Reid Changing Filibuster Rules

[NYcarbineer]

Conservatives who used to hate the filibuster:

RUSH LIMBAUGH: "If the Senate Republicans are not prepared to end the unprecedented use by Senate Democrats of the filibuster rule against the president's judicial nominees, the president is going to have a real tough time getting these re-nominated candidates -- and for that matter -- Supreme Court nominees confirmed...

...The Constitution says nothing about this. The Constitution says simple majority, 51 votes...."

SEAN HANNITY: "There are seven specific instances in the Constitution where they call for a supermajority. I believe it's unconstitutional to filibuster. It is not about advice and consent now to ask for a supermajority on judicial nominations. I believe that is not constitutional."

RICH LOWRY: "Judicial Filibusters Are "A Perversion" Of Traditional Checks And Balances And Should Be Eliminated "Through The So-Called Nuclear Option." (2005)

KARL ROVE: "The Senate can debate, the Senate has a right to oppose, it has a right to support, but it has an obligation under the Constitution to offer its advice and consent by a vote. And it's only fair." [USA Today, 4/25/05]

WILLIAM KRISTOL: "Congress' role in approving executive-branch nominees is to have an up or down vote. There's no rationale for a filibuster in that case. That's why it's historically unprecedented." (2005)

THOMAS SOWELL: "Undoubtedly there will be a political price to pay if the Republicans force a Senate rule change to stop Democrats from filibustering judicial nominees. But where is there anything worthwhile that does not have a price?" (2005)

FLASHBACK: When Conservatives Decried Filibusters And Urged Senate Majority Leader To Use Nuclear Option | Research | Media Matters for America

Here's some more for ya...


1. Mitch McConnell (KY)
“Any President’s judicial nominees should receive careful consideration. But after that debate, they deserve a simple up-or-down vote” (5/19/05).
“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” (5/22/05).
2. John Cornyn (TX)
“[F]ilibusters of judicial nominations are uniquely offensive to our nation’s constitutional design” (6/4/03).
“[M]embers of this distinguished body have long and consistently obeyed an unwritten rule not to block the confirmation of judicial nominees by filibuster. But, this Senate tradition, this unwritten rule has now been broken and it is crucial that we find a way to ensure the rule won’t be broken in the future” (6/5/03).
3. Lamar Alexander (TN)
“If there is a Democratic President and I am in this body, and if he nominates a judge, I will never vote to deny a vote on that judge” (3/11/03).
“I would never filibuster any President's judicial nominee. Period” (6/9/05).
4. John McCain (AZ)
“I’ve always believed that [judicial nominees deserve yes-or-no votes]. There has to be extraordinary circumstances to vote against them. Elections have consequences” (6/18/13).
5. Chuck Grassley (IA)
“It would be a real constitutional crisis if we up the confirmation of judges from 51 to 60” (2/11/03).
“[W]e can’t find anywhere in the Constitution that says a supermajority is needed for confirmation” (5/8/05).
6. Saxby Chambliss (GA)
“I believe [filibustering judicial nominees] is in violation of the Constitution” (4/13/05).
7. Lindsey Graham (SC)
“I think filibustering judges will destroy the judiciary over time. I think it’s unconstitutional” (5/23/05).
8. Johnny Isakson (GA):
“I will vote to support a vote, up or down, on every nominee. Understanding that, were I in the minority party and the issues reversed, I would take exactly the same position because this document, our Constitution, does not equivocate” (5/19/05).
9. James Inhofe (OK)
“This outrageous grab for power by the Senate minority is wrong and contrary to our oath to support and defend the Constitution” (3/11/03).
10. Mike Crapo (ID)
“[T]he Constitution requires the Senate to hold up-or-down votes on all nominees” (5/25/05).
11 . Richard Shelby (AL)
“Why not allow the President to do his job of selecting judicial nominees and let us do our job in confirming or denying them? Principles of fairness call for it and the Constitution requires it” (11/12/03).
12. Orrin Hatch (UT)*
Filibustering judicial nominees is “unfair, dangerous, partisan, and unconstitutional” (1/12/05).
- See more at: Twelve Republicans Who Broke Their Pledge To Oppose Judicial Filibusters | Right Wing Watch

Wow...they said that?!? And then go on to filibuster President Obama's nominees to an unprecedented degree and then get pissed when Harry Reid enacts reform? Sheesh, it's like they're rank hypocrites or something.

