THU. OFFICIAL CSPAN2 Thread on Senate Judicial Noms & Filibuster

Debate is scheduled to begin at 9:30 and it's a little before it so here's the new thread for the day.

If debate is like yesterday each party will take turns controling debate for an hour. The CSPAN cominator thinks that debate will end at around 8pm.

Wed. Threads:
4: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1791970&mesg_id=1791970
3: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1791198&mesg_id=1791198&page=
2: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1790750&mesg_id=1790750
1: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1790507&mesg_id=1790507&page=

Here's the Nuclear Option procedure, for those who are wondering: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1791390&mesg_id=1791390

D.H.

and more Senators have joined in talks about it. He thinks that if there is a compromise made it will come up right before "pulling the trigger."

D.H.

And since the DEMS are proposing it, they can't accuse us of not coming to the table.

I think it'll happen--Frist got more vinegar yesterday than he bargained for, and the Dems seemed to have played well in the media (just my observation from what was covered about it last night).

I'll be back in 15 mins--gotta leave for a few.

Frist just said 80something% and yesterday it ranged from 72%-76% I think...

D.H.

Since there WAS NO-ONE RUNNING AGAINST HER?

JUSTICE SUPREME COURT, PL. 2
PRISCILLA OWEN (REP) . . . . . . 103,073 87.41
JOE ALFRED IZEN, JR. (LIB) . . . . 14,845

http://elections.dentoncounty.com/go.asp?Parent=75&Link=414

from> http://homepage.mac.com/lsf/personal/970313izen.html

By Supreme Court Order dated March 13, 1997, Joseph Alfred Izen, Jr., of 5222 Sprice, Bellaire, Texas 88401-9999, was censured for conduct in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Izen, an attorney admitted to the State Bar of Texas, was admitted pro hac vice to proctice in Arizona in a matter entitled Patricia Hedges Beckett V. Newport Escrow Co. During the appeal in that matter, Izen filed documents containing frivolous and unsubstantiated statements and disparaging remarks about judges and opposing counsel. Two of Izen's motions contained numerous derogatory remarks about the appellate judges. They included statements that (1) the judges were "abysmally ignorant" concerning the law of warranties, (2) while on the bench, two of the judges gambled on the outcome of the case, (3) they exhibited bias and prejudice against Izen and his clients, (4) their decision was motivated at least in part by their desire to protect and/or aid the trial court judge, (5) one of the judges was not competent to hear the case, and (6) their findings were disingenuous and less than candid.

:wtf:

BTW, hubby beart me to the shower, so I'm here.

Nevermind--got the feed.

Frist is a freaking broken record...

:puke:

D.H.

STFU!

If I hear it one more time, :puke:

D.H.

How about:
"Frist, Do No Harm."

I'll be back here in the Pm, after work.

.... Priscilla Owen was a Karl Rove candidate for the Supreme Court. An oil and gas lawyer from Houston, she had never been a judge when Bush's lifetime political advisor made her the candidate for an open seat in 1994 and helped direct her successful campaign. Republicans were methodically taking state government away from the Democrats,.....

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/051305B.shtml

This lady says: "She ruled in favor of parental notification 9 times and FOR judicial bypass 4 times. A judge in a situation has a unique opportunity to evaluate the subject's demeanor."

... wtf is she on about? please help. I hate it when i hear something that sounds reasonable... and then i hate myself for being too partisan. sigh.

Someone better tell Dobson, stat!

is just another example of the strategy used to erode abortion rights.

What is so reasonable about it?

KBH is what they used to call a "total woman" - a real Stepford wife, or as I heard Jane Fonda observe about some successful women in politics--"some are just ventriloquists for the patriarchy". KBH, case in point.

I think that we need to provide for extraordinary circumstances, but we can't assume all parents are monsters. Minors are minors and abortion is a medical procedure, and generally parents have to give consent for medical procedures. I think that minors should have the right to have safety measures in place in case their parents ARE the bad apples, but I don't think parental notification is, in and of itself, an evil or "wrong" practice.

girls can go to back alley abortionists then.

