|
rulemylife -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/30/2009 9:12:47 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
"Democrats invented the filibuster of judicial nominees in 2003, when the previous congress was in session, in order to defeat many of President Bush’s conservative nominees to the federal circuit courts. The filibuster strategy developed out of the Democrats' concern for the fact that Republicans commanded a majority in the Senate and were in a position to approve all the president's appellate-level judicial nominees. As a result of the new filibuster tactic employed by the Democrats, President Bush has had the lowest confirmation rate for such appointments in the history of the U. S.
At issue is whether the Democrats have the right to change procedures that have governed the Senate for over 200 years in acting on judicial nominees, providing for what is known as an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. By universal assent of every Senator, politician and historian of the Senate, never in U. S. history has approval of judicial nominees required anything more than a simple majority of 51 votes in the Senate. Not even those Senate Democrats who are most opposed to President Bush’s allegedly "out-of-the-mainstream onservative nominees" are proposing that the simple majority requirement be upped to a supermajority.
"
As if you really never heard of the Gang of 14.
Oh, I've heard of them, I was just wondering where you were going with this.
Since you did not provide a link I am not sure where your quote is from, but it's not accurate.
Clinton had far more judicial candidates blocked than Bush, by the Republicans refusing to hold hearings on his appointments, some for as long as four years.
In fact, many of Bush's appointments were for judicial positions that Clinton had tried to fill but the Republicans stalled in committee.
NPR: Primer: Judicial Nominees and the Senate Filibuster
Q: How many of President Bush's nominees have been kept waiting? How many have been confirmed?
The president's nominees to the district court level of the federal system have not been blocked. The conflict has come at the next level, the appeals court level, which is the intermediary step between trial courts and the U.S. Supreme Court.
President Bush has had 57 nominees for the U.S. Court of Appeals. Five never received hearings. Of the 52 who did, 42 have been confirmed, but 10 were blocked by Democrats' use of the filibuster to prevent a floor vote.
Q: But what about the use of the filibuster to stop judicial nominations?
With respect to judicial nominations, the most effective tactic in opposition has been to bottle them up in committee.
In the later years of the Clinton presidency, the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was controlled by Republicans, did not hold hearings for as many as 60 of his nominees, according to Democrats.
They argue that this refusal to even consider President Clinton's nominees was just as effective in blocking them as a filibuster.
Edited for a correction:
I didn't realize the article was dated until I posted. The Clinton numbers are accurate but the final Bush total was 39 nominees never approved, still far less than Clinton.
|
|
|
|