I remember being on a different board back in 2005, and conservative opposition to the filibustering of judges was practically unanimous;

now look at this board, gee, can't imagine why conservative opinion has done a complete 180...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Here's some more for ya...


1. Mitch McConnell (KY)
“Any President’s judicial nominees should receive careful consideration. But after that debate, they deserve a simple up-or-down vote” (5/19/05).
“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” (5/22/05).
2. John Cornyn (TX)
“[F]ilibusters of judicial nominations are uniquely offensive to our nation’s constitutional design” (6/4/03).
“[M]embers of this distinguished body have long and consistently obeyed an unwritten rule not to block the confirmation of judicial nominees by filibuster. But, this Senate tradition, this unwritten rule has now been broken and it is crucial that we find a way to ensure the rule won’t be broken in the future” (6/5/03).
3. Lamar Alexander (TN)
“If there is a Democratic President and I am in this body, and if he nominates a judge, I will never vote to deny a vote on that judge” (3/11/03).
“I would never filibuster any President's judicial nominee. Period” (6/9/05).
4. John McCain (AZ)
“I’ve always believed that [judicial nominees deserve yes-or-no votes]. There has to be extraordinary circumstances to vote against them. Elections have consequences” (6/18/13).
5. Chuck Grassley (IA)
“It would be a real constitutional crisis if we up the confirmation of judges from 51 to 60” (2/11/03).
“[W]e can’t find anywhere in the Constitution that says a supermajority is needed for confirmation” (5/8/05).
6. Saxby Chambliss (GA)
“I believe [filibustering judicial nominees] is in violation of the Constitution” (4/13/05).
7. Lindsey Graham (SC)
“I think filibustering judges will destroy the judiciary over time. I think it’s unconstitutional” (5/23/05).
8. Johnny Isakson (GA):
“I will vote to support a vote, up or down, on every nominee. Understanding that, were I in the minority party and the issues reversed, I would take exactly the same position because this document, our Constitution, does not equivocate” (5/19/05).
9. James Inhofe (OK)
“This outrageous grab for power by the Senate minority is wrong and contrary to our oath to support and defend the Constitution” (3/11/03).
10. Mike Crapo (ID)
“[T]he Constitution requires the Senate to hold up-or-down votes on all nominees” (5/25/05).
11 . Richard Shelby (AL)
“Why not allow the President to do his job of selecting judicial nominees and let us do our job in confirming or denying them? Principles of fairness call for it and the Constitution requires it” (11/12/03).
12. Orrin Hatch (UT)*
Filibustering judicial nominees is “unfair, dangerous, partisan, and unconstitutional” (1/12/05).
- See more at: Twelve Republicans Who Broke Their Pledge To Oppose Judicial Filibusters | Right Wing Watch

Wow...they said that?!? And then go on to filibuster President Obama's nominees to an unprecedented degree and then get pissed when Harry Reid enacts reform? Sheesh, it's like they're rank hypocrites or something.

I remember being on a different board back in 2005, and conservative opposition to the filibustering of judges was practically unanimous;

now look at this board, gee, can't imagine why conservative opinion has done a complete 180...

Hey dumb ass how in the hell can you say that you remember when, when you weren't even a member here back in 2005? You are a lying sack of shit.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 37,697
Thanks: 616
Thanked 7,135 Times in 5,370 Posts
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1839

Or are you comparing two different boards?

 

[paperview]

Wow...they said that?!? And then go on to filibuster President Obama's nominees to an unprecedented degree and then get pissed when Harry Reid enacts reform? Sheesh, it's like they're rank hypocrites or something.

I remember being on a different board back in 2005, and conservative opposition to the filibustering of judges was practically unanimous;

now look at this board, gee, can't imagine why conservative opinion has done a complete 180...

