Y'all are a bunch of wankers!

204, 10, 7, and the Senate

204 is the number of judicial nominees made by Mr. Bush and approved by the full senate.

10 is the number not approved, by Democratic action in the Senate. They are not approved because of their views and their writings.

7 is the number of the original 10, not approved, that Mr. Bush has re-nominated.

One of the 7 has said "Slavery was a blessing to white people."

How do the Democrats, being in the minority, block approval? The Republicans have changed the rules so they can't do what the Republicans did to Clinton, and block it in committee. So the Democrats use the Filibuster rule in the Senate to block these last few nominations. This requires a 2/3 majority (60 people, in the Senate) to close debate on an issue. There's only 54 Republicans.

The Republicans used the Filibuster rule to block Abe Forta's nomination to the Supreme Court under Johnson.

As a result, Mr. Frist of the Senate is threatening to use "the nuclear option". He is threatening to use their slim majority to change the Filibuster rule.

This is yet another example of the Republican's abuse of power. Mr. Clinton and the Democrats were thwarted in their judicial nominees, but the Republicans and Mr. Bush will allow no obstacles. Any obstacle to the most extreme nominee must be swept away. And in their short-sightedness, they want to change a 200 year old rule, designed to protect the minority from abuse by the majority.

Mr. Bush should bite the bullet, and name 7 new nominees. I can't believe there are not 7 people out there who are both conservative enough and available enough to meet Mr. Bush's desires to end what he calls "judicial activism" -- yet another catch phrase for "keeping me from doing whatever the hell I want to do".

And the Supreme Court is going to need a new justice one of these days. What then?

So, when the Democrats are accused of being radical because they don't approve the most conservative judges, just remember:
204 approved. 10 blocked. Mr. Bush: 7 re-appointed. The Senate has spoken in its role of advise and consent. Mr. Bush, and the Republicans, are just not listening.
Permalink AllanL5 
March 24th, 2005
It's Fortas', not Forta's. The guy's name was Fortas.

As for the slavery quote, I am always suspiscious of single quotes devoid of context. One of the nominees the dems smeared as a racist was a long time civil rights fighter who stood up to the Klan before it became fashionable and when it was, in fact, dangerous. The evidence that he was a racist was that in a cross burning case he thought the mastermind got off easy by informing on one of the people who was just going along. The judge didn't think that was fair and asked for a review. BFD.

That said, the country is pretty evenly split and the dems should take steps to prevent Bush from packing the court. THe republicans would be stupid to eliminate the filibuster. The filibuster is an inately conservative device.
Permalink Name withheld out of cowardice 
March 24th, 2005
If the Republicans do eliminate filibuster, then eventually the pendulum of politics will swing the other way and the Democrats will be in charge, and when that happens I hope they run roughshod over everything the Republicans have done.
Permalink Aaron F Stanton 
March 24th, 2005
"Slavery was a blessing to white people."

umm....it was, surely. aside from the moral corruption of course, but other than that having a heap of people working for free was no doubt a real blessing to those who benefited.

why is that a bad thing to say?
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 24th, 2005
> why is that a bad thing to say?

Just guessing -- any religious connotation of the word "blessing" implies: "Slavery was a blessing [granted] to white people [by God]."
Permalink Christopher Wells 
March 24th, 2005
ah. yes, now you mention it I can see how that particular connotation of the word 'blessing' used in that particular context could really get up peoples noses.

is that how he meant it?
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 24th, 2005
> is that how he meant it?

If you're asking me to cite the context of the quote so that you can judge his intent, I don't know it.

Given only the information quoted in the article, IMO a judge (and not for example an advocate trying to sway a jury) should be able to say "benefit" if he means "benefit".
Permalink Christopher Wells 
March 24th, 2005
I'm sure if the quote were "Slavery was a disaster to white people" that you'd be Ok with it? Because that could be interpreted to mean whitey would be a lot better off because black people are ruining society, or it could be interpreted to mean that slavery itself is destructive. One meaning is highly offensive to most people, the other is affirming.

Point: Quotes out of context are meaningless.
Permalink ronk! 
March 24th, 2005
I don't see that the slavery comment is offensive. I'd have to see the context in which the statement was made to even begin to think about being upset by it.
Permalink Rich Rogers 
March 24th, 2005
You are all missing the point. The point of senate confirmation is to make sure the executive isn't packing the court with cronies and people who aren't qualified. To deny someone based on what they've written or said means that you can only nominate those who are carefull enough not to publicly voice an opinion.
Permalink Miles Archer 
March 24th, 2005
"...means that you can only nominate those who are carefull enough not to publicly voice an opinion."

It seems to me that this is how the electoral process works too. Anyone who voices other than the blandest and safest of neutral opinions will become unelectable.
Permalink Ian Boys 
March 24th, 2005
"The Republicans used the Filibuster rule to block Abe Forta's nomination to the Supreme Court under Johnson."

But that was a true filibuster where someone had to stand and talk continuously.

This is a "gentleman's filibuster" where someone just announces "I'm filibustering" and they don't have to do jack.

I think the filibuster is a great idea, but the Dems need to grow some balls and actually do it.
Permalink KC 
March 24th, 2005
And this addresses the Republican's threat to entirely REMOVE the filibuster... how?

Their argument is that the Democrats are being radical to use the filibuster in this way. Yet the Republicans DID use the filibuster in this way. They don't address their own radicalism, nor the reaction they would have had should the Democrats have suggested removal of the filibuster.

So now the Republicans are going to use this pretense that the Democrats are "abusing" the filibuster to remove it entirely. Darn, this sounds more and more familiar to other pretenses the neo-cons have used to justify other actions.
Permalink AllanL5 
March 26th, 2005

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: March, 2005 Other topics: March, 2005 Recent topics Recent topics