« Email to WVLT | Main | Bill Cope gets a letter »
April 20, 2005
Short-term memory
Lamar Alexander has an editorial in yesterday's Nashville Tennessean that complains of the upcoming train wreck in the U.S. Senate over judicial nominations.
Until recently, not to vote at all on a president's judicial nominee was unimaginable. Take the case of Clarence Thomas in 1991: The first President Bush nominated him to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Thomas nomination sparked as passionate a debate as I have seen in the Senate. But he was nominated in July, the Senate voted in October 52-48, and it was done.Yet, in the last session of Congress, for some reason that still escapes me, the minority felt it had to use the filibuster to deny an up-or-down vote 10 times on 52 of the president's appellate judicial nominees. That has never happened before (with a single arguable exception). Neither party has used the tactic of denying an up-or-down vote on judicial nominees in 200 years.
Does he really think he's speaking to 5 year olds? It's amazing how so easily he can pretend that the Senate in Clinton's second term denied an up or down vote to over 20 of his judicial nominees. So they didn't have to filibuster to do it. Wow! How disingenuous of you Senator Alexander. Clinton's success rate for judicial nominees was around 75%, Bush Sr's and Reagan's was around 80%. Dubya's is around 95%.
Posted by Paul Witt at April 20, 2005 01:06 PM
Comments
One name:
Jesse Helms.
Debate over, Lamar! loses.
Posted by: gonzone at April 20, 2005 01:14 PM
Some reporter with a bit of backbone ought to ask why there were so many vacancies on the bench when Clinton left office.
Would Orrin Hatch know?
Would Jesse Helms know?
What hypocrites!
Posted by: Anonymous at April 20, 2005 01:22 PM
Quote from Tom DeLay 11-16-1995:
"The time has come that the American people know exactly what their Representatives are doing here in Washington. Are they feeding at the public trough, taking lobbyist-paid vacations, getting wined and dined by special interest groups? Or are they working hard to represent their constituents? The people, the American people, have a right to know...I say the best disinfectant is full disclosure, not isolation."
OK, it's put up and shut time GoOPers!
Posted by: gonzone at April 21, 2005 11:27 AM
Today I called Senator Alexander's office and talked to a nice young man about what was wrong with the editorial.
Get this Paul, I politely told him that the Republicans did not have to filibuster when they were in the majority and never gave hearings to many of President Clinton's nominees.
I ended my usual 20 minute explanation by saying that I truly believed that the American people needed to hear both sides of the story, all the facts not just hand picked or parsed facts. I said I wanted to be able to read Senator Alexander's writings without having to question whether he had included all pertinent info.
I had to look up the nominee situation in the Clinton years to find that he had been able to say that the filibuster hadn't been used in 200 years against judges because the Rep. majority only had to deny hearings to get the same result.
I think even the aide I spoke with didn't know all the facts I told him. However he assured me he would speak to the senator about my call.
I believe him. Am I being too naive?
Posted by: mpower1952 at April 21, 2005 09:11 PM
Naive? No. He will talk with the Senator about your points. Which Lamar will more than likely ignore.
Posted by: Paul Witt at April 22, 2005 07:45 AM
mpower1952,
Just assuming from your moniker that you were born in 1952. At your age if you need the blind to lead you around you're in trouble. Of course Paul would give you an answer. He always thinks he knows exactly what will happen (Lamar will ignore you). The crystal ball he uses to foresee the future has glitches though. He needs to upgrade to Crystal Ball 1.1.0 v5. His predictions in the last election cycle were horrendous. He actually thought John Kerry had a shot at winning Tennessee. And another clue here... if you have to ask if you are naive. You are.
Posted by: Ron at April 22, 2005 03:28 PM