Hey dumb ass how in the hell can you say that you remember when, when you weren't even a member here back in 2005? You are a lying sack of shit.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 37,697
Thanks: 616
Thanked 7,135 Times in 5,370 Posts
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1839

Can;t read very good, kenya?

 

[billyerock1991]

democrats play to win. republicans play to lose. big difference

Democrats will always have that advantage, and the reason for that is the way the two parties look at government in the first place.

Liberals have a significant affection for and devotion to government, a romantic notion of We The People all working together in a collective to make things better. The government, of course, is the instrument of that effort, so it's natural and easy for them to promote its power and influence at all times., and they're very passionate about it.

Conservatives don't share that affection or devotion, so they're essentially working at a disadvantage right off. So their challenge - and it may be too late at this point - is to convince Americans that the individual has the ability to improve their own lives. That's much tougher sell, an eat-your-vegetables message that must be phrased carefully.

Unfortunately for the GOP, too many of its messengers over the last several years don't appreciate how carefully that message must be delivered, and instead have gone with a simplistic, absolutist approach that has damaged the party by alienating many.

The party had better learn how to deliver its message more effectively before it's too late.

.

we have had a health care problem for the last 33 years ... time and time again we the people said we need help with health care ... the democrats tried to change the laws and were met with resistance from the right ... it was like the right were shooting themselves in the foot.... as time went on each and every year health care went up, on the whole about 15% or more .... where companies were constantly looking for the cheapest plan for their workers ... still noting was done about the cost... the people finally got sick of it ...

then finally when health insurance companies started canceling policy for preexisting condition, then putting a maximum on the plan, or even worse, canceling you over something you forgot 30, 40, years ago about .... that was the Crux of the biscuit ... it was time for all the greed to stop over health care, is ACA the best thing that ever happen ... I would say no ... I wold say its a 100 time better then what we had ... the people who are going to the exchanges who are seeing how good it is ...

but the people that accept what the cost of their health care is when they got their cancellation letter of their old policy ... then what the price of their new policy is, who didn't go to the health care exchange deserves what they get

 

[Seawytch]

I remember being on a different board back in 2005, and conservative opposition to the filibustering of judges was practically unanimous;

now look at this board, gee, can't imagine why conservative opinion has done a complete 180...

As was I and the conservatives on my old board were no different. All spoke in opposition of filibustering judicial nominees.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I remember being on a different board back in 2005, and conservative opposition to the filibustering of judges was practically unanimous;

now look at this board, gee, can't imagine why conservative opinion has done a complete 180...

Hey dumb ass how in the hell can you say that you remember when, when you weren't even a member here back in 2005? You are a lying sack of shit.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 37,697
Thanks: 616
Thanked 7,135 Times in 5,370 Posts
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1839

Can;t read very good, kenya?

No you can't read try again and look at the edit time and your post time shit stain.

 

[paperview]

I know, because I was on that board with carb back then.

He's right - conservative opposition to the filibustering of judges was practically unanimous.

It was that way all throughout the internetz.

 

[paperview]

Hey dumb ass how in the hell can you say that you remember when, when you weren't even a member here back in 2005? You are a lying sack of shit.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 37,697
Thanks: 616
Thanked 7,135 Times in 5,370 Posts
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1839

Can;t read very good, kenya?

No you can't read try again and look at the edit time and your post time shit stain.

It's the same time. 8:16. You made an edit cause you realized you fucked up when you said "Hey dumb ass how in the hell can you say that you remember when, when you weren't even a member here back in 2005?" and called him a liar.

You don't think we can see that?

 

[sarahgop]

Conservatives who used to hate the filibuster:

RUSH LIMBAUGH: "If the Senate Republicans are not prepared to end the unprecedented use by Senate Democrats of the filibuster rule against the president's judicial nominees, the president is going to have a real tough time getting these re-nominated candidates -- and for that matter -- Supreme Court nominees confirmed...

...The Constitution says nothing about this. The Constitution says simple majority, 51 votes...."

SEAN HANNITY: "There are seven specific instances in the Constitution where they call for a supermajority. I believe it's unconstitutional to filibuster. It is not about advice and consent now to ask for a supermajority on judicial nominations. I believe that is not constitutional."