Feel better?

I'm saying that there needs to be a legal recourse for minors who may be endangered or put under undue hardship by notifying parents. But I do think that we need to assume that parents are responsible for minors and that parental consent is required for medical procedures IN GENERAL.

It's a tough issue and I'm not going to say I know everything about it, but it seems to me that we start with the rule and then build the exceptions, not throw the whole rule away for one medical procedure because of controversy. (Kind of like we don't want to throw the whole rule away for one type of appointee.....)

If you've ever gone to high school you would know that.

It is all well and good to preach how it should ideally be--but it is not the way it is. Especially the way our culture views pregnant teenage girls, "illegitimate children", out-of-wedlock, unmarried, etc., there is still all that stigma. Girls will find a way to keep it from their parents, like smoking dope, even if it means hiding pregnancies and throwing babies in the garbage.

I will admit to being in a particularly sheltered high school where I don't recall anyone actually getting pregnant. No, really. Then again, I was in a haze through half of high school.

Anyway, back on topic, Tom Harkin kicks ass.

she was pregnant. Rumor was that incest was involved. She was one of the prettiest and nicest girls in the 8th grade. This was in the 60's.

before you all started your 48 hour whinefest last year?

Well it just came around on you.

D.H.

I wonder how this is done, considering:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/22/182324.shtml

Such a class act.

His speech spelled out in a clear way what is at stake. And it is very depressing if Repugs get this through. Real ID, more draconian "PATRIOT" Act and preperations for war with Iran. There is so little opposition now I would think the Democrats could just go home if the "nuclear option" gets passed.

That idiot, McConnell just walked into the trap

He's pointing out how this whole thing right now isn't about approving judges, it's about repubs not getting 100% of what they want or else they would put owens aside and approve 4 judges before lunch...

NICE... :popcorn:

D.H.

that, more people would see it's about total control, not getting judges approved.

Now, the distinguished lady is making a HUGE point - if they break the rules about this, then what's to stop them from breaking the rules to do away with Social Security - excellent, simple talking point!!

:hi: I'll do my best to help with these threads today :hi:

carrying through

Kick for a Michigan cube rat.
:kick:

Used potential future water wars as an example, now Social security.

Senate designed to slow down legislation, how great it is for one Senator to stand up for as long as his/her legs or voice will allow and argue for the people of their state (very Mr. Smith goes to Washington), just brought up Abe Fortus, etc...

D.H.

how are "we" going to protect "our" states from
majority rule with out the fillibuster.

...no checks and balances--In other countries they call that a dictatorship...

My guess would be to watch out for Dick to take the president's seat in the Senate. It's obvious the WH is to intrested in this to let the pro tempre to handle all this. Seeing Dick in the seat would mean a vote is close to being asked for.

D.H.

They'll just make the motion and start the process. I believe they can make the motion anytime they want...

That's why the Dems have been opposed to allowing committees to meet so they just can't ask for a unamous consent for a vote with no one there to oppose it.

Of course I think that if they see things not going as well as they want they'll end up moving to other judges to re-group.

D.H.

refering to MOB rule ...

dictatorship, right to freedom of speech in the Senate and in America, it's all about power, not about judges. "This should not be about party, it should be about protecting the greatest Constitution, the greatest Bill of Rights in the world."

D.H.

Said he had given a qualified yes to his party leaders, for his support for negotiating.

Now he's decided to give unqualified support to his majority leader.

Twit..

Where's the nearest bridge? :P

'elections have consequences, and Presidents have rights'

when we seek to use procedures to overturn president's rights we harm judiciary, tell them we will hold them to such a politicized standard that the best minds need no longer apply. (paraphrasing)

THAT didn't harm the judiciary... but this, now does?

he was all for giving Clinton his choices too, though of course he wasn't on the judiciary committee... convenient huh?

