Senate conservatives threatening ‘meltdown’
By on Jun 8th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Go ahead, bitches: Throw a tantrum!
June 8th, 2007 at 2:09 pmHilarious. Hypocritical. During the last couple years of Clinton’s presidency, these guys did EVERYTHING they could think of to stop Clinton’s judicial nominees from even going to the floor for a vote.
June 8th, 2007 at 2:12 pmTo offer perspective about what punk ass bitches Republicans are, more from the article:
let’s compare apples to apples. 2007 is the seventh year of Bush’s presidency, 1999 was the seventh year of Clinton’s presidency. Both saw Senate Judiciary Committees led by a member of the opposing party. In the first five months of 2007, a Democratic Judiciary Committee has approved 18 judicial nominees. In 1999, a Republican Judiciary Committee only held seven hearings on nominees over the course of the entire year.
And while we’re at it, let’s also remember that Hatch abandoned every rule on the nominating process that Dems had always followed. What’s more, as Kevin Drum explained a while back, Hatch also created new rules as he went along.
* In 1998, for no special reason, Orrin Hatch decided that only one senator needed to object to a nomination. This made it easier for Republicans to obstruct Bill Clinton’s nominees.
* In 2001, when one of their own became president, Hatch suddenly reversed course and decided that it should take two objections after all. That made it harder for Democrats to obstruct George Bush’s nominees.
* In early 2003, Hatch went even further: senatorial objections were merely advisory, he said. Even if both senators objected to a nomination, it would still go to the floor for a vote.
* A few weeks later, yet another barrier was torn down: Hatch did away with a longtime rule that said at least one member of the minority had to agree in order to end discussion about a nomination and move it out of committee.
And now Senate Republicans are crying? They’re threatening a “major meltdown� They’re whining about shutting down the chamber?
Please. If the Senate Republican caucus doesn’t want to be considered a joke, they ought to stop acting like one.
June 8th, 2007 at 2:15 pmmeltdown? Sorry but the Congress is already in meltdown anyways.
June 8th, 2007 at 2:16 pmHilarious. Hypocritical. During the last couple years of Clinton’s presidency, these guys did EVERYTHING they could think of to stop Clinton’s judicial nominees from even going to the floor for a vote.
Want to compare apples to apples?
The GOP confirmed 35 of Clinton’s circuit nominees in his 2nd term, and 16 during his last 2 years.
Bush is at 17 in his 2nd term.
June 8th, 2007 at 2:16 pmWant to compare apples to apples?
The GOP confirmed 35 of Clinton’s circuit nominees in his 2nd term, and 16 during his last 2 years.
Bush is at 17 in his 2nd term.
Comment by m12 — June 8, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
Why stick with the second term, You’re12? How did the first terms compare? How many nominations did Clinton make to get those 35 confirmed? How many nominations has Bush made to get his 16?
June 8th, 2007 at 2:26 pmBush is at 17 in his 2nd term.
Comment by m12
And Republicans controlled the house and senate for the first 2years of Bush’s 2nd term. Your point? If you have one?
June 8th, 2007 at 2:26 pmBlah, blah, blah…
June 8th, 2007 at 2:27 pmI thought Lindsey Graham just finished a melt-down about immigration yesterday. Personally, I think its time for a time-out.
June 8th, 2007 at 2:29 pmI would dearly love to see said “meltdown.”
I hope Lott’s rug is securely glued to his head…..
June 8th, 2007 at 2:34 pmWayne,
Exactly!
The GOP is going to take their rubber stamp and go home if they don’t get their way.
June 8th, 2007 at 2:34 pmBush is at 17 in his 2nd term.
Comment by m12
And Republicans controlled the house and senate for the first 2years of Bush’s 2nd term. Your point? If you have one?
Comment by Wayne
I think his point was that the claim “During the last couple years of Clinton’s presidency, these guys did EVERYTHING they could think of to stop Clinton’s judicial nominees from even going to the floor for a vote…”
Is inaccurate.
