May 22, 2005

Half-Truth Harry Reid Trashed By Home State Paper

Nevada, like all 50 states, has two senators. John Ensign is a Republican in his first term, while Harry Reid, a Democrat, is the Senate Minority Leader. Which one do you suppose the Las Vegas Review-Journal is praising for being reasonable, and which is accused of engaging in paranoid hysteria?

If Nevadans wanted an accurate, abridged version of the Senate's debate over filibusters and judicial nominations, they needed only to watch their two senators on Wednesday.

Admittedly, John Ensign, a Republican, and Harry Reid, a Democrat, have decidedly different roles in the showdown. Sen. Ensign, in his first term in the upper house, is a rank-and-file member of the majority, while Sen. Reid, the minority leader, is the obstructionist left's commander in chief. But their comments on the Senate floor provided a defining contrast amid the blustery arguments.

Majority Republicans want to change Senate rules to prevent Democrats from taking the unprecedented step of blocking President Bush's judicial nominations with the unlimited debate of a filibuster. The president and majority leaders believe that because these nominees have majority support in the Senate, each should be entitled to a confirmation vote.

At the root of this confrontation is Democrats' lingering bitterness over another election defeat. They simply can't get over the fact that a majority of Americans have given Republicans control of both the White House and Congress. So Sen. Reid and his dwindling number of followers, desperate to hand some kind of defeat to a president they despise, have characterized a handful of judicial nominees as right-wing extremists. Their rhetoric comes across as paranoid hysteria.

"If Republicans roll back our rights in this chamber, there will be no check on their power," Sen. Reid said in his speech. "And not just on judges. Their power will be unchecked on Supreme Court nominees, the president's nominees in general ... and legislation like Social Security privatization."

Unchecked power? That's how it's described when Republicans simply exercise the majority status bestowed upon them by the American people?

Sen. Ensign delivered measured, reasonable remarks. He lamented that qualified jurists are increasingly uninterested in federal appointments because of the nasty games played in Washington -- for example, when Sen. Reid said that one nominee's confidential FBI file contained troubling allegations. Sen. Ensign urged that both parties come together and devise a system in which every nominee -- whether put forth by a Republican or Democratic president -- gets the courtesy of a vote.

"It is important for the American people and for our justice system that the Senate be allowed to fulfill its constitutional obligation to give these nominees an up or down vote," Sen. Ensign said.

Sen. Ensign's arguments win this debate.

The issue here is clear -- a minority cannot be allowed to keep a majority from confirming judges because it is unwilling to accept the results of the last four American elections, in which the American people have placed the GOP in power. The time has come to slap-down the unAmerican element of the Left which refuses to allow the the President elected by the American people and the Senators elected by the American people to carry out their constitutionally prescribed duties.

Posted by: Greg at 04:10 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 546 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Exactly.

Anybody who keeps bringing up filibustering as if it has always been a tradition will surely be laughed at. The tradition didn't start until 2003 when 214 years of tradition of an "up or down" vote for the nominee has always been the case. It was the Democrats (i.e. Liberals) who broke the tradition by instituting a filibuster. The only tradition in the filibustering was the rule changes that occurred in 1806, 1917, and 1975 where it now requires 3/5 (60 Senators) vote to end the filibuster.

Posted by: mcconnell at Sun May 22 05:03:06 2005 (94LEQ)

2 Sigh. The Democrats approved 206 out of 216 judges and you still whined about 10 left?

These are extremists that does not deserve to be on the bench. Not only that, they also ... will have a cloud over their heads wondering why so many hated them.

