The Evil Genius Posted May 1, 2003 Share Posted May 1, 2003 Perhaps one of the biggest filibusters of all time is the one surrounding Abe Fortas who was nominated by President Lyndon Johnson to head the Supreme Court. Fortas was defeated by a Republican filibuster (what they filibuster too???) in 1968 because of his activist stand on civil rights issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted May 1, 2003 Share Posted May 1, 2003 TEG, Go back and read the thread from the beginning. Kilmer puts a spin on the whole Fortas thing that'll make you dizzy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted May 1, 2003 Share Posted May 1, 2003 Originally posted by TheKurp TEG, Go back and read the thread from the beginning. Kilmer puts a spin on the whole Fortas thing that'll make you dizzy. Yeah somehow I missed that the 1st time through... Found this on FindLaw... In 1969, Life magazine revealed that Fortas had accepted and then returned a fee of $20,000 from a charitable foundation controlled by the family of an indicted stock manipulator. Fortas resigned from the bench on May 14, 1969 but denied any wrongdoing. He returned to private practice after serving on the Supreme Court for three years. From these dates, it appears the GOP filibuster took place BEFORE Life magazine revealed his financial doings...since the filibuster took place in 1968... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted May 1, 2003 Share Posted May 1, 2003 Man, this thread got VIOLENT there for awhile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 Originally posted by Burgold Just a thread ago, weren't the conservatives lambasting several writers for showing lack of respect to a president? Sheesh. If the office of the presidency deserves respect at least to the extent that we refrain from name calling (someone took offense to dubya for pity's sake), then good god the conservative champions of morality ought to look in the mirror for the respect they show former Presidents. Disagree with policy. Dislike the man. Hate him, if you feel the need. If you are going to say the office deserves respect, then it should be applied to all. I'll stay out of the main argument. It's silly to say that the conservatives never applied obstructionist tactics. There have been examples sited. Others have found loopholes (using Clintonesque reasoning.) Some say, wel maybe they fillibustered, threatened fillibustering, or obstructed, but never to the extent that the Dem's are doing now. Remember Gingrich? Remember that bit of obstructionism that ended with the Government being shut down and costing Republican senators and house members their seats. Newt Gingrich never recovered from his obstructionism. Guess that made him a liberal. The argument then shifts to- Well, but that doesn't have to do with the argument about Supreme Court Justices which is true, but irrelevant if the real issue is fillibustering and tactic used to delay votes on nominations or bills. Nice points Burgold, although I suppose one man's obstructionism is another's 'principalled stand'? I thoroughly agree with you even regarding showing former President's due respect to a certain degree. What really sickens me about true partisans (I am conservative through and through, but not blindly so, not across every issue, and not at any cost) is that they defend their actions even when they know it may be hurtful to the nation and process of governing as a whole. Partisanship, taken beyond a legitimate competition for votes, is by nature self-serving. Despite the fact that most know damn well that which party is in office has only miniscule effect on the daily lives of Americans, real partisans would have us believe armaggedon is on the way should 'the other guys' achieve or maintain power. This thread has been 99% 'who is more manipulative, morally bankrupt, and evil' and 1% 'is obstructing federal bench nominees good or bad for America' (the more relevant question). Politics should not be 'take no quarter', 'torture the prisoners', trench warfare. It wasn't always so. It doesn't need to be so now. There are times I wish our system mandated a 1 party Congress (every state elects democratic and republican reps, and whichever party wins the Presidency has sole representation in Congress). At least we would not have the incessant wrangling, grandstanding, and misrepresentation so common now. Why can't we say the truth. That blocking a President's bench nominees on anything other than ethical grounds is wrong. Since the Democrats are currently the ones doing so, they ought to knock it off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 2, 2003 Author Share Posted May 2, 2003 My final take and then I'll let this die the death it probably needed days ago. Fortas was approved by the Senate in 65. He was filibustered for the position of Chief Justice in 68. Therefore, my original contention that the GOP has not filibustered a fed bench appointee is correct. If people want to argue that Fortas was filibustered, they would be proving that the GOP filibustered a sitting judge's appointment to the position of Chief. They are 2 completely different issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 The over riding point IHMO is that both sides take steps to keep the other side from appointing judges. They will use whatever means they have at their desposal to achieve there goals. It's called politics. It's a two way street so I really can't give the GOP a pass on blocking judges. Does the method really matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 Kilmer, Perhaps you should revisit why you brought up the assertion that Republicans have never used a filibuster to block a federal court nomination. From where I stand, you seemed to want to prove that Republicans were above using the filibuster to prevent a nominee from filling a position in a federal court. I think that's been proven to be a false statement. You seem to think the Republicans are above employing certain tactics to acheive their political goals. May I remind you of a certain Republican named Nixon? May I also remind you of the Iran/Contra Scandal? People in glass houses..