I gotta go get a drink to be able to sit and listen to these guys yammer their self-serving bs....

..I heard the opposite. Did I misunderstand something?

Sounds like he's not going along with the **** crowd.

I am hearing him as WHOLEHEARTEDLY supporting the nuclear option...and I haven't gone to fix that drink yet! LOL!

And also..........It's blue state and turning BLUER each passing days!

That is why he is treading so carefully.

we're making a mistake if we want judges in the center, and that is what we'll get if we leave the rule at 60 (e.g., leave the filibuster in place).

Now he's bringing up filibuster against civil rights. Yeah - he's definitely on the dark side.

and we're not proposing to limit the filibuster to the "legislative calendar"

now going on to all the earlier manifestations of filibuster - at one point was 57 votes not 60, and only for the legislative calendar, not exectuive appointments, etc....

He's definitely spinning that bs of rationalization....

if it makes no difference.

This guy is rationalizing.

rationalizing why to buck his party? or rationalizing why to f*ck the country?

is listing all the things you can't filibuster under the rules now - and how "time and again" the Senate has recognized there has to be some kind of limits to when it can be used.

"I also understand the country's business has to move forward, and so colleagues in former decades have narrowed the right of filibuster."

sleep at night.

They KNOW what they are doing is damaging the country.

They probably initially ran for office to serve the country.

They KNOW that what they are doing is simply about self-preservation (eg not letting the GOP run folks in primaries, and about the ability to fund raise), at the expense of the country.

Somewhere inside they have to rectify the noble part - who wanted to serve - with the f*ck the country side - as long as I got mine...

what can you expect.

kissing Smith's butt for his well-reasoned remarks...

back to "up or down" ad nauseum...

4 years ago ... private retreat - decided to obstruct. (according to McConnell)

I just heard a "rumored" proposal from one of the people I work with, though I doubt that it is true...

Rather than using the nook-u-lar option, and ruling the filibuster out of order for judicial nominations, the repukes are planning to (on edit: change the rule so) that it only requires 55 votes (where have I heard that number before) to end a filibuster rather than 60. This would be applicable to ALL filibusters, not just Judicial ones.

I'm not saying that this is true, and I have no sources to back this up, but I couldn't pass up the opportunity to throw this POS out there.

Can't remember who suggested it though, that the Dems put forward a rules change to not allow filibuster on judicial nominiees, which would require a vote of 67 to change and of course fail but would set precident.

D.H.

sorry cube rats - no heart to repeat the same talking points from this guy...

My favorite line - was how the Republicans had offered such reasonable compromises, by offering lots of time to debate, as long as the up or down vote came at the end - seems he thinks that should take care of any Democratic objection, since they say they're interested in free speech.

POS...

told President Bush his nominees were not out of the mainstrea, and they didn't like the obstruction.

"Millions of them" (doesn't even make sense, but whatever) "turned out to vote for Bush, giving him a record victory" and giving a bigger Repub. majority in this body...

Basically so, they should win everyhing, seems to be his argument.

And if I hear "Frist Fairness" doctrine one more time I will barf.

Can't take their eyes off the page to speak with their own minds. Have to cover all the right talking points.

It's just so transparent.

and had to kinda start that para. over, didn't he! LOL!

wants to talk about "how we reached this point"

sigh...

:boring:

that this didn't start 4 years ago - it probably started with Bork, adn then Repubs retaliated, and now Democrats are retaliating.

And he just admitted the Republicans kept Clintons nominees tied up in committee...

And in doing so, shot down a lot of McConnell's rhetoric, but, you know, oh well, right??

I feel so tired and cynical...

still sickening...

"one of the best christians." Um- can someone tell me how this is relevant?

for these nominees...

You know - that particular choice of language just pisses me off!

Here's thread 2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1793867

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1793867

D.H.