NY Times reported GOP senators' "threat" to filibuster judicial nominees, but not their prior claims that tactic violates Constitution
SUMMARY: A New York Times article reported that President Obama faces a "threat from Senate Republicans, who earlier this month threatened ... to block his judicial nominees by filibuster." But the Times failed to point out that several of the same Senate Republicans who signed onto the letter "threaten[ing] ... to block [Obama's] judicial nominees by filibuster" have previously challenged the constitutionality of filibustering judicial nominees.
A March 11 New York Times article reported that President Obama faces a "threat from Senate Republicans, who earlier this month threatened, though in vague terms, to block his judicial nominees by filibuster if they were not consulted on vacancies from their home states." But the Times failed to point out that several of the same Senate Republicans who signed onto the letter "threaten[ing] ... to block [Obama's] judicial nominees by filibuster" have previously challenged the constitutionality of filibustering judicial nominees.
The letter to Obama, sent by all 41 Senate Republicans, stated: "Regretfully, if we are not consulted on, and approve of, a nominee from our states, the Republican Conference will be unable to support moving forward on that nominee." But as Media Matters for America documented, among the signatories were several senators, including Sens. Sam Brownback (KS), Chuck Grassley (IA), John Cornyn (TX), and James Inhofe (OK), who had previously said or suggested that filibustering judicial nominees is unconstitutional.
As Media Matters noted, Politico and Roll Call both reported on the GOP senators' letter to Obama without noting that several of the signatories previously challenged the constitutionality of filibustering judicial nominees.
From the March 11 New York Times article:
President Obama will soon begin naming a small stream of nominees to the federal appeals courts, administration officials said, a step that will provide the first signs of how much he intends to impose any ideological stamp on the nation's judiciary.
White House lawyers have compiled lists of likely candidates for vacancies on several of the 12 regional appeals courts, notably those based in Richmond, Va., and New York.
Lawyers, scholars and political scientists have been watching closely to see whether and how much Mr. Obama will use his power to nominate judges to counterbalance the evident rightward shift of the federal courts under President George W. Bush.
[...]
One senior aide briefed on the meeting said that such an effort to limit Democratic senators' role could create friction. But the aide said that every White House tried to impose such an understanding at the beginning only to become flexible when it needed a senator's vote on some unrelated issue.
Mr. Obama also faces a different threat from Senate Republicans, who earlier this month threatened, though in vague terms, to block his judicial nominees by filibuster if they were not consulted on vacancies from their home states.
Underlying all the maneuvering is an awareness that much of it may serve as a dress rehearsal for the spring, when many expect Mr. Obama will have a Supreme Court vacancy to fill.
GOP - Greed Over Principles.
That and a membership in the mile low club won't buy a cup of coffee!
Nice filibluster by Viter at the airport; too bad he fled the scene before security could deal with him. What a maroon! He was against filiblusters before he was for them...
*tap* *tap* ...
...Hey David? It's me, Larry. There's no paper over here, you got any?
And they're worried about Speaker Pelosi flying on Speaker Hasstert's old plane. LOL. What utter morons.
The article you cited concering Sen. David Vitter's airport meltdown makes mention of Vitter being implicated in the Deborah Jeane Palfrey, DC madam case. However, in case anyone has forgotten, David Vitter's name also surfaced in the New Orleans Canal Street Brothel prostitution scandal as well. The madam of the Canal Street Brothel, Jeanette Maier, has publicly stated that David Vitter was a regular client of hers.
http://www.wdsu.com/news/13657113/detail.html
In his defesne, at least he's cheating on his wife the way DEMOCRATS do: With grown women, of legal age... as opposed to the REPUBLICAN way, which would be with underaged boys.
http://www.armchairsubversive.org/
but with republicans its acceptable to frequent the services of hookers......because as they see it, hookers have no soul because they sell their bodies, so its acceptable to republicans to sell their owns souls.
You're looking at it from the wrong angle. Prostitution is acceptable because it's quintessential capitalism. Supply and demand. It should be welcomed by all of us advocates of the free market.
Better safe than sorry...
but that goes against neo con principles of marriage and family! lol
But the article stated that he "received forgiveness from God" and his wife.
Did they know about Diaper Dave's proclivities?