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 2, 2003 Author Share Posted May 2, 2003 Kurp, you make assumptions, I never said anything close to that. The final question (I know I know). Has the GOP ever used a filibuster to prevent an Fed Bench nominee from gaining appointment? The answer is NO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 So what's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 2, 2003 Author Share Posted May 2, 2003 2 points. 1-What I have said is factual, accurate, and specific. 2-You tried to spin it to fit an answer to a different question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 Okay, let me dumb this down for you. What's your point in stating that Republicans have never used the filibuster to block a nominee from serving on a federal court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 2, 2003 Author Share Posted May 2, 2003 Down to your level? Fair enough. The GOP has never used a filibuster to prevent a Fed Bench appointee from getting confirmed. The Dems are doing that right now to 2 people. That's it. That's the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 That's not really a point. It's a statement. Again, what was your point in making that statement? Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats have never used a filibuster to block a federal judge from serving as Chief Justice. See? Two can play this game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 2, 2003 Author Share Posted May 2, 2003 Sure, but we are talking about current events. If the Dems hold up a move of one justice to Chief when Rhenquist retires, I wont make that argument. But what is relevant is what the Dems are doing right now to 2 appointees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 And so what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 2, 2003 Author Share Posted May 2, 2003 So what? Did you not read this thread? Sorry, but if it's that far over your head, I cant help you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 Yeah, I thought that might be your response. You certainly aren't representing the Right on this board very well with that kind of circular logic. I guess I'll just file it away as a lesson learned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 2, 2003 Author Share Posted May 2, 2003 I expected a response like that from you as well. It's your signature move. When confronted with facts to retort your spin, you resort to personal attacks or spin some more. It's a simple premise. Has the GOP ever used a filibuster to prevent a fed bench appointee? NO they have not. Are the Dems doing so now with 2 appointees? YES, they are. The only person using circular logic is you. You continually add extra words or context to fit your needs. Art b!tchslapped in a thread a few days ago for doing the same thing. Stay on the topic for once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 Listen Kilmer, I've been going easy on you. I'm now of the opinion that even if I spent time debating with you on an intellectual level that it would be akin to pissing into the wind. You made a statement that Republicans have never used the filibuster to block a nomination to a federal court. You wrote: The thread was about filibustering fed bench appointees. If you think both parties employ tactics to stall the process, please cite an example to equate with what the Dems are engaged in now. Those example were provided. Those examples specifically mentioned Fortas, Paez, and Berzon. You were conspicuosly silent, neglecting to respond. I wrote: FACT: Abe Fortas, nominated by President Lyndon Johnson to head the Supreme Court, was defeated by a Republican filibuster in 1968 because of his activist stand on civil rights issues. You responded: Nice example. Totally false, but Im sure you knew that already. As my provided sources clearly proved, my statement of fact was NOT false and it was in direct response to your request to cite examples in which Republicans have used tatics to stall the process of approving nominations to a federal court. As is your modus operandi, rather than address the counter-points to your statements, you chose to wage an argument of semantics. Of course this was simply an attempt to draw attention away from the fact that Republicans have indeed used stall tactics to block the appointment of nominees to federal courts. Now, FunkyAlligator wrote: It is simply amazing how people on this board insist that it is one party or another that politicizes the judicial process, it is without a doubt both, both sides do it so don't go bashing the Dems or Repubs for doing it because they both do it. These days a filibuster is a lot easier process than it used to be, back then you had to stay in the chamber and keep talking in order to withhold the vote but it is not so these days. If one side says they are going to filibuster the nomination than as long as the other side doesn't have 60 votes to stop it, it shall be. Pathetic, our government is whole mess of red tape and regulations, but it is best form of government in the world.....it still could be a lot better. You wrote in response: please cite an instance where the GOP has filibustered a nominee to the federal bench. This is STRICTLY a Dem play. FunkyAlligator was spot on when he said that both parties have used the threat of the filibuster to block a nomination. You wanted an actual case where the Republicans successfully used a filibuster. Now follow along if you can. A filibuster can be broken with 60 votes in a cloture motion. If one party can demonstrate that they have the necessary 60 votes then the opposing party is unlikely to follow through with the threat of a filibuster. Even when one party threatens a filibuster a cloture motion may immediately be filed and a vote taken to prevent the filibuster from occuring. In other words, many filibusters are defeated even before they begin because of cloture votes or the threat of a cloture vote. You want examples of Republicans stalling nominations to Federal Courts? 1. Rosemary Barkett, nominated to the Eleventh Circuit in 1993, was accused by Republicans of being "soft on crime." After Republican opponents announced their intention to filibuster the nomination, a cloture motion was filed. Lacking the votes to sustain a filibuster, Republican opponents accepted a time agreement, the cloture petition was withdrawn, and Barkett was confirmed. 