It's funny that the republicans never seem to want to mention the other 200 judical appointments by Bush that did get through. They never want to mention the 30 other vacancies in the courts that Bush has had no interest in filling. They surely don't mention the 70 judges that they blocked from an up and down vote during the Clinton administration. And they don't like talking about the fact that Frist voted in favor of using a filibuster against Judge Richard Paez, then tried to lie about it later. (It was nice to see him squirm on that question.)

If you look though, at the level of court we're talking, being the highest appellate courts, Carter got 100% through, Reagan 96, Bush Sr. 95, and Clinton 86%. GW Bush has gotten 53% of the higher court nominees through. A clear difference.

Not sure where you are getting your numbers. According to the NY Times:

Appellate Court

Carter - 93%
Reagan - 89%
Bush 1 - 76%
Clinton - 59%
Bush 2 - 53%

District Court

Carter - 93%
Reagan - 92%
Bush 1 - 77%
Clinton - 81%
Bush 2 - 87%

Apparently Rick Santorum compared Democrats to Hitler today. I'm looking for the official transcript. Nice.

Does Godwin's Law apply to the Senate?

This guy really needs to go. :rolleyes:

well, if you think about it, a filibuster of a judicial nominee is obviously a distaste for that certain nominee that is strong enough to use such measures in an attempt to maintain a check on the power of one party over another, something that was argued for extensively during the constitutional convention. It seems and feels obvious to me that the minority should have the opportunity to voice and innact this vote of no-confidence in the choice of the executive. It's not like a filibuster is not breakable, its just in this case it is because the nominations are so distastful in the minds and hearts of a group of people that believe giving consent to these persons with the ideals they hold are bad for america. just my $1.50.

I know, I am missing a few commas and possibly some other punctuation above, just don't feel like putting them in.

MBC - I have read so many different numbers on the subject I don't know which to site. I went to look again for the numbers I had listed previously and I have found many differing statistics. All show Bush, overall, at the lowest judicial confirmation rate of any modern President. I would also add that the length of time it is taking to get his nominations confirmed is almost twice as long as Clintons took - and Clintons took too long as well.

Some interesting quotes I found while looking around -

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) Previously Said He Would Fight Any Filibuster. "I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate should do its duty." (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 6/18/98, p. S6521)

In 1998, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Said: "We Owe It To Americans Across The Country To Give These Nominees A Vote. If Our Republican Colleagues Don't Like Them, Vote Against Them. But Give Them A Vote." (Sen. Edward Kennedy, Congressional Record, 2/3/98, p. S295)

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) Said Government Does Not Fulfill Its "Constitutional Mandate" When Judicial Nominees Do Not Receive A Vote. "The basic issue of holding up judgeships is the issue before us, not the qualifications of judges, which we can always debate. The problem is it takes so long for us to debate those qualifications. It is an example of Government not fulfilling its constitutional mandate because the President nominates, and we are charged with voting on the nominees." (Sen. Charles Schumer, Congressional Record, 3/7/00, p. S1211)

Interesting how things change. I have also read about Paez and how his was held up during the Clinton administration - equally wrong, IMO. The Constitution is clear, and even these three senators saw that prior to bush being elected. Schumer stated that not voting was failing to fulfill their constitutional mandate. I wonder if he would say the same thing now. I wonder if Leahy feels he isn't performing his duty now. I wonder if Kennedy feels it is owed to the American people to give these nominees a vote.

I wish.:rolleyes:

I heard Robert Bork on some radio show a while back, and he said it would be a huge tactical mistake for Repubs to pull the nuclear option- it would backfire mightily on them.

I've always thought of a filibuster as a political version of a temper tantrum.

One thing that's had me confused is that it sure looks like they're getting a lot done on the Senate floor during these filibusters, and we haven't been hearing about what obscure book they're reading from to keep the filibuster going, and how long Senator X spoke, etc.

Oh yea, that's right, they aren't REALLY filibustering as I was taught (in the dark ages) a filibuster was supposed to be. If you're going to filibuster, DO IT - but don't change the rules so it's not so hard on you to do!