OKAY Republicans...this is your chance to do what you say...Darn it, filibuster anything you desire. However, don't start crying like little babies when the press reports your tactic and Americans get the real picture of you. But first, to keep the peace, check with the Drug Addicted Leader of your party, Herr Rush. Please do both. ALL HAIL RUSH, ALL HAIL RUSH, ALL HAIL RUSH.
Rush acts like a jackass and a jerk, and every day on his show he blusters and lies. No wonder he's now the leader of their party...
Fox tenderizes the brain, Rush turns it to mush. Lather, rinse, repeat...
Rush acts like a jackass and a jerk, and every day on his show he blusters and lies. No wonder he's now the leader of their party...
It's not an act, Mary. Rush really IS a jackass and a jerk. And a liar, a hypocrite, a racist, and a gay-bashing closeted homosexual.
WZ...
I wonder if it were possible to get past the call screener or seven second delay with a question to Rush asking him about his "old friend" from the 70's .... Jeff Christie?
Does Rush do any open forum's, like town hall's of any kind? I'd love to see his reaction to the name Jeff Christie!
Not anymore. There's a great clip of him on youtube getting owned by his audience. He had to have the entire audience removed during one of his commercial breaks so he could finish his show.
Hey Snoopy....
I went on YouTube using all the key words I could think of that would bring that particular video clip up?
You don't by chance know which words to use or better yet... a direct link to it? Sounds like a fun one to watch...
Hey cap'n, took a little work, but here it is again!
http://crooksandliars.com/logan-murphy/flashback-limbaugh-gets-owned-studio-
dude i just tried it and it didn't work
Or ask him about his tv from the early 80's on KOVR 13 News then ABC now CBS in Sacramento. Rush claims to love Sacramento but calls the major college city near Sacramento the Peoples Republic of Davis. I am from the greater Sacramento area and remember both this and him as a local talk show host here.
Never accept a power that you would not give to your opponent. Never place a restriction on your opponent that you would not accept on yourself.
THAT'S principled.
Republican's wouldn't understand principled behavior if it elected them.
well said eddie.
even better one
never give power to those who seek it, they will abuse it.
give power to those who refuse it but must take it because they are good and will use it for good.
The so-called "liberal media" will not give the GOP the same treatment if they do it like the Dems do. I know it.
MMfA is clearly not up to speed with the 1 rule of politics...it's only bad if the other side does it.
Figures my buttwipe senator John "windbag" Cornyn was in that list of original senators. Jerk.
hmmph....
Glad I'm in Illinois... with Dick Durbin and oh.... nevermind...
The pain is to much to bear.... ;>)
I can't wait for the "liberal" mainstream media to chant:
"UP OR DOWN VOTE! UP OR DOWN VOTE! UP OR DOWN VOTE!"
"NUCLEAR OPTION! NUCLEAR OPTION! NUCLEAR OPTION!
What??!! The permanent Republican majority was cancelled?? Aww Maaannn!
im sure Karl Rove cried himself to sleep that night
Gee, ya mean gops are hypocrites and frauds in addition to being bigoted trash.
I'm shocked.
The hypocrisy is no surprise. I say make them perform a real filibuster. Not this procedural bs they call a filibuster nowadays. If you want to hold the floor stand up and do it like a man.
chris matthews a week or so ago basically dared them to "bring out the cots and read books on the floor"
and last night looks like he finally found his backbone when he schooled Ari Fleischer
I shouldn't be, (I've been watching it for years) but I'm still amazed at the hypocrasy(sp?) of the right wing. It still amazes me.
As for the hypocrisy of the GOP and its lap dog media claiming that "to block judicial nominees by filibuster" have previously challenged the constitutionality of filibustering judicial nominees"
Let me guess... the rest of this thought is:
"when it was Democrats wanting to filibuster the nominee's of George Bush"
Ok.... got it... GOP Filibustering... good and legal... Democratic filibustering... bad and illegal
but of course thats the way it works. can't allow a fully functional Obama Administration cause they will bring on Socialism......
must stop........at.........all.......costs.