RICH LOWRY: "Judicial Filibusters Are "A Perversion" Of Traditional Checks And Balances And Should Be Eliminated "Through The So-Called Nuclear Option." (2005)

KARL ROVE: "The Senate can debate, the Senate has a right to oppose, it has a right to support, but it has an obligation under the Constitution to offer its advice and consent by a vote. And it's only fair." [USA Today, 4/25/05]

WILLIAM KRISTOL: "Congress' role in approving executive-branch nominees is to have an up or down vote. There's no rationale for a filibuster in that case. That's why it's historically unprecedented." (2005)

THOMAS SOWELL: "Undoubtedly there will be a political price to pay if the Republicans force a Senate rule change to stop Democrats from filibustering judicial nominees. But where is there anything worthwhile that does not have a price?" (2005)

FLASHBACK: When Conservatives Decried Filibusters And Urged Senate Majority Leader To Use Nuclear Option | Research | Media Matters for America

hypocrisy abounds on all sides.

 

[billyerock1991]

They may or may not be qualified, but what about those who legislate from the bench?
You fucking traitor.

you mean like the traitor republicans are ???? those traitors??? corporations are people ??? if thats not a traitorous ruling from the bench I don't know what is... or the republicans who legislate from the benck over the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, what about that one ??? seems you wouldn't know legislation from the bench if you saw it ... corporations are people give me a break...

liberals you fucking twit want to transform this country away from what it fundamentally use to be. which makes liberals traitors.

repub-lie-tards you fucking twit !!!!! want to transform this country away from what it fundamentally use to be. which makes repub-lie-tards traitors

everything these repub-lie-tards touch, health care in 1970, they fucked it ...banking in 1999 to 2003, they fucked us all out of our retirements ... finally we get a piece of hope for healthy care ... instead of these repub-lie-tards setting up exchanges in their states they chose not to ... where are pople having problems the most??? every state that didn't set up their exchange ... repub-lie-tyards fuck everything the touch ...

 

[peach174]

Harry Reid did this so that they can get activist Judges in the D. C. court.

The counter by Repubs should be, if they get the Senate in 2014 and keep the House, is to write legislation that would bring up Judges to a review board when they make their own laws like they are doing now and then can get fired for doing that.

The problem with this is President Obama would veto it.
So they would have to do this when they would get a Repub President maybe in 2016.

 

[billyerock1991]

Conservatives who used to hate the filibuster:

RUSH LIMBAUGH: "If the Senate Republicans are not prepared to end the unprecedented use by Senate Democrats of the filibuster rule against the president's judicial nominees, the president is going to have a real tough time getting these re-nominated candidates -- and for that matter -- Supreme Court nominees confirmed...

...The Constitution says nothing about this. The Constitution says simple majority, 51 votes...."

SEAN HANNITY: "There are seven specific instances in the Constitution where they call for a supermajority. I believe it's unconstitutional to filibuster. It is not about advice and consent now to ask for a supermajority on judicial nominations. I believe that is not constitutional."

RICH LOWRY: "Judicial Filibusters Are "A Perversion" Of Traditional Checks And Balances And Should Be Eliminated "Through The So-Called Nuclear Option." (2005)

KARL ROVE: "The Senate can debate, the Senate has a right to oppose, it has a right to support, but it has an obligation under the Constitution to offer its advice and consent by a vote. And it's only fair." [USA Today, 4/25/05]

WILLIAM KRISTOL: "Congress' role in approving executive-branch nominees is to have an up or down vote. There's no rationale for a filibuster in that case. That's why it's historically unprecedented." (2005)

THOMAS SOWELL: "Undoubtedly there will be a political price to pay if the Republicans force a Senate rule change to stop Democrats from filibustering judicial nominees. But where is there anything worthwhile that does not have a price?" (2005)

FLASHBACK: When Conservatives Decried Filibusters And Urged Senate Majority Leader To Use Nuclear Option | Research | Media Matters for America

Here's some more for ya...