June 8th, 2007 at 2:34 pmLet’s see how many of these GOP hypocrites are still in favor of that Nuclear Option they were so quick to endorse when the held the majority status
I’ll admit how sweet it would be to see such an option rammed down the GOP’s throat, their squeals and screeches of hypocritical outrage would be pure salve to the soul, but seeing as how judicial filibusters are one of the few ways the minority party has of being heard, I hope the Dems don’t pull the trigger on a parliamentary procedure they’ll have to use when they’re the minority party again at some point
The Dems need to tell the whiny GOP swine to STFU for once and be good, not spiteful, little drones for a change-and considering how the GOP exercised NO oversight of the Executive Branch for the past 6 years, being drones is no stretch for the crybabies pitching a hissy fit about how hard it is for W to get his judges confirmed now
June 8th, 2007 at 2:35 pmGood for the Democrats.
June 8th, 2007 at 2:38 pm“Gum those Repub appointees to death” to borrow a phrase from the Gone-zo Justice Department. Gum them till the Bush reign of error is over. Then President Hillary Clinton will fill those openings with qualified personel.
We need to “De-Bushify” the Justice Department. Might as well start now.
#12. They changed the rules to make it easier to block nominees, then changed the rules back when Bush took office. My earlier statement was accurate.
June 8th, 2007 at 2:42 pmMeltdown, a la Lindsey Graham style?
June 8th, 2007 at 2:43 pmLets see more of the poor pissy little peckerwoods melting down!
I hope the democrats have the cojones necessary to let the place melt down. We have seen enough activist judges appointed to the bench under Bush. It has to stop somewhere. We the people voted for no more of that garbage last November. Lets hope the Democrats adhere to the will of the people. Dont confirm any of the anti-abortion, anti-environmental, anti-truth sacks of Cheney that Bush has nominated or will by the end of his horrible tenure. Suits me just fine.
June 8th, 2007 at 2:49 pmRon Paul said it best:
“It’s sort of strange that they’d call me ‘eccentric’ and ’strange’ when I defend the Constitution,” responded Paul, “but I think that’s the point where we’ve gotten to, where defending the Constitution is a little bit different.”
“I think the party’s in shambles,” Paul continued. “I’m considered pretty conservative … and yet they think that I don’t fit in, and “I’ve even been asked to leave the Republican Party. But they won’t admit that the foreign policy is flawed and that the war is the real issue. And if they don’t admit to that, I don’t see how they can come up with a candidate that’s going to be electable.””
“I’ve been working hard to bring the conservatives and the non-interventionists and the anti-war people into the Republican Party,” he went on, “because we do have a tradition in the Republican Party that represented these views. “But I have to admit, in the last six years, it’s been undermined. … I’m afraid that if we don’t get a candidate in either party that represents these views, I think there’s going to be a lot of Americans that are going to take a walk.””
Paul was then asked about Rudy Giuliani’s support for a national ID card and responded, “It’s all done in the name of safety, everybody’s frightened to death, and if you don’t sacrifice your liberties you can’t be safe. And yet the dangers exist, but they’re not quite bad enough — and they never should be bad enough — to sacrifice liberty. There’s no reason to sacrifice liberty in thinking that you’re going to be safer.”
June 8th, 2007 at 2:55 pmLet these right wing, hypochristian, repug a$$holes meltdown! Make sure it’s on all the major networks for everyone to see. Would you like some cheese with your whine, repugs?
June 8th, 2007 at 2:57 pmGood! Shut down the Senate!
Let’s see anymore supplemental War funding get through that!
So what if a Republican Minority shuts down the Senate all the way up to the ‘08 elections.
Net result: The Senate “holds its breath” until it turns BLUE!
June 8th, 2007 at 3:00 pmMaybe Beaner will cry crocodile tears, again. Real crocodile tears.
June 8th, 2007 at 3:15 pmLet then shut down the Senate. In politics, as in medicine, the first rule is to do no harm. Shutting down the “business” of the Senate prevents passage of legislation, including Mr. Bush’s absurd request for more authority to spy on Americans while violating their Constitution. Shut down the Senate, by all means, gentlemen, and show America how constructive you are, how bound by the law and respect for your office and your colleagues. Show us. Please.
