Is John Kyl correct?

[AUYellowDog]

He's speaking on CSPAN 2 right now about the SCOTUS has ruled that the Senate can make rules as it goes and it only has to be a majority vote. He also said that 35 of 52 of the circuit court nominees have been confirmed (67%) and that's the lowest level ever. How true are these claims and how can we get around then SCOTUS decision, or how can it be interpreted in another way.

Brandon

[jefferson_dem]

1. don't believe a word that fuckface utters. you should know better.

[AUYellowDog]

2. I take

it with a grain of salt, but I try to look at all sides. That's why I'm trying to find some numbers or something else to make sense of it.

Brandon

[sam sarrha]

5. there are a lot of courts open because no appointments have been made..

they use that as statistics to make the Democrats look bad..

you cant vote to fill a court position if none have been nominated simply to create propaganda statistics..

[jefferson_dem]

10. The Senate has confirmed 205 of chiump-monster's 215 judicial nominees!

What is that? 95%???

There are 10 wacko screwball federalist society jurists still outstanding. Bush could up his % in the Circuit Courts tomorrow if he wasn't so stubbonly offering up the same dead-letter freaks as before.

Hell, a compromise was offered by the Dems that assured at least 7 or 8 of them would sail through straight away. But dunderhead will only be satisfied a batting avg of 100%.

Don't believe the repuke tps. Always remember - - - they LIE!

[CottonBear]

3. There are more judges now than there were in the past.

The number of federal judgeships has steadily increased since the late 1970s and during each presidential term. You can't compare apples and oranges.

[beaconess]

4. He's correct about circuit court nominees

They're trying to bifurcate circuit court and district court nominees to try to make their argument sound better. The bottom line is that 95% of Bush's judges have been confirmed. Fewer than 5% have been held up. The Dems tried to confirm four more circuit court judges today but Republicans refused - otherwise, they'd have screwed up their argument.

And while the 67% number is lower than Clinton's, it's not much lower.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Senate makes its own rules. But there are two problems with his argument:

1. The Senate has set out rules for how to change their rules. The nuclear option violates the Senate rule on changing rules.

2. The fact that the Senate is allowed to make its own rules puts a lie to the argument that filibusters are unconstitutional. Aside from a few specific instances, the Constitution sets no requirement for the number of votes needed to pass legislation or confirm judges (it doesn't even require that there EVER be any votes on judges). So if the Senate can make its own rules and the Constitution does not prohibit filibusters, how can a Senate filibuster rule be unconstitutional.

He's talking in circles that make him sound erudite, but everything he's saying is crap.

[kaygore]

6. He's always been a liar

At least that was my feeling when I lived in Arizona.

If it were true, then why wouldn't it have come out before and why would the rules read as they do?

[AUYellowDog]

8. Thanks

Thanks beaconess, that makes alot more sense. He sounded like he knew what he was talking about, but that makes it sound more accurate.

Thanks again

[housewolf]

7. He's talking about the Senate's right to rule itself

meaning that is can make it's own rules and has done so throughout its history. It's the Senate's own rules that Frist will be breaking - that's why it's called the 'nuclear option'.

Frist, though, is taking the stance that he'll be breaking precedent, not rules. The Repubs contend that they are returning the Senate's rules to their constitutional roots, thus the term "constitutional option" in place of "nuclear option".

For instance, trade negotiations are addressed in the constitution, which says that the senate must approve them by a 2/3 majority. The senate can't change this.

But the constitution doesn't define a specific majority size when voting on judicial nominations. The senate doesn't have a specific rule on that either - what they use if the filibuster to hold up voting on a nomination, and it's a senate rule that it takes 60 votes to stop a filibuster.

Hope this helps some,

[lyonn]

9. Kyl's 35 of 52 figure doesn't make sense

Only 7 judges have been rejected by the Dems. 52-35= 12 so I have no idea how he came up with those figures.

[Pirate Smile]

12. I know Democrats were asking when this started, why doesn't

Frist bring up all the judges that will sail right through but Frist wouldn't do it.

That happened yesterday when Frist first brought Priscella Owens up.

[Career Prole]

11. Brandon, why don't you consider the nominees.

Shrub could have just has easily picked a group of nominees who would have gotten 100% confirmation or 100% rejection.

Clinton could have had the same rejection rate had he tried to overreach.

It's not the percentages. It's the nominees.

"He also said that 35 of 52 of the circuit court nominees have been confirmed (67%) and that's the lowest level ever."

That means seventeen of the 52 weren't worthy nominees.
No one is being obstructionist. Repukes are just being obtuse.