1. Mitch McConnell (KY)
“Any President’s judicial nominees should receive careful consideration. But after that debate, they deserve a simple up-or-down vote” (5/19/05).
“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” (5/22/05).
2. John Cornyn (TX)
“[F]ilibusters of judicial nominations are uniquely offensive to our nation’s constitutional design” (6/4/03).
“[M]embers of this distinguished body have long and consistently obeyed an unwritten rule not to block the confirmation of judicial nominees by filibuster. But, this Senate tradition, this unwritten rule has now been broken and it is crucial that we find a way to ensure the rule won’t be broken in the future” (6/5/03).
3. Lamar Alexander (TN)
“If there is a Democratic President and I am in this body, and if he nominates a judge, I will never vote to deny a vote on that judge” (3/11/03).
“I would never filibuster any President's judicial nominee. Period” (6/9/05).
4. John McCain (AZ)
“I’ve always believed that [judicial nominees deserve yes-or-no votes]. There has to be extraordinary circumstances to vote against them. Elections have consequences” (6/18/13).
5. Chuck Grassley (IA)
“It would be a real constitutional crisis if we up the confirmation of judges from 51 to 60” (2/11/03).
“[W]e can’t find anywhere in the Constitution that says a supermajority is needed for confirmation” (5/8/05).
6. Saxby Chambliss (GA)
“I believe [filibustering judicial nominees] is in violation of the Constitution” (4/13/05).
7. Lindsey Graham (SC)
“I think filibustering judges will destroy the judiciary over time. I think it’s unconstitutional” (5/23/05).
8. Johnny Isakson (GA):
“I will vote to support a vote, up or down, on every nominee. Understanding that, were I in the minority party and the issues reversed, I would take exactly the same position because this document, our Constitution, does not equivocate” (5/19/05).
9. James Inhofe (OK)
“This outrageous grab for power by the Senate minority is wrong and contrary to our oath to support and defend the Constitution” (3/11/03).
10. Mike Crapo (ID)
“[T]he Constitution requires the Senate to hold up-or-down votes on all nominees” (5/25/05).
11 . Richard Shelby (AL)
“Why not allow the President to do his job of selecting judicial nominees and let us do our job in confirming or denying them? Principles of fairness call for it and the Constitution requires it” (11/12/03).
12. Orrin Hatch (UT)*
Filibustering judicial nominees is “unfair, dangerous, partisan, and unconstitutional” (1/12/05).
- See more at: Twelve Republicans Who Broke Their Pledge To Oppose Judicial Filibusters | Right Wing Watch

oh how they forget... it's that selective repub-lie-tard memory

 

[paperview]

Harry Reid did this so that they can get activist Judges in the D. C. court.

The counter by Repubs should be, if they get the Senate in 2014 and keep the House, is to write legislation that would bring up Judges to a review board when they make their own laws like they are doing now and then can get fired for doing that.

The problem with this is President Obama would veto it.
So they would have to do this when they would get a Repub President maybe in 2016.

Not a fan of the constitution, are you?

 

[Seawytch]

Harry Reid did this so that they can get activist Judges in the D. C. court.

The counter by Repubs should be, if they get the Senate in 2014 and keep the House, is to write legislation that would bring up Judges to a review board when they make their own laws like they are doing now and then can get fired for doing that.

The problem with this is President Obama would veto it.
So they would have to do this when they would get a Repub President maybe in 2016.

So name them. Which "activist judges" have been being held up?

 

[billyerock1991]

democrats play to win. republicans play to lose. big difference

Democrats will always have that advantage, and the reason for that is the way the two parties look at government in the first place.

Liberals have a significant affection for and devotion to government, a romantic notion of We The People all working together in a collective to make things better. The government, of course, is the instrument of that effort, so it's natural and easy for them to promote its power and influence at all times., and they're very passionate about it.

Conservatives don't share that affection or devotion, so they're essentially working at a disadvantage right off. So their challenge - and it may be too late at this point - is to convince Americans that the individual has the ability to improve their own lives. That's much tougher sell, an eat-your-vegetables message that must be phrased carefully.

Unfortunately for the GOP, too many of its messengers over the last several years don't appreciate how carefully that message must be delivered, and instead have gone with a simplistic, absolutist approach that has damaged the party by alienating many.

