Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Fillibuster-Phobic Republicans Demanding Up-or-Down Votes

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
pilsner Donating Member (227 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-09 09:39 AM
Original message
Fillibuster-Phobic Republicans Demanding Up-or-Down Votes
Edited on Sat Feb-21-09 09:48 AM by pilsner
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison
"They have gotten away with obstructing by exploiting the filibuster and denying Justice Owen a direct vote. Now, unfortunately, we must take action to ensure President Bush's nominees are getting the up-or-down vote they deserve." (4/21/05 statement)

Sen. Orrin Hatch
"...I think we should bind both Democrats and Republicans that presidential nominees for the judiciary deserve an up-and-down vote once they reach the floor..." (Orrin Hatch discusses debate in Senate..., NPR, 5/19/05)

Sen. Jon Kyl
"All we seek is a return to 214 years of tradition in allowing presidential nominees the courtesy of an up-or-down vote." (Kyl Calls for `Up or Down' Vote on Judicial Nominees,' Capitol Hill Press Releases, 5/18/05)

Sen. Rick Santorum
"The time has come for the Senate to reestablish that tradition, to end these destructive judicial filibusters and to give all judicial nominees the up-or-down vote they deserve." (Should the Senate end Filibusters When Considering Judicial Appointments, Duluth News Tribune, 4/25/05)

Sen. Trent Lott
"...I felt they deserved up-or-down votes. It was not a popular action with my colleagues, but I didn't think it was right to filibuster judicial nominees then. And it's not right now." (Lott Sets the Record Straight on Judicial Confirmation Issue, 4/26/05)

Sen. John Cornyn
"And we need to get a fresh start. And that means, I believe, an up-or-down vote for all presidents' nominees whether they be Republican or Democrat." (U.S. Senator John Cornyn Holds a News Conference on Judicial Nominees, CQ Transcriptions, 5/9/05)

Sen. Mitch McConnell
"Let's get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president's nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who's in control of the Senate. That's the way we need to operate." (Senators Durbin & McConnell Discuss Issues Facing the Senate, CNN, 5/22/05)

Sen. Jeff Sessions
"This past election in large part hinged, as George Allen said, on a debate over the judiciary and whether or not obstruction was justified. I think the American people sent a clear message and I believe it's time for this Senate to make sure that judges get an up-or-down vote." (U.S. Sen. Allen & Other Senate Republicans Hold a Media Availability on the Possibility of a Democrat Filibuster, CQ Transcriptions, 3/15/05)

Sen. Richard Burr
"But denying these patriotic Americans, of both parties, who seek to serve this country an up-or-down vote is simply not fair, and it certainly was not the intention of our Founding Fathers when they designed and created this very institution." (Sen. Burr Speaks Out on Judicial Nominations, 4/20/05)

Sen. Sam Brownback
"All of the president's nominees-both now and in the future-deserve a fair up or down vote, regardless of whether some members of the Senate feel they can be filibustered based on whatever they define to be extraordinary circumstances." (Sen. Brownback Issues Statement on Judicial Nominees, 5/24/05)

Sen. John Thune
"However, I still believe that all judicial nominees with majority support deserve the fairness of an up or down vote on the Senate floor... Something is broken when you can't get a fair up or down vote, not because of qualifications or character, but because of politics." (Senators Find Good in Filibuster Agreement, AP, 5/24/05)

Sen. George Allen
"They want Senators to do their jobs and hold a straight up-or-down vote on nominees based on their qualifications, not the baseless negative rhetoric of the left...In summation, Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and all of the President's nominees, deserve a fair up-or-down vote." (U.S. Senator George Allen Deliver Remarks on the Senate Floor on Judicial Nominations, CQ Transcriptions, 5/18/05)

Sen. Chuck Hagel
"I am disappointed that the agreement reached by 14 senators does not guarantee up-or-down votes on all of the president's nominees...That is a basic principle that should have anchored any agreement." (Hagel Calls Senators' Pact Inadequate, Omaha World-Herald, 5/25/05)

Sen. Pete Domenici
"Since the day I came to the U.S. Senate in 1973, I have believed strongly that every nominee deserves an up or down vote. That is why over all these years, I have never once voted to filibuster any nominee, even the ones that I ended up opposing. I am truly saddened that the Senate has reached this point. We should resume our long-standing tradition of giving judicial nominees who reach the floor an up or down vote." (Sen. Domenici Laments Continued Judicial Filibusters, 5/19/05)

Sen. Charles Grassley
"The current obstruction led by Senate Democratic leaders threatens that balance. Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown deserve an up or down vote. It's high time to make sure all judges receive a fair up or down vote on the Senate floor." (Grassley: Give Judges a Fair Up or Down Vote, CQ, 5/23/05)

Sen. Wayne Allard
"I'd made my position clear. I wanted to have an up- or-down vote on the judges." (Freshman Salazar Stands with his Seniors, The Denver Post, 5/24/05)

