You started this first-time-in-history filibuster of judicial nominees. By November 2006, American voters who are sick of your overt obstructionism will finish it.
ool me once, shame on you," the old saying goes. "Fool me twice, shame on me." Or, "We ain't gonna buy that
loaf of bread
load of malarkey twice."
First you and your
"moderate Republican" RINO allies got President Bush's father to break his No New Taxes pledge in exchange for your phony promise to reduce the budget deficit through record-breaking tax increases. Instead we got a nagging recession along with you beating the president over the head so much for—that's right—breaking his NNT pledge that we wound up with a Hillbillary co-presidency. (Funny that your head beatings didn't extend to the latter when he/she promptly broke his/her Middle-Class Tax Cut™ Pledge a month after he/she took his/her oath of office.)
In the Senate not too long ago, you and your "moderate" RINO friends got Republican leaders to share power with you 50-50 in exchange for your phony promise to "work with Republicans." Instead we got total gridlock in the Senate along with you dangling your Thirty Pieces of Silver so much in front of Jimmy Jeffords's beady eyes that he wound up turning coat and siding with the Demagogic Party. (Funny that you dumped this power-sharing agreement and that spirit of cooperation behind it faster than Jumpin' Jeffords did his loyalties once SadTom Daschle replaced Senator Lott as senate majority leader.)
Now you and your RINO pals want to get the Senate to not repair your breakage of the simple-majority backbone of our constitution's Advice and Consent Clause, in exchange for your phony promise to not inflict your unconstitutional super-majority paralysis on just two judicial nominees. Instead, this time, we're saying no deal.
You whine girlishly so much about the extremism you say is all around you, that you fail miserably to see it in your own mirrors (that is, before they shatter from the sheer ugliness caused by your constantly scowling faces). Extremism, all the world can see, is a surly, sore-loseral minority holding hostage the entire judicial confirmation process until their demand that each nominee fit their definition of "moderate"—else he or she will not be spared such unconstitutional insurgency—is met. No matter that all these nominees already have sufficient support to earn our Senate's consent. The Dhimminsurgents would rather take the extreme step—never before resorted to by any other party in our nation's history—of using the Filibuster Rule to indefinitely obstruct every Senator's chance of ever voting on whether to give that consent. Not surprisingly, a rule that was never meant to apply to confirmable judicial nominees is the very one Demothugs want to abuse, twisting it into yet another most undemocratic, Robed Master-like modus operandi of theirs.
Rule to Obstruct? Rule to Thwart the Democratic Process? Rule to Make No Vote Count? Rule to Block the Right to Choose? None of those come anywhere close to being In The Political Mainstream®.
Senselessor Joe Biden, parroting Washington Post's David Broder, says that the Demobstructic Party "should compromise and say to [Republican leaders] that we're willing to—of the seven judges [filibustered]—we'll let a number of them go through, the two most extreme not go through, and put off this vote [to restore the centuries' long, constitutional exception to the Filibuster Rule] and compromise." No dice, Joe. This is radical stuff—too extreme. You said so yourself only eight years ago:
But I also respectfully suggest that everyone who is nominated ought to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor.
coconspirators couldn't agree more (back then). Leaky Leahy said
Partisan and narrow ideological efforts to impose political litmus tests on judicial nominees and to shut down the judiciary must stop.
For emphasis he added that the Senate might be "headed down a road toward an ideological litmus test that does not well serve the Senate, the courts or the American people." Then he got mad:
Bring these people up, vote them up or vote them down....But you cannot have a small clique decide they want to know exactly how judges are going to rule before they go on the bench, or they're not going to confirm them.
Wow. Finally, he issued this warning:
Those who delay or prevent the filling of these vacancies must understand that they are delaying or preventing the administration of justice.
Even then-Attorney General Janet Reno piped in to rail against what has solidly become your party's MO:
The Senate, of course, has a constitutional duty to advise and consent, but surely the framers did not intend Congress to obstruct the appointment of much-needed judges, but rather simply to ensure that well-qualified individuals were appointed to the federal bench.
Nah. No hypocrisy to see here. Move
Biden's bonkers if he believes his compromise is worth the word of any Deceiverat who even speaks about it. Regardless how many skewed push-polls your MSM cohorts publish, the risk is all yours, Donkerats. Keep obstructing the President's duty to fill long-standing vacancies on our federal appeals courts. Keep calling constitutionalist judges "extreme." Keep undermining our country's democratic processes. Most of all, keep the Glass Ceiling® over women's heads, especially minority women, just because they happen to be President Bush's circuit court nominees. These ought to put you in real good with your bosses, America's mainstream voters.