The party had better learn how to deliver its message more effectively before it's too late.

.

Here's the way to rid this country of liberals. Let obama have everything he wants. within five years people will wake up when obamas failed policy starts taking more money than they make.

the only time we've lost money in our jobs and life was under republican rule ... when we made money up the ass it was under democrat regulations and tax increases ... never under any republican in office ...

 

[billyerock1991]

Conservatives who used to hate the filibuster:

RUSH LIMBAUGH: "If the Senate Republicans are not prepared to end the unprecedented use by Senate Democrats of the filibuster rule against the president's judicial nominees, the president is going to have a real tough time getting these re-nominated candidates -- and for that matter -- Supreme Court nominees confirmed...

...The Constitution says nothing about this. The Constitution says simple majority, 51 votes...."

SEAN HANNITY: "There are seven specific instances in the Constitution where they call for a supermajority. I believe it's unconstitutional to filibuster. It is not about advice and consent now to ask for a supermajority on judicial nominations. I believe that is not constitutional."

RICH LOWRY: "Judicial Filibusters Are "A Perversion" Of Traditional Checks And Balances And Should Be Eliminated "Through The So-Called Nuclear Option." (2005)

KARL ROVE: "The Senate can debate, the Senate has a right to oppose, it has a right to support, but it has an obligation under the Constitution to offer its advice and consent by a vote. And it's only fair." [USA Today, 4/25/05]

WILLIAM KRISTOL: "Congress' role in approving executive-branch nominees is to have an up or down vote. There's no rationale for a filibuster in that case. That's why it's historically unprecedented." (2005)

THOMAS SOWELL: "Undoubtedly there will be a political price to pay if the Republicans force a Senate rule change to stop Democrats from filibustering judicial nominees. But where is there anything worthwhile that does not have a price?" (2005)

FLASHBACK: When Conservatives Decried Filibusters And Urged Senate Majority Leader To Use Nuclear Option | Research | Media Matters for America

Here's some more for ya...


1. Mitch McConnell (KY)
“Any President’s judicial nominees should receive careful consideration. But after that debate, they deserve a simple up-or-down vote” (5/19/05).
“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” (5/22/05).
2. John Cornyn (TX)
“[F]ilibusters of judicial nominations are uniquely offensive to our nation’s constitutional design” (6/4/03).
“[M]embers of this distinguished body have long and consistently obeyed an unwritten rule not to block the confirmation of judicial nominees by filibuster. But, this Senate tradition, this unwritten rule has now been broken and it is crucial that we find a way to ensure the rule won’t be broken in the future” (6/5/03).
3. Lamar Alexander (TN)
“If there is a Democratic President and I am in this body, and if he nominates a judge, I will never vote to deny a vote on that judge” (3/11/03).
“I would never filibuster any President's judicial nominee. Period” (6/9/05).
4. John McCain (AZ)
“I’ve always believed that [judicial nominees deserve yes-or-no votes]. There has to be extraordinary circumstances to vote against them. Elections have consequences” (6/18/13).
5. Chuck Grassley (IA)
“It would be a real constitutional crisis if we up the confirmation of judges from 51 to 60” (2/11/03).
“[W]e can’t find anywhere in the Constitution that says a supermajority is needed for confirmation” (5/8/05).
6. Saxby Chambliss (GA)
“I believe [filibustering judicial nominees] is in violation of the Constitution” (4/13/05).
7. Lindsey Graham (SC)
“I think filibustering judges will destroy the judiciary over time. I think it’s unconstitutional” (5/23/05).
8. Johnny Isakson (GA):
“I will vote to support a vote, up or down, on every nominee. Understanding that, were I in the minority party and the issues reversed, I would take exactly the same position because this document, our Constitution, does not equivocate” (5/19/05).
9. James Inhofe (OK)
“This outrageous grab for power by the Senate minority is wrong and contrary to our oath to support and defend the Constitution” (3/11/03).
10. Mike Crapo (ID)
“[T]he Constitution requires the Senate to hold up-or-down votes on all nominees” (5/25/05).
11 . Richard Shelby (AL)
“Why not allow the President to do his job of selecting judicial nominees and let us do our job in confirming or denying them? Principles of fairness call for it and the Constitution requires it” (11/12/03).
12. Orrin Hatch (UT)*
Filibustering judicial nominees is “unfair, dangerous, partisan, and unconstitutional” (1/12/05).
- See more at: Twelve Republicans Who Broke Their Pledge To Oppose Judicial Filibusters | Right Wing Watch