The Rethuglicans also know this is their last chance for a generation to get their nominations through the Senate. They want their last chance to get Eve to bite that apple, so that the consequences of their accumulation of radical jurists will afflict us until the Second Coming. Tell us, please, gentlemen, how you are doing the right thing for America. We haven’t had a good laugh since Bradley Schlozman pretended not to know the political leanings of his ACORNs.
June 8th, 2007 at 3:21 pmI hope Lott’s rug is securely glued to his head…..
Comment by Zooey — June 8, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
Zooey, I hope it’s NOT!
June 8th, 2007 at 3:24 pmThe Rethuglics, as usual, are projecting their motives and motions onto their enemies. I guess they never learned to share or play well together; perhaps they’ll learn when they grow up, though their arrested developed gives one pause to think so.
June 8th, 2007 at 3:24 pmWhy stick with the second term, You’re12? How did the first terms compare? How many nominations did Clinton make to get those 35 confirmed? How many nominations has Bush made to get his 16?
Well, 2nd terms are treated a bit different from the first, as the incumbent is guaranteed not to be back.
But, to answer your question, Clinton got 30 nominees and Bush got 34. Clinton’s 8 year total was 65. Bush’s 6.5 year total is currently at 53. Arlen Specter has stated his goal is for 12 more until the end of the Bush Presidency, or 10 if there is a 3rd Supreme Court vacancy.
The best apples to apples comparison is the last 2 years of a Presidency, with the Senate held by the opposing party. Under this standard, Reagan got 17 confirmations, Bush I 20, Clinton 16, and Bush II is on pace for 12.
Take from this what you want.
June 8th, 2007 at 3:32 pmAnd Republicans controlled the house and senate for the first 2 years of Bush’s 2nd term. Your point? If you have one?
In half the term, the 109th Congress hit half of the minimum target. Obviously, its up to the 110th Congress to do the other half.
June 8th, 2007 at 3:34 pmThe BEST way to get new judges through is to nominate
MODERATE, unpartisan people who will represent ALL the American people, not just the Rapeublic Party…
And QUESTIONS by Senate and DOCUMENTATION by nominee a MUST!
Look what happened as a result of letting Gonzo slide, and NOT ask HIM the TOUGH questions or make him produce DOCUMENATAION.
An “attorney general” who sneaks into the room a SICK MAN in order to SUBVERT JUSTICE.
Plain old CRIMINALS and WAR CRIMINAL TRAITORS…
June 8th, 2007 at 3:37 pmThe BEST way to get new judges through is to nominate
MODERATE, unpartisan people who will represent ALL the American people, not just the Rapeublic Party…
The President has done that.
June 8th, 2007 at 3:43 pmWhy would anyone admit to being a “Senate conservative” when it might bring War Crime charges later? Don’t they know how to beat the rats in a race to jump ship??
Guess not. Still dumber than a bag of hammers!!
June 8th, 2007 at 3:50 pmDid somebody pour water on them?
June 8th, 2007 at 3:51 pmThe President has done that.
Comment by m12
Yeah, like Harriet Miers and OTHER right-wingnut wack jobs???
Uh huh….
And, of course, THAT is why Gonzales, BEFORE he was Attorney General, tried to SUBVERT JUSTICE by going around the
ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL, James Comey????
Yeah, riiight………..
June 8th, 2007 at 3:52 pmThe ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT, scooter libby, is a FELON…
Bush and ALL his WAR CRIMINALS need to be in Iraq,
SUPPORTING THE TROOPS with their BLOOD!!!
NOT the blood of innocent Americans who are
LIED into THINKING that THEY ARE “SUPPORTING FREEDOMâ€.
June 8th, 2007 at 3:53 pmI’m sure we can find enough corners in the US Capitol for them all to stand in. Except for Trent, who might just shit his pants in a form of juvenile protest (he’ll have to sit in the tub).
June 8th, 2007 at 3:59 pm#31
Alberto Gonzales has never been nominated to any judicial position during this Presidency, and Miers was withdrawn.
