Frist the hypocrite...used filibuster against Clinton Judges

(snip)

Republican leaders, headed by Bill Frist, claim use of the filibuster to block judicial nominees is unconstitutional. To win support for a proposed filibuster ban, Frist has stated that the filibuster has never, in the history of the Senate, been used in such a manner. Unfortunately for Frist and the American public, this statement, which has been echoed by the "fair and balanced" Fox News, is an outright lie. Ironically, Frist himself took part in an unsuccessful Republican attempt to filibuster a number of Clinton's judicial nominees. Another falsehood is contained in the statement that the filibuster is unconstitutional. The Constitution simply states that justices are to be selected based upon the "advice and consent" of Senate. The means of that consent is decided by the Senate, whose rules currently allow the use of the filibuster. In truth, it is Bush who has ignored the "advice" portion of the clause by selecting such controversial and extremist nominations to the judiciary.

http://technicianonline.com/story.php?id=011763

The Fillabuster has never been used to block a nominee. That's true. It is true because their attempt failed.

Before you flame me, don't misunderstand...

I am not saying that they are right to bitch about this. I am not saying they aren't total hypocrites.

I am just saying that on a technicality, what they are saying is correct.

That's probably how they are getting away with it. (that and the fact that our MSM has become complete GOP whores).

They attempted several filibusters, but couldn't get past cloture. They DID block two of Clinton's nominees (Paez and Berzon) for a considerable period of time (years), but eventually, they were confirmed.

Of course, it's extremely disingenuous for them to whine that they didn't filibuster Clinton's nominees because they didn't HAVE to. Hatch never let them get a hearing, so they never made it to the floor, where a filibuster is a last resort.

A filibuster is the tool of the minority party. If the party controls the Judiciary Committee and the floor schedule, there's no need to filibuster. They keep forgetting to mention that part.

someone was held up because of a blue slip or for another reason.

But more than 60 of Clinton's judges didn't get a vote - most of them were bottled up in Committee and never even got a hearing.

Interesting factoid:

When Clinton was president, the Blue Slip that Hatch sent around to the home state Senators had printed at the bottom:

"Please return this form as soon as possible to the nominations office. No further proceedings on this nominee will be scheduled until both blue slips have been returned by the nominee’s home state senators."

But when Bush became president, Hatch CHANGED the Blue Slip - he deleted the last sentence, so that it now reads simply: "Please return this form as soon as possible to the nominations office." Period.

Leahy: "I know Republican partisans hate being reminded of the double standards by which they operated when asked to consider so many of President Clinton’s nominees. I know that they would rather exist in a state of “confirmation amnesia,” but that is not fair and not right. The blue slip policy in effect, and enforced strictly, by the Chairman during the Clinton Administration operated as an absolute bar to the consideration of any nominee to any court unless both home-state Senators had returned positive blue slips. No time limit was set, no reason had to be articulated.

The Democrats have screamed and yelled about this, but I bet you've never heard this in the press.

But these are the facts.

It is IMO a form of filibuster except not as obvious.

When used properly, it is an effective tool for forcing a president to respect the advise and consent role of the Senate. By giving a strong say in the nomination to the Senators who are likely to best know the nominee's record and reputation, this mechanism helps to ensure that the President actually consults with the Senators before nominating anyone.

Unfortunately, under Clinton, the Republicans abused the Blue Slip process, holding up nominees regardless how qualified or how fervently Clinton consulted with them. And under Bush, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee simply ignored many of the Democratic Senators Blue Slip objections.

The Blue Slip process enabled John Edwards to block one of the worst of the worst nominees - Terrence Boyle - right up until he left office. Unfortunately, Bush renominated him the minute Edwards' term ended. But Edwards fought the good fight - really went to the mat to keep Boyle from getting a hearing.

I won't flame you...I only do that to repukes on another board...

I still think they are hypocrites...

Since Frist was elected to the Senate in 1994, and since the Repubs controlled it since then (with the Jeffords interval), why would they need to filibuster? They could simply vote the nominee down.

Not saying that it's not true, it's simply counter-intuitive.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0305-29.htm

Myth 2: Judicial filibusters are unprecedented. Republicans insist that judicial filibusters never happened before. Frist put it this way: "In February 2003 the minority radically broke with tradition and precedent and launched the first-ever filibuster of a judicial nominee who had majority support."
In truth, no one should understand the legitimacy of judicial filibusters better than Bill Frist. On March 9, 2000, Frist participated in a filibuster of Richard Paez, President Clinton's nominee to the Ninth Circuit. When confronted about his vote late last year, Frist claimed he filibustered Paez for "scheduling" purposes. Not true. A press release by former Senator Bob Smith titled "Smith Leads Effort to Block Activist Judicial Nominees" plainly states that the intent of the filibuster was to "block" the Paez nomination.

In fact, Paez was only one of at least six filibusters Republicans attempted during the Clinton years. Senator Orrin Hatch and others argue that these filibusters don't count because they ultimately weren't successful in blocking the nominees. All that proves, however, is that Clinton's nominees were moderate enough to secure sixty votes. It also suggests the remedy to Bush's problem: Stop nominating extremist judges to the federal bench.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 106th Congress - 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Cloture Motion (Cloture Motion RE: Nom. of Richard Paez to be U.S. Circuit Judge)

Vote Number: 37
Vote Date: March 8, 2000, 05:51 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote
Result: Cloture Motion Agreed to
Nomination Number: PN44
Nomination Description: Richard A. Paez, of California, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, vice Cecil F. Poole, resigned.

Vote Counts: YEAs 85
NAYs 14
Not Voting 1
. . .

NAYs ---14
Allard (R-CO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Craig (R-ID)
DeWine (R-OH)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Gramm (R-TX)
Helms (R-NC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00037


Frist also voted against previous Motions to Proceed on this judicial nomination, as well as at least one other. So much for his demand that nominees get an up or down vote.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 106th Congress - 1st Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed: Nom. of R. Paez to be U.S. Circuit Judge)

Vote Number: 283
Vote Date: September 21, 1999, 07:01 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote
Result: Motion to Proceed Rejected
Nomination Number: PN44
Nomination Description: Richard A. Paez, of California, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, vice Cecil F. Poole, resigned.

Vote Counts: YEAs 45
NAYs 53
Not Voting 2

NAYs ---53
Abraham (R-MI)
Allard (R-CO)
Ashcroft (R-MO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Chafee, J. (R-RI)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Coverdell (R-GA)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeWine (R-OH)
Domenici (R-NM)
Enzi (R-WY)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Gorton (R-WA)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grams (R-MN)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Jeffords (R-VT)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Mack (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nickles (R-OK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Roth (R-DE)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00283
_______________________________________________

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 106th Congress - 1st Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Proceed: Nom. of M. Berzon to be U.S. Circuit Judge)

Vote Number: 282 Vote Date: September 21, 1999, 06:44 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote
Result: Motion to Proceed Rejected
Nomination Number: PN33
Nomination Description: Marsha L. Berzon, of California, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, vice John T. Noonan, Jr., retired.

Vote Counts: YEAs 45
NAYs 54
Not Voting 1

NAYs ---54
Abraham (R-MI)
Allard (R-CO)
Ashcroft (R-MO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Chafee, J. (R-RI)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Coverdell (R-GA)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeWine (R-OH)
Domenici (R-NM)
Enzi (R-WY)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Gorton (R-WA)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grams (R-MN)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Jeffords (R-VT)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Mack (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nickles (R-OK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Roth (R-DE)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00282

I listened to Hatch's argument yesterday and he cited several examples of where Clinton judges were blocked but he argued that it was okay to block them because they did not have "majority support". His logic requires you to believe that the majority party's senators are inherantly superior to the minority party's senators.