Wow...they said that?!? And then go on to filibuster President Obama's nominees to an unprecedented degree and then get pissed when Harry Reid enacts reform? Sheesh, it's like they're rank hypocrites or something.

they do rank in hypocrites over all politicians

 

[peach174]

Harry Reid did this so that they can get activist Judges in the D. C. court.

The counter by Repubs should be, if they get the Senate in 2014 and keep the House, is to write legislation that would bring up Judges to a review board when they make their own laws like they are doing now and then can get fired for doing that.

The problem with this is President Obama would veto it.
So they would have to do this when they would get a Repub President maybe in 2016.

Not a fan of the constitution, are you?

I am very much so a fan of the constitution.
The Constitution is for 3 branches of government that are separate and Judges making their own law is unconstitutional, the congress is suppose to do that.
Judges are suppose to Judge on laws passed by congress. Not make their own laws.

 

[billyerock1991]

Conservatives who used to hate the filibuster:

RUSH LIMBAUGH: "If the Senate Republicans are not prepared to end the unprecedented use by Senate Democrats of the filibuster rule against the president's judicial nominees, the president is going to have a real tough time getting these re-nominated candidates -- and for that matter -- Supreme Court nominees confirmed...

...The Constitution says nothing about this. The Constitution says simple majority, 51 votes...."

SEAN HANNITY: "There are seven specific instances in the Constitution where they call for a supermajority. I believe it's unconstitutional to filibuster. It is not about advice and consent now to ask for a supermajority on judicial nominations. I believe that is not constitutional."

RICH LOWRY: "Judicial Filibusters Are "A Perversion" Of Traditional Checks And Balances And Should Be Eliminated "Through The So-Called Nuclear Option." (2005)

KARL ROVE: "The Senate can debate, the Senate has a right to oppose, it has a right to support, but it has an obligation under the Constitution to offer its advice and consent by a vote. And it's only fair." [USA Today, 4/25/05]

WILLIAM KRISTOL: "Congress' role in approving executive-branch nominees is to have an up or down vote. There's no rationale for a filibuster in that case. That's why it's historically unprecedented." (2005)

THOMAS SOWELL: "Undoubtedly there will be a political price to pay if the Republicans force a Senate rule change to stop Democrats from filibustering judicial nominees. But where is there anything worthwhile that does not have a price?" (2005)

FLASHBACK: When Conservatives Decried Filibusters And Urged Senate Majority Leader To Use Nuclear Option | Research | Media Matters for America

hypocrisy abounds on all sides.

this is true but the republicans have a 10 to 1 ratio ... for ever one liberal there are 10 republican

 

[billyerock1991]

Harry Reid did this so that they can get activist Judges in the D. C. court.

The counter by Repubs should be, if they get the Senate in 2014 and keep the House, is to write legislation that would bring up Judges to a review board when they make their own laws like they are doing now and then can get fired for doing that.

The problem with this is President Obama would veto it.
So they would have to do this when they would get a Repub President maybe in 2016.

sucks to be you ...

 

[Seawytch]

Harry Reid did this so that they can get activist Judges in the D. C. court.

The counter by Repubs should be, if they get the Senate in 2014 and keep the House, is to write legislation that would bring up Judges to a review board when they make their own laws like they are doing now and then can get fired for doing that.

The problem with this is President Obama would veto it.
So they would have to do this when they would get a Repub President maybe in 2016.

Not a fan of the constitution, are you?

I am very much so a fan of the constitution.
The Constitution is for 3 branches of government that are separate and Judges making their own law is unconstitutional, the congress is suppose to do that.
Judges are suppose to Judge on laws passed by congress. Not make their own laws.

Since you won't name the "activist judges" whose nominations are being held up (like that woman who served under Bush II), can you name the laws they are "making"?