That the best you can do?
June 8th, 2007 at 4:00 pmm12
Name ONE, unpartisan judical appointee brought brefore congress in the past 6 1/2 years????
June 8th, 2007 at 4:05 pmAlberto Gonzales has never been nominated to any judicial position during this Presidency, and Miers was withdrawn.
That the best you can do?
Comment by m12
Gonzales was nominated to be ATTORNEY GENERAL of the USA,
after trying to SUBVERT JUSTICE by circumventing ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL James Comey.
THAT is ALL the example needed to show that Bush values PARTISAN TRAITORS against the Constitution…
As far as Miers goes, “withdrawn” because EVERYONE knew what a POLITICAL PARTISAN HACK she was.
That’s just a taste, and it is ENOUGH to show that Bush and his WAR CRIMINALS think NOTHING of the PEOPLE of the USA.
Only THEIR oil-rich buddies.
Now, SHOW US THE BEST YOU CAN DO, and give us the names of Bush’s nominees who are NOT
right-wingnut WACKJOBS.
BRING IT ON!!!!
June 8th, 2007 at 4:09 pm#35
Sure. Here are 217 of them.
http://judiciary.senate.gov/noms/110/District_Ct_Noms.pdf
June 8th, 2007 at 4:11 pmm12
“In January 2007 Kerr-McGee was found guilty by a jury of underpaying oil extraction royalty taxes in the amount of US$7.6 million to the U.S. Government.[1] The jury’s decision was overturned by U.S. federal judge Phillip Figa of Denver, and the case has been appealed by the original plaintiff, former U.S. Department of the Interior auditor Bobby Maxwell. ” Figa decided for Anadarko, one of BushCo’s top contributors.
“Fair minded? Not exactly. This judge openly brags that no federal discrimination case has ever made it to trial in his courtroom. Ultimate decisions are result-oriented and idealogicallly driven. Not a model we need on the federal bench!” He was appointed due to his stance on discrimination and has been against ANY pro se cases.
Just a couple examples here. Also, doesn’t include the 8 (or 9) US Attorneys that were appointed by BushCo but were found to follow the rule of law, not the Party, so they were fired. Not exactly a non-partisan example either!
June 8th, 2007 at 4:29 pmObviously, its up to the 110th Congress to do the other half.
Comment by m12
only if nominees pass senate approval.
June 8th, 2007 at 4:31 pm“Fair minded? Not exactly. This judge openly brags that no federal discrimination case has ever made it to trial in his courtroom. Ultimate decisions are result-oriented and idealogicallly driven. Not a model we need on the federal bench!†He was appointed due to his stance on discrimination and has been against ANY pro se cases.
This was about Judge Robert Blackburn… I forgot to identify him on post #38.
June 8th, 2007 at 4:36 pm#38
Your point? Judge Figa was confirmed unanimously, pretty much the definition of bipartisan.
June 8th, 2007 at 4:38 pmJudge Phillip Figa of Denver:
“Fair minded? Not exactly. This judge openly brags that no federal discrimination case has ever made it to trial in his courtroom. Ultimate decisions are result-oriented and idealogicallly driven. Not a model we need on the federal bench!†He was appointed due to his stance on discrimination and has been against ANY pro se cases.
Looks like a PARTISAN, right-wingnut nutjob WACKO to me.
I’m sure your list holds MANY MORE…
Funny how you have NO ANSWER for pre-Attorney General Gonzales trying to circumvent JUSTICE and the RULE OF LAW by trying to go around ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL James Comey
concerning ILLEGAL SPYING authorized by Bush that was SO BAD that right-wing nutjob John Ashcroft thought it was ILLEGAL…
June 8th, 2007 at 4:45 pmFunny how you have NO ANSWER for pre-Attorney General Gonzales trying to circumvent JUSTICE and the RULE OF LAW by trying to go around ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL James Comey
concerning ILLEGAL SPYING authorized by Bush that was SO BAD that right-wing nutjob John Ashcroft thought it was ILLEGAL…
The topic is judicial nominees. US attorneys, Gonzalez, Ashcroft, and Comey are not judicial nominees.