Dirtnappy Harry Reid wants us to "move forward." You got it, DH. We're going to, right over your soon to be all-dead political party's body. No bans on recess appointments. No withdrawals. No making the American people prisonsers to your Sole Quest™ of regaining power.
Time is on our side. We will get all our law-abiding, constitution-respecting, no-foreign-law-binds-us judicial nominees confirmed and appointed one way or the other. You, on the other hand, have only about eighteen months left until we start finally getting rid of you and your obstructionism for good.
To illustrate how long and how often Demokkkrats controlled our Senate without ever once allowing the Filibuster Rule to be used for obstructing a vote on any appeals court judge's nomination, here's a list of our Senate's political-party makeup during the 35 Congresses before 2003 (the year Dhimmis became the first party ever to scrap that exemption):
Cong Year D R Others
73rd 1933 59 36 1
74th 1935 69 25 2
75th 1937 76 16 4
76th 1939 69 23 4
77th 1941 66 28 2
78th 1943 57 38 1
79th 1945 57 38 1
80th 1947 45 51 0
81st 1949 54 42 0
82nd 1951 49 47 0
83rd 1953 47 48 1 (a)
84th 1955 48 47 1 (b)
85th 1957 49 47 0
86th 1959 65 35 0
87th 1961 64 36 0
88th 1963 66 34 0
89th 1965 68 32 0
90th 1967 64 36 0
91st 1969 57 43 0
92nd 1971 54 44 2
93rd 1973 56 42 2
94th 1975 60 38 2
95th 1977 61 38 1
96th 1979 58 41 1
97th 1981 46 53 1
98th 1983 46 54 0
99th 1985 47 53 0
100th 1987 55 45 0
101st 1989 55 45 0
102nd 1991 56 44 0
103rd 1993 57 43 0 (c)
104th 1995 48 52 0 (d)
105th 1997 45 55 0
106th 1999 45 55 0 (e)
107th 2001 50 49 1 (f)
(a) See Senate Membership Changes During the 83rd Congress.
(b) Strom Thurmond (SC) was an Independent Democrat during this Congress until his resignation on April 4, 1956. In November of that year he was elected as a Democrat to fill the vacancy created by his resignation. The Independent member listed above was Wayne Morse (OR), who changed from an Independent to a Democrat on February 17, 1955.
(c) Party division changed to 56 Democrats and 44 Republicans after the June 5, 1993 election of Kay B. Hutchison (R-TX).
(d) Party ratio changed to 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats after Richard Shelby of Alabama switched from the Democratic to Republican party on November 9, 1994. It changed again, to 54 Republicans and 46 Democrats, when Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado switched from the Democratic to Republican party on March 3, 1995. When Robert Packwood (R-OR) resigned on October 1, 1995, the Senate divided between 53 Republicans and 46 Democrats with one vacancy. Ron Wyden (D) returned the ratio to 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats when he was elected to fill the vacant Oregon seat.
(e) As the 106th Congress began, the division was 55 Republican seats and 45 Democratic seats, but this changed to 54-45 on July 13, 1999 when Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire switched from the Republican party to Independent status. On November 1, 1999, Smith announced his return to the Republican party, making the division once more 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats. Following the death of Senator Paul Coverdell (R-GA) on July 18, 2000, the balance shifted again, to 54 Republicans and 46 Democrats, when the governor appointed Zell Miller, a Democrat, to fill the vacancy.
(f) From January 3 to January 20, 2001, with the Senate divided evenly between the two parties, the Democrats held the majority due to the deciding vote of outgoing Democratic Vice President Al Gore. Senator Thomas A. Daschle served as majority leader at that time. Beginning on January 20, 2001, Republican Vice President Richard Cheney held the deciding vote, giving the majority to the Republicans. Senator Trent Lott resumed his position as majority leader on that date. On May 24, 2001, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont announced his switch from Republican to Independent status, effective June 6, 2001. Jeffords announced that he would caucus with the Democrats, giving the Democrats a one-seat advantage, changing control of the Senate from the Republicans back to the Democrats. Senator Thomas A. Daschle again became majority leader on June 6, 2001. Senator Paul D. Wellstone (D-MN) died on October 25, 2002, and Independent Dean Barkley was appointed to fill the vacancy. The November 5, 2002 election brought to office elected Senator James Talent (R-MO), replacing appointed Senator Jean Carnahan (D-MO), shifting balance once again to the Republicans—but no reorganization was completed at that time since the Senate was out of session.
Comments (registered users)