Although I'm willing to bet that Obama's single worts nominee will still be more palatbale to me that the best these filiblustering bible-humpers has to offer, and I don't WANT them to filibuster, I don;t begrudge them their right to. They have that right, as did the Dem's when they wanted to stop Pope W. from moving the court to the right (right back to the dark arges.) Hopefully (1) Obama won't cave to the Right the way the Dem's did three~four years ago; imagine if the 'Pubs had nuked the filibuster option! We'd have gay marraige in the next 2 years! (2) That if the Pub's DO filibuster, that they are called out by the press for their hypocrisy on the issue. Sadly I'll probably be disappointed on both fronts, but I can dream can't I?
i hope the ghosts of Teddy Roosevelt, William McKinely and Abe Lincoln haunt them all in their sleep at night
a new level of hypocracy from David Vitter
-- among the signatories were several senators...who had previously said or suggested that filibustering judicial nominees is unconstitutional. -- mmfa
This is a swing and a miss by mmfa. The letter does not threaten a filibuster...it seeks to convince the president to continue the long time practice of "blue slipping" a judicial nominee.
While one might easily infer a veiled threat of filibuster...this is just another smarmy issue concerning "senatorial courtesy" for a bunch of losers that deserve little respect or courtesy...on either side of the aisle.
"Regretfully, if we are not consulted on, and approve of, a nominee from our states, the Republican Conference will be unable to support moving forward on that nominee."
"Easily infer" is right. What else does that mean besides filibuster?
People are allowed to work with reasonable interpretations of what people say. The NYT called it a threat, and MMfA is commenting on the aspect of hypocrisy that the article omitted. If you think that hypocrisy shouldn't be noted, make that argument. The criticism that MMfA shouldn't abide by the NYT's reasonable interpretation of the letter seems difficult to justify.
While one might easily infer a veiled threat of filibuster...
So... WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?! You know what's going here, dude, don't try to equivocate for them!
Oh look, more blatant hypocrisy by the Republicans, wheres that "left wing media" when you need it?
.
I have just one question regarding the obstruction that Senate Republicans intend for President Obama's Judicial nominees:
When is the Senate planning to recess?
The GOP has a history of flip flopping on issues. When Clinton first took over the Presidency deficits were bad but when G. W, Bush ran up record deficits after being given a surplus the deficit was ok.
I con not believe that now I am longing for the good old days of President Ronald Regan. The reason for this is at least back then the GOP would work with the Dems to do what was best for the country. Friendships could exist publicly accross party lines and not be hounded by the GOP. A prime example of this was President Regan and Speaker of the House "Tip" O'Neil.
ah but here is the problem. there had been a longstanding and very real enemy in the soviet union. so everyone then knew that they woul dhave to bend for the good of all.
after the republican overthrow in 94 and their contract with america bullhonkey, they began their path to the dark side and their devolution was complete with the coming of karl rove and w and dick. then it was my way or the highway.
Some former USSR leaders have said the USSR was near failure in 1981 but Regan kept them to gether because they were arfaid he would attack if the USSR broke up.
It seems to me that a few years back, the Ds threatened filibusters of judicial appointees (still several openings in the system, I think, because of that threat). Would MMFA (and most of you) think anything would be different if the tables turned as they have? Politics, what else would one expect? Just like war, only messier.
I remember that, and also remember a thing called the "nuclear option". I seem to recall the remaining 2% of judges not given an "up and down vote" pretty much being given an up and down vote.
The GOP then claimed that it was unconstitutional to filibuster any appointments. Now the GOP is claiming the will filibuster judicial appointments. This shows that the GOP members who are on both sides and many of them are still in the Senate are hypacryts. Either this is ok and do or it is unconstitutional and do not do it, but it can not be both ways. What I am saying is if it is ok for the GOP to filibuster against a Dem appointee then it is ok for the Dems to filibuster against a GOP appointee. Since many of these GOP Senateors were saying it was unconstitutional for the Dems to filibuster then they need to say the same for the GOP.
for me that would depend on the nominees....do they follow the law or are they gonna do what boss limbaugh and rove thell them to do?
Now that the Republicans are in the minority, they LOVE filibusters!
Since the Dem.s run the rules committee why is not the new rule 55 votes to break a filibuster? They're morons to continue to allow the GOP any power.
because, they don't want to offend the Blue Dog Deomocrats....thats why