Demacratic Hypocrits (need I say more?)

[Ravin R10 man]

Myth: Filibusters Of Judicial Nominations Are Part Of Senate Tradition.

Fact: Having to Overcome A Filibuster (Or Obtaining 60 Votes) on Judicial Nominees Is Unprecedented And Has Never Been The Confirmation Test For A Nominee ­ And In The Past, Even Democrats Have Called For Up Or Down Votes.

Congressional Quarterly: "Indeed, As Daschle's Whip, Reid Helped Orchestrate An Unprecedented Filibuster Of Some Of President Bush's More Conservative Judicial Nominees." (Allison Stevens, "Senate Democrats Set A Daschle-Like Tone For 2005," Congressional Quarterly, 11/16/04)

National Review's Mark Levin: "Each Of These Candidates Reportedly Has Enough Votes For Confirmation, But For The Unprecedented Use Or Threat Of Filibusters. The Majority Has Every Right And Reason To Change The Rule." (Mark R. Levin, Op-Ed, "Will On Filibusters," National Review Online, 3/21/05)

In 1999, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) Declared: "Vote Them Up, Vote Them Down." "But I think they have given the President of the United States the benefit of the doubt, and if the person is otherwise qualified, he or she gets the vote. ... That is what the Constitution speaks of in our advise and consent capacity. That is what these good and decent people have a right to expect. That is what our oath of office should compel Members to do ­ to vote for or against. ... Vote them up, vote them down." (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 9/21/99, p. S11102)

In 1998, Leahy Called Filibustering Judicial Nominations "Improper." "[E]arlier this year ... I noted how improper it would be to filibuster a judicial nomination." (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 10/14/98)

In 1998, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Said That Voting On Judicial Nominees Was Something That The Senate Owed To All Americans. "We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don't like them, vote against them. But give them a vote." (Sen. Edward Kennedy, Congressional Record, 2/3/98, p. S295)

Myth: Filibusters Of Judicial Nominations Are Based on the Constitution

Fact: Senate debate is governed by Senate rules, not by the Constitution. The Senate's Constitutional role to advise and consent is in fact being impaired by the unprecedented use of partisan filibusters to block confirmation votes.

In 1998, Sen. Leahy Said Promptly Confirming Judges Was Senate's "Constitutional Responsibility." "We must redouble our efforts to work with the President to end the longstanding vacancies that plague the federal courts and disadvantage all Americans. That is our constitutional responsibility." (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 9/8/99, p. S10544)

Leahy In 1998: "Acting To Fill Judicial Vacancies Is A Constitutional Duty That The Senate ­ And All Of Its Members ­ Are Obligated To Fulfill. In Its Unprecedented Slowdown In The Handling Of Nominees In The 104th And 105th Congresses, The Senate Is Shirking Its Duty. This Is Wrong And Should End." (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 7/17/98, p. S8477)

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) Said Government Does Not Fulfill Its "Constitutional Mandate" When Judicial Nominees Do Not Receive A Vote. "The basic issue of holding up judgeships is the issue before us, not the qualifications of judges, which we can always debate. The problem is it takes so long for us to debate those qualifications. It is an example of Government not fulfilling its constitutional mandate because the President nominates, and we are charged with voting on the nominees." (Sen. Charles Schumer, Congressional Record, 3/7/00, p. S1211)

Schumer In 2000: "[W]e Are Charged With Voting On The Nominees. The Constitution Does Not Say If The Congress Is Controlled By A Different Party Than The President There Shall Be No Judges Chosen." (Sen. Charles Schumer, Congressional Record, 3/7/00, p. S1211)

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

Re: Demacratic Hypocrits (need I say more?)

Looks like you're pretty wound up on the judicial nominees issue. I hope you've contacted your Senators and told them to get with the program!!!

[carbonhunter]

Re: Demacratic Hypocrits (need I say more?)

same thing just differant party they both do it and there both hypocrits........