June 8th, 2007 at 4:49 pmHere’s another one for you guys: Bush nominated him to the circuit courts in 2003 and Democrats/leftwinged websites tried to push him for the Supreme Court
http://www.draftprado.org/
June 8th, 2007 at 4:54 pmhttp://www.savethecourt.org/site/c.mwK0JbNTJrF/b.939297/apps/s/content.asp?ct=1468325
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2005/07/12/345/32579
The topic is judicial nominees. US attorneys, Gonzalez, Ashcroft, and Comey are not judicial nominees.
Comment by m12 — June 8, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
Define “judicial”; like, “not” associated with the adminsitration of justice? Could you be more stupid?? Work on it, Botch needs you!!!
June 8th, 2007 at 4:56 pmDefine “judicialâ€; like, “not†associated with the adminsitration of justice? Could you be more stupid?? Work on it, Botch needs you!!!
No, idiot, “judicial” means governed by Article III of the Constitution.
US attorneys, Gonzalez, Ashcroft, and Comey are members of the Executive Branch and are subordinate to the President. Judges are not.
June 8th, 2007 at 4:58 pmThe topic is judicial nominees. US attorneys, Gonzalez, Ashcroft, and Comey are not judicial nominees.
Comment by m12
No, the topic is RIGHT-WINGNUT wackjob nominees that have to be APPROVED by the Senate.
Since Gonzo falls into this category, and since James Comey told us lately that Gonzo TRIED TO SUBVERT JUSTICE by trying to go around the ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL,
he is EXACTLY “THE TOPIC”.
PARTISAN, right-wingnut WACKJOB nominees
who put PARTY above COUNTRY.
I.E., PARTISAN TRAITORS TO THE USA and the Constitution!
Too bad YOU support these TRAITORS….
June 8th, 2007 at 4:59 pmUS attorneys, Gonzalez, Ashcroft, and Comey are members of the Executive Branch and are subordinate to the President. Judges are not.
Seems like the right-wingnut WACKJOB partisans that are nominated by Bush ARE…
And THAT is the problem.
And funny how you don’t address the topic that
Comey told us that Gonzales has SUBVERTED JUSTICE….
Actually, you DEFEND these TRAITORS like Gonzales…
WHY do YOU hate America????
June 8th, 2007 at 5:03 pmUS attorneys, Gonzalez, Ashcroft, and Comey are members of the Executive Branch and are subordinate to the President. Judges are not.
Comment by m12 — June 8, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Thanks for standing up for corrupt members of the DoJ which are supposed to protect the public, not the as*hole members of the administration!!! You have it all backwads(sp is correct) like all Kool-Aid, constitution, rights trampling facist not yet arrested and covicted!!!
June 8th, 2007 at 5:05 pmI hope Lott’s rug is securely glued to his head…..
Comment by Zooey — June 8, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
Zooey, I hope it’s NOT!
Comment by Jane E. Schneider
You’re right, Jane. That would be frickin’ hilarious. :D
June 8th, 2007 at 5:42 pmComment by m12 (all comments)
FU*K Bush…
…and FU*K you…
…may you and your ALL your kind…
…reap the fruit of the Bush/Cheney curse…
…Bush has no business picking…
…fruit pickers…
June 8th, 2007 at 6:06 pm#51
Well, that’s really intelligent! Want a medal?
June 8th, 2007 at 6:14 pmComment by m12 #52
…I want your head…
…on a pole…
since…
…you’re not using it…
June 8th, 2007 at 6:38 pmDamn kids…
…I guess i ’skeered’ ‘im off…
…and let that be a lesson to ya…
…m12 is a juvenile…
…don’tcontribute to the deliquency of this…
…inbred minor…
June 8th, 2007 at 7:40 pmThe GOP confirmed 35 of Clinton’s circuit nominees in his 2nd term, and 16 during his last 2 years.
Bush is at 17 in his 2nd term.
Comment by m12
Clarly, Clinton’s appointees were more acceptable.
June 8th, 2007 at 8:17 pm