so we don't drag this process out." Might not be what you're thinking, but it's what you say.

And if Bush nominates a Scalia clone, what do you do? Do you even allow an O'Connor or Kennedy clone to get through that still shifts the court notably rightward?

LOL. What?! Isn't Stip a history or government professor?

The Senate Judiciary Committee stalled/blocked several Bush appointments when Congress was under full Dem control. Then the Dems used filibusters when the GOP gained the majority in the Senate.

I think Lott's famous "nuclear option" comment was in response to Dems blocking appointments.

Not to speak for stip, but I don't think he's saying that the Dems are faultless, merely that it's gotten particularly insane under this GOP Congress.

I believe the Dems used something like 10 filibusters to block Bush appointments after they lost control of the Senate. That's pretty insane if you ask me.

Green Habit wrote:

B wrote:Be sad. Say, "I hope Bush nominates a candidate that we can confirm quickly so we don't drag this process out." Might not be what you're thinking, but it's what you say.

And if Bush nominates a Scalia clone, what do you do? Do you even allow an O'Connor or Kennedy clone to get through that still shifts the court notably rightward?

I don't know. I guess you do your damnedest to find reasons that nominee can't be on the court and convince other's to vote on your side.

It's never taken more than 4 months to confirm or reject a nominee, but they HAVE been rejected. Of course, that goes back to my point ... you find out who the nominee is, and you address it. You don't announce, "fuck the president, I'm not going to let him do his constitutional duty."




By the way, here's my reference on the timeframe.

As the New York Times points out, this process typically takes only a few months. In the entire history of the United States, the Senate has never taken more than 125 days to confirm or reject a nominee. However, if a nominee is rejected, the process can take a lot longer. While prolonged vacancies are rare, it has happened a few times. Most notably, there was a 391 day long vacancy on the Supreme Court during President Nixon’s term, after two of his nominations were rejected in a row. This was the longest time a Supreme Court seat was vacant since the nine-seat system was instituted in 1869, shortly after the Civil War.

http://lifehacker.com/why-is-the-empty- ... 1759198091

Digster is correct. no one is blameless but lets not draw false equivelencies here. we are also not talking about fillibustering a handful of extreme nominees. the tactic became pro-forma strategy under Obama, and this is a block on a sitting president having the right to offer a nomination a year before the end of their term,

turned2black wrote:I believe the Dems used something like 10 filibusters to block Bush appointments after they lost control of the Senate. That's pretty insane if you ask me.

now look up the number of stalled nominees during obama's term

stip wrote:

turned2black wrote:I believe the Dems used something like 10 filibusters to block Bush appointments after they lost control of the Senate. That's pretty insane if you ask me.

now look up the number of stalled nominees during obama's term

82 Sorry, that was pre-nuclear option. Current number is 12.

now granted some are holds, but the issue is obstruction - the tactic used is not the issue

I'm really NOT disagreeing. My point was that B's assertion that "Democrats fought against the ideas and the actions, not the person" is partisan bullshit.

and again, my point is not that dems are saints, just that the ideology informing the democrats makes them less prone to obstructionism

and even by contemporary standards this is aggressive

I agree.

But I also think this will probably be SOP going forward regardless of ideology.

turned2black wrote: I also think this will probably be SOP going forward regardless of ideology.

God bless America!

stip wrote:and even by contemporary standards this is aggressive

Vocally, yes. but that could just be part of the election cycle. It could also be a move to strong arm the Obama administration into making sure they nominate someone more moderate. Frankly, it would be irresponsible to act like they aren't going to fight it and then allow a lame duck president in the last 6 months of his term to nominate an extreme liberal justice.

Basically, by being as vocal as they are, it's creating a win win situation as far as PR goes. When Obama nominates a somewhat moderate justice (which he probably would have anyways), he gets his "first" choice, and the republicans get to crow about the fact their threats to delay forced him into a middle of the road candidate.

If Bush had rolled out single-payer healthcare, the Dems would have gotten behind it because it's a good idea.

If Obama rolled out the elimination of taxes for millionaires, the Republicans would call him a socialist because he's Obama.

Simple Torture wrote:I vaguely remember Democrats threatening to filibuster lots of Bush II's judicial appointments, and then some sort of compromise was reached? I'm hazy on the details.

that happened. But keep in mind the dems were threatening to filibuster PARTICULAR nominees. Person A is awful, to the point that we will use extreme parliamentary tactics to try and block it. Please replace him/her with someone less objectionable (which happened--he got to keep 3 from his list of filibustered people) and life moved on.

B wrote:If Bush had rolled out single-payer healthcare, the Dems would have gotten behind it because it's a good idea.

That's not true and you know it.

B wrote: If Obama rolled out the elimination of taxes for millionaires, the Republicans would call him a socialist because he's Obama.

Yeah, that's true.