Jesus Christ.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Sun May 22 10:55:03 2005 (nWmj6)

3 Please quit mouthing DNC talking points and instead deal withthe REAL statistics on the confirmation rate on Bush appellate nominees, which is 53%.

http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/081710.php
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050511-085134-2511r.htm
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/004416.html

That compares to a post-WWII confirmation rate of 85.5 percent.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun May 22 12:15:19 2005 (pm2sM)

4 These are biased blogs to support Conservatives, wacky Xians and nutty Republicans.

I rather to use mine than yours.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Sun May 22 19:40:02 2005 (nWmj6)

5 And yet the numbers are the numbers, and as such are neither biased nor lies.

And that you would prefer to compare apples to oranges rather than apples to apples speaks volumes about your level of integrity.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun May 22 22:49:05 2005 (aD2ef)

6 In eight years, Clinton got 377 of his nominees approved by the Senate. In comparison, President Reagan got 382 nominees during his two terms and President Bush got ALL of his 193 nominees during his one term.

"In 1988, the Democrat-controlled Senate confirmed 41 Reagan judicial nominees," Hatch said. "After these four nominees are confirmed today, the Republican Senate this year will have confirmed 39 of President Clinton's judges, a nearly identical number."

And when the Senate (Republican controlled) approves the last 4 federal judges in October 4, 2000, the Democrats accused Republicans of holding up their judges.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/04/senate.judges.ap/

Ever since 2003, no judicial nominee who has enjoyed the support of a majority of senators has ever been denied an up-or-down vote. None.

This is what "R" is ignoring. The unprecedented filibustering. 10 nominees!

Here is a list of quotes from Democrats and Republicans who opposed judicial fillibusters in the past.
http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/record_jc.cfm?id=225342

Posted by: mcconnell at Mon May 23 03:18:08 2005 (z6Eaf)

7 Who cares? In the past, the Republicans distorted the facts -- so can we.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Mon May 23 09:34:21 2005 (nWmj6)

8 Which ones?

Posted by: mcconnell at Mon May 23 16:13:24 2005 (z6Eaf)

9 You knew! I am not going to look or pull the facts -- it is meaningless to do such a thing because you'll lie anyway.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Mon May 23 19:34:12 2005 (nWmj6)

10 Besides -- you've already admitted to being a bald-faced liar.

Why would we believe anything you tolks us in regard to this matter, since you've admitted you will lie about it to suit your purposes.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon May 23 23:18:04 2005 (50IQi)

11 I am by no means a mind reader, "R". Either put up or shut up to support your arguments. Yet, you want the world to believe you based on what you say alone?

Get real.

Posted by: mcconnell at Tue May 24 03:16:04 2005 (Tbivg)

12 I'll mention what is on the table, what I knew and what I read. Deal with it.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Tue May 24 13:28:23 2005 (nWmj6)

13 Ah, a typical response. So, that's how a Liberal works.

Posted by: mcconnell at Tue May 24 16:38:54 2005 (Tbivg)

14 [ REMOVED BY OWNER DUE TO USE OF INAPPROPRIATE LANGUAGE ]

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Wed May 25 13:56:09 2005 (nWmj6)

15 wrjflib bnie hczol

Posted by: sex at Mon Jun 2 12:51:51 2008 (QcmLz)

16 rqozn ucto vlwq yqfvt

Posted by: sex at Mon Jun 2 14:52:50 2008 (z4rEB)

17 vqmowet

Posted by: sex at Mon Jun 2 19:47:25 2008 (gjSsD)

18 njorm fsdciu

Posted by: japanese teens at Thu Jun 26 21:19:56 2008 (iBypH)

19 wrlexcv

Posted by: photo editing software at Fri Jul 4 02:32:47 2008 (Bi/vT)

20 bonwxp tfbp

Posted by: tiny virgins at Fri Jul 11 13:33:54 2008 (szaMr)

21 zrhw

Posted by: butt plug at Sat Jul 12 11:51:44 2008 (gmndN)

22 xpzvnjs fhbvts bugc zjhbytn

Posted by: teen guys at Sun Jul 13 04:39:15 2008 (MP3UU)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
16kb generated in CPU 0.0058, elapsed 0.0163 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0118 seconds, 51 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]