2. H. Lee Sarokin, nominated to the Third Circuit in 1994, was vigorously opposed by Senators who characterized him as a liberal on criminal law, affirmative action, and other issues. Republicans threatened a filibuster and a cloture motion was filed. Cloture was then invoked, and Sarokin was confirmed. 3. In 2000, cloture motions were necessary to obtain votes on the nominations of Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon to the Ninth Circuit, after Republican opponents who considered them too liberal repeatedly delayed action on their nominations (over four years for Paez and over two years for Berzon). Those opposing the nominations acknowledged that National Women's Law Center, January 2003, cloture was required "due to holds that we placed on them . . . as notice to the Senate that if the nominations were brought to the full Senate for debate they would be filibustered." On the floor, Republican Senator Bob Smith, citing the Fortas, Rehnquist and other filibusters as precedents, said "I do not want to hear that I am going down some trail the Senate has never gone down before by talking about these judges and delaying. It is simply not true. I resent any argument to the contrary because it is simply not true." He declared the next day that he had led a filibuster on the Berzon and Paez nominations, having built a coalition of Senators(including Senator Jeff Sessions) to block them because of the nominees' judicial philosophy. Cloture was invoked on both nominations, whereupon Senator Sessions moved to indefinitely postpone the Paez confirmation vote, but both nominees were confirmed. 4. A cloture vote was also taken in 1999 on President Clinton's nomination of Brian Theadore Stewart to the District Court in Utah due to Democratic objections to the expedited treatment of the nomination. Not only did Stewart's nomination come to the floor in a mere two months even though 30 other nominations were then pending, but a number of those nominations -- including those of Paez and Berzon, as well as that of Missouri Supreme Court justice Ronnie White for a federal district court seat -- had been pending for more than a year and a half. Now I have repeatedly asked you what your point is in stating that Republicans have never used the filibuster in blocking a nomination to a federal court. Apparently the definition of what is and what isn't a point has either never been taught to you, or the concept of which totally escapes you. I assumed your point was that Republicans were above this type of tactic to block nominations. You responded by telling me that this is my assumption and that it was wrong. Fancy of you to spell out when I'm wrong, but then the next step should be to correct me by explicitly defining what your point really is. This you continue to refuse to do. I'm going to make another assumption here and state that you can't tell me what your point is because you have no point. You are merely left with restating words that have no meaning in the context of this thread, which is, Back in the Senate, the Dems are at it again. What is it that the Dems are at again? What is it that they're doing that Republicans haven't done, don't do, and won't do? You accuse me of adding words and context to fit my needs. Well Kilmer, my needs are to try and understand what point it is that you're trying to make. Simply stating that the GOP has never used a filibuster to prevent a fed bench appointee isn't sufficient in the course of an intelligent conversation unless it's used to underscore a point. The fact is, the Republicans have threatened many times to use the filibuster and that they've never used it is not because they feel it's politically and morally wrong to do so, but because they would have been unsuccessful in their attempt because of cloture motions. You want me to stay on topic? Then you better well damn define what the hell it is your talking about and assume the responsibility of discussing the topic intelligently. So far you've been negligent on all counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 2, 2003 Author Share Posted May 2, 2003 Taking it easy on me? You self righteous bullsh!t is so tiring Kurp. That fact that it takes you novels to respond to simple questions is a perfect example of what I said. You made a statement that Republicans have never used the filibuster to block a nomination to a federal court. Yes, that is preceisely what I said. Those example were provided. Those examples specifically mentioned Fortas, Paez, and Berzon. You were conspicuosly silent, neglecting to respond. I responded to them a dozen times. None of those people had their nomination to the Fed Bench filibustered. That some had their nomination derailed because of a threat of filibuster or had their nomination to another position filibustered doesnt matter. It's not the same thing. The point is simple and basic. Only by adding your own context can you support your opinion. If you want to debate the stalling tactics used by both parties for all measures of politics, I suggest you start a thread on it and state a position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 Kilmer, if its not the same thing, then you have a point. A perfectly pointless point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 The only valid point is that both parties use procedural techniques to stall or kill judicial nominations. Any distinction between the exact method used by the Demos now and the GOP in the past are meaningless. How you can get so self righteous about how you "proved your point" is beyond me. You have no point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 Kilmer, may I make a suggestion? If you're going to run with the big dogs then you better get some legs under you. Your whimpering almost makes me feel sorry for you, almost......, except for the fact that you refuse to retreat to your crate and lay down when the lack of valid and meaningful argument on your part clearly dictates that you should do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 2, 2003 Author Share Posted May 2, 2003 Kurp, it's absolutely sidesplitting hearing you claim victory when you were so thouroughly trashed. May I suggest you take your bruised ego back to your mother's teet to suckle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.