Will Senate Republicans have temper-tantrums over all of Kerry's Judges?

[tritsofme]

After an embarrasing loss in November, do you think that the repubs in the Senate will filibuster almost all of Kerry's judicial appointments, so they can "get back" at the Democrats for filibustering a handful of Chimpy's judges?

I have a feeling relationships between Congress and the Whitehouse are going to be very messy for the next couple of years.

[JaySherman]

1. Not if we get the vote out and take back Congress.

Difficult but not impossible. Time to roll up sleeves and get to work.

[punpirate]

2. That's on the assumption that Repugs...

... retain control of the Senate. I hope there's a real backlash coming--with those who've enabled Bush getting the ax along with him. I don't think the same can be said for the House, but the Senate's another matter.

[tritsofme]

4. They don't need to control it, just have 41 votes

which even the most optimistic among us concede they will.

It takes 60 votes to break a filibuster.

If they keep the Senate, who is to say that our judges will even get out of committee?

[punpirate]

6. This is a valid point....

It happened during Clinton's tenure.

But, how long can they keep up with filibusters? Eventually, even the lame media in this country will have to start making comparisons with what happened in the Clinton years.

At least with Democratic control of the Senate, most of them will at least get out of committee and onto the floor for a vote.

Still, the public does need the facts--and the media haven't been giving them, either about the candidates thus far in the Bush administration, or about the partisanship involved in the last three Presidential terms.

I hope that Kerry has the sense to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

[tritsofme]

7. (going off topic) I never understand this bit about the Fairness Doctrine

Wouldn't it seriously harm things like Air America?

[punpirate]

8. If one looks at the dominance of the right-wing in media after...

... the Fairness Doctrine was dispensed with in the Reagan administration, there's no argument.

Yes, Air America might have to provide some time to opposing views, but so would every other broadcaster in the country--including those whose agenda is to make this a one-party state.

Democrats didn't always make use of the fairness doctrine as they should, but that would change, I think, after what we've seen over the last seventeen years since its removal.

Besides, it's a fundamental part of the public's ownership of the airwaves. We own the airwaves, and that means we deserve more than to have them hijacked by one voice only.

[TaleWgnDg]

11. damn . . . that sounds G R E A T . . .

"there's a real backlash coming" and may it run deep!

Here's to a Dem victory in November! :bounce:

:dem:

[lapfog_1]

3. I expect an all out attack on Kerry, just like Clinton

and blockage of any programs and appointments.

This isn't going to end until the nation goes at least 65-35
one direction or the other.

If you read Michael Moore's interview (posted here on another thread),
he makes the case that we are likely 60 - 40 NOW in favor of
liberals/progressives, but that a goodly number of these have opted
out of the process, feeling that their voices are not heard at all,
so why bother. Maybe even a higher tilt to the left. I think he
is absolutely correct, and if we had a parliamentary democracy, the
progressives and greens would elect their own representatives, and
the liberal/green/progressives would form an unbeatable coalition
government (and we'd be more like Europe). But alas, we are not.

[TahitiNut]

5. Of course. It's in their nature.

[TaleWgnDg]

9. the impasse in the "advice and consent" of the Senate . . .

began in modern times w/ the nomination of Robert Bork by the first Bush president (George Herbert Walker Bush). Bork was an extremist, an ideologue who NEVER should have been nominated by any president.

As with any ideologue, Bork could NOT get past trying to push his own personal beliefs into law from the bench. As such, he was resoundingly tossed by the (Democratic majority) Senate and the rightwing Republicans NEVER forgot it. Since then (and including Clarence Thomas' Senate hearings) its been getting worse and worse . . . as many in here have stated, the rightwingers in the Senate didn't give a hearing to many of Clinton's federal judicial nominees.

On the other hand, GWBush has had almost ALL of his nominees voted up and placed on the federal bench, unlike Clinton's nominees.

When Kerry gets in and there's a Republican majority in the Senate, there's no rational basis for that majority to freeze out any of Kerry's nominations. But, then, again, I did say "rational" -- since when are rightwingers "rational?"

Let's work for a Dem majority in the Senate too!

[tritsofme]

10. Bork was Reagan's pick, and a majority won't do it

we need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.

[TaleWgnDg]

12. . . . yup, you are correct . . .

It WAS Ronald Reagan and the date was 1987. Thanks for picking that up. As for the 60 votes, yes, that's correct too. It does take 60 votes for cloture . . . nonetheless, it would facilitate federal judicial nominations from Kerry to have a DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY in the Senate.

:dem:

[Zorra]

13. If they don't, I'll be seriously worried. n/t

[tritsofme]

14. kick