Sens. Larry Craig and Mike Crapo
"We are pleased that three of the President's judicial nominees will receive fair up-or-down votes - it is about time. However, we continue to stress that the Constitution requires the Senate to hold up-or-down votes on all nominees. We will continue to work to ensure that is the case." (Craig, Crapo React to Judicial Nominees Deal, 5/25/05)

Sen. Ted Stevens
"I may not have always agreed with a judicial nominee pick, but I've never voted against cloture on a judicial nomination. There have been some petitions. And I've always agreed that we should allow an up-or-down vote on judicial nominations on the Senate floor. These nominees deserve our vote." (Press Conference on Judges, Federal News Service, 5/19/05)

Sen. Jim DeMint
"My goal is to confirm highly qualified judges by ensuring timely up-or-down votes for all nominees... Every nominee, no matter if the President is Democrat or Republican, deserves an up-or-down vote," (Sens. DeMint, Freshman GOP Call for end to Judicial Filibusters, 4/20/05)

Sen. Elizabeth Dole
"I think that it's very important that we reinstate the tradition, the Senate tradition, of 220 years, throughout the entire history of the United States. We've had a system that worked, that, when a nominee on the floor has a clear majority of the senators in favor, that they're going to get that up-or-down vote." (Interview with Senator Elizabeth Dole, The Big Story with John Gibson, 4/21/05)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
maseman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-09 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
1. Greatest list of quotes I have ever seen
Everyone on DU needs to archive this and send to each of these politicians the next time we have a senate vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-09 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Why do Republicans get away with re-writing history?
It seems like every time they pull a hypocritical temper tantrum, the press lets them forget about their own actions even just a year earlier. Why do they get to rewrite history or just ignore it and get away with it? Whose side is the media on?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-09 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Because they own the media outlets.
Thank God for the internet.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pilsner Donating Member (227 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-09 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
4. Great letter in my hometown newspaper about the fillibuster
Filibuster has morphed into a tool for mischief
Saturday, February 21, 2009 3:06 AM


A few liberal columnists and bloggers call for abolishing the filibuster, and conservative editorial pages, including that of The Dispatch, explode in righteous defense of the rights of the minority to require supermajorities for almost any piece of legislation to pass the Senate ("Long-term wisdom," Monday editorial).

First, The Dispatch is flat wrong about what happened a few years ago. The editorial said that Republicans proposed to abolish the filibuster. They proposed abolishing filibusters only for judicial nominations. And they proposed to do it by having the vice president, who presides over the Senate, simply declare them unconstitutional, rather than having the Senate actually vote to change the rules.

The filibuster is an informal part of our governing system. The Constitution does not mention it. It is one of many devices we have devised in a democratic system to protect minorities from overbearing majorities.

To work properly, however, it must be used with restraint, where the issues are really fundamental. It should not be used just to tie up the operations of Congress so that the minority party can charge the majority with inefficiency and incompetence.

This is what Republicans, led by then-Kansas Sen. Bob Dole, did to discredit Bill Clinton and the Democrats after Clinton became president in 1993, and this is what they are preparing to do to President Barack Obama. The problem is that a filibuster is no longer really a filibuster.

Until the 1970s, a filibuster required a dedicated minority to keep control of the floor of the Senate, preventing a vote on a measure that they deeply opposed. People spoke until they were hoarse; they slept in cots on the Senate floor. No other business could take place except with the minority's consent, on the understanding that the floor would be returned to them immediately. The majority tried to break the minority's will by keeping the Senate in session day and night.

It took a two-thirds vote of the Senate to close off such debate, a number later reduced to 60 votes out of 100. Of course, only the most important legislation, when fervently opposed, precipitated such a struggle.

But rather than stop all Senate business, the custom has grown since the 1970s just to let the minority say they want to filibuster a measure and then to require 60 votes to pass it as a matter of routine. There is no pain, no need to show any real commitment.

Naturally, they do it more and more and often just to stalemate Congress so that in the next election they can claim it hasn't accomplished anything. The number of filibusters has multiplied over and again as a consequence.

Something darn well ought to be done about that. If nothing else, require a real filibuster. If the minority feels that strongly about a measure, let its members stay up all night, get hoarse speaking and feel the heat from the voters about holding up all the other business of the Senate.

But stop this undemocratic farce where nearly every bill has to pass with 60 votes, something that the Framers of the Constitution never intended and that makes it almost impossible for those responsible to govern, even in the direst emergencies.

http://dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2009/02/21/Benedict_SAT_ART_02-21-09_A7_O9CVMKM.html?sid=101
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lochloosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-09 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
5. K/R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-09 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
6. M-m-m-mem'ries-s-s-z-z-z, light the corners of my mi-i-i-i-nd
Ah, the way we were. Fortunately, nobody in the GOP or the popular media remember anything about this, so down the Memory Hole it goes. Whoosh!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC