home

Republican Senator Admits Blocking Clinton Nominees

By Jeralyn, Section Judiciary
Posted on Sun May 08, 2005 at 09:23:44 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) jumped ship today in an appearance on This Week, by acknowledging that Republicans prevented 62 Clinton nominees from being voted upon by the Senate.

"The Republicans' hands aren't clean on this either. What we did with Bill Clinton's nominees - about 62 of them - we just didn't give them votes in committee or we didn't bring them up."

During Bush's first term in office, only ten of his nominees were filibustered. As of March, 2005, 204 of his nominees have been confirmed.

Crooks and Liars has a video of the soundbite.

Filibusters are constitutional and a necessary check on the party in power. They have been used by both parties. The radical right fringe in this country should not be allowed to change 200 years of history.

< U.S. Soldier Details Guantanamo Abuse | Tenn. Issues Driving Certificates to Immigrants >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Republican Senator Admits Blocking Clinton Nominees | 19 comments (19 topical)
    Re: Republican Senator Admits Blocking Clinton Nom (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    Boy oh boy, Blaghdaddy can't wait for the chatterers to show up today...let's all point them to this thread and ask them their opinions... As everyone has been saying...ten vs. 62? It should be the Democrats who're calling for blood over this whole thing... Seriously, folks, this is proof that no one is really paying attention. Can you imagine trying to get someone fired for a $10 shortage in the till when you yourself were $62 short the last shift? And there's no outcry over this hypocrisy? Can anyone doubt that you'd be pitched into the snow if you tried the same thing at work?

    Re: Republican Senator Admits Blocking Clinton Nom (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:53 PM EST
    There is a full on assault on our govt by a vast right wing conspiracy. It sounded crazy a while back to say that, but not so crazy now. The attacks on judges, the veiled threats about a day of reckoning, the assault on the filibuster is all about completing a takeover of the federal govt. An independent judiciary stands in the way. Imagine Alberto as a supreme court justice. Nuff said?

    Re: Republican Senator Admits Blocking Clinton Nom (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:53 PM EST
    Blaghdaddy, good way to compare what they are trying to do with a real life example - this is what the public needs to hear - clear examples of just how they are trying to twist this whole issue around. Really makes you realize how lopsided their argument is when it's presented like this.

    Re: Republican Senator Admits Blocking Clinton Nom (none / 0) (#4)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:53 PM EST
    et al - Frist has offerred to change the Senate rules to allow 100 hours of debate on all court nominees. That seems fair enough to me. Plenty of time to review, discuss and vote. Too bad the Demos didn't think about it during Clinton's tenure. Maybe he would have gotten a few more through, maybe not. As for Hagel he is about as much a Repub as Miller is a Demo. Their respective parties have passed them by and each should have change parties long ago. As for the filibuster. It is not, dear people, in the Constitution. That is a fact. Is it unconstitutional? ";and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for," It doesn't say a filibuster shall prevent a vote. And no place does it say that tradition shall overcome the Constitution. So stew and enjoy. If the Demos don't take Frist's offer, shame on them when the filibuster is tossed in the trash bin.

    Re: Republican Senator Admits Blocking Clinton Nom (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:53 PM EST
    So first, Henry Hyde admits that the drive to impeach Clinton was political, payback for Nixon... Now Chuck Hagel admits that the Republicans improperly blocked over 62 judges in Clinton's day... And the Republicans want to talk about abuse of power... Yawn........

    Re: Republican Senator Admits Blocking Clinton Nom (none / 0) (#6)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:53 PM EST
    Jim, I think your comment went to the wrong post. I can't find any connection between the two, aside from some kinda "Hagel's lying like the liberal he really is" undertone.

    Re: Republican Senator Admits Blocking Clinton Nom (none / 0) (#7)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:54 PM EST
    scar - There you go. Thinking again. The comment merely noted that Hagel is a Demo in fact, so making a big deal out of him disagreeing is meaningless. Just as the Repubs big deal about Miller was no big deal. Blagdaddy - Everytime you get trapped you go off topic and try to act bored. The topic is not Clinton, or Hyde, but the filibuster and comments about same by Hagel. I guess this means you can't rebut my comments.

    Re: Republican Senator Admits Blocking Clinton Nom (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:54 PM EST
    As for the filibuster. It is not, dear people, in the Constitution. That is a fact. Is it unconstitutional? ";and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for," It doesn't say a filibuster shall prevent a vote.
    Actually, it doesn't say anything about a vote at all, now does it?

    Re: Republican Senator Admits Blocking Clinton Nom (none / 0) (#9)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:54 PM EST
    Why does Jim hate America? From Gallup: As you may know, the filibuster is a Senate procedure which has been used to prevent the Senate from passing controversial legislation or confirming controversial appointments by the president, even if a majority of senators support that action. A vote of at least 60 senators out of 100 is needed to end a filibuster. Do you favor or oppose the use of the filibuster in the U.S. Senate? Favor 52 Oppose 40 Or does he just hate democracy? ;)

    Re: Republican Senator Admits Blocking Clinton Nom (none / 0) (#10)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:54 PM EST
    Also, Jim, I don't think a comparison to Zell Miller makes much sense. See, there's a difference between facts and assertions. When Zell Miller says that the Democratic party left him and not vice versa, there's really no way for him to prove that. When Chuck Hagel says that Clinton judicial nominees were not voted on, you can go back and see if these people were a) nominees and b) voted on. It's the same situation if Charles Manson says it, or a mina bird.

    Re: Republican Senator Admits Blocking Clinton Nom (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:54 PM EST
    PPJ,
    scar - There you go. Thinking again
    . I've been asked not to "pick on" you but if you can't come up with your own opinions and comments rather than irrelevant snarking about every one elses (can't find an interesting thread you haven't tried to hijack today)my will shall be weakened and I will be tempted. There are no political arguments or answers to the mean-spirited way you dismiss peoples deep feelings and sentiments as you do in the above quote. You leave folks no choice but to sink to your level and I respond with my new favorite reply to you. "Whatever".

    Re: Republican Senator Admits Blocking Clinton Nom (none / 0) (#12)
    by Dark Avenger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:55 PM EST
    This reminds me of when I quoted the Southern writer Falkner on the South, as applying to the current situation in the Muslim world, and PPJ launched the most ignorant criticism of the statement. He inferred that I meant it to apply to the present-day South, ignoring or not noticing that I was applying it to the Muslim world. What Hagel said was repeating the historical record, and perhaps PPJ or someone else with a few minutes to spare should send him an e-mail(you do pay part of his salary, PPJ, not just the good citizens of Nebraska) about how since the votes were decided by majority rule, the issue of the votes wasn't worth even bringing up in the first place. mfox, you really don't want to treat PPJ as he treats others because then he'll have a Dolby Digital Sound Stereo moment about how you've bruised his 2-nanometer-thick "sensitive" feelings, or comment on the decline of his spelling and/or grammatic skills at times because that would be 'picking on him, and he'll tell Jeralyn, and you'll be sorry...............'

    Re: Republican Senator Admits Blocking Clinton Nom (none / 0) (#13)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:55 PM EST
    rea - That's the "advise and consent" portion. mfox - If you tell someone to shut up repeatedly, you should expect that person to be a bit grumpy. Compare that to a gentle take off on Reagan's .... "There you go (insert word) again." Somehow I don't think I hurt scar's feelongs. But hey. Scar, hugs and kisses. Didn't mean to hurt your feelings. Attack away, mfox. But making snarky comments about how someone shouldn't be allowed to comment because you disagree with them is your stock in trade. You just did it again in the above comments, although you tried to couch it in: I don't like his comments. I await your best, that is if you actually want to comment. But I suspect what you want to do is play "I'm okay - you're okay," and control the dialogue. scar - At one point Bush was up about 8 points in the last election cycle. Did you want to quit there? BTW - The poll totally mistates the proposition, which is for judical nominees only. Care to run a new one with the actual facts stated? As for Miller. Who you going to believe? The man himself, or your assumpations? I mean, he said it, so he must believe it, and he must know what he believes in. As for Hagel, I didn't disagree with his statement. Why should I? DA - Where did I say Hagel was wrong? My comment was that he is a RINO and Miller was a DINO. Neither supportted their party of record. Now what is your complaint? That I will endure insults to the max, but everynow and then tell you when you've crossed the line? You know, bringing family in, etc. BTW - Do you ever make a comment that doesn't attack me? I mean, go ahead, but it must boring if your total life is worrying about PPJ. et al - Politics is a dirty, nasty, mean spirited game. Always was, always will be. The Repubs have been waiting for years for the wheel to turn, and turn it has. Hagel is right, but no one on the Repub side cares. The Demos should thank their lucky stars Frist has made them a real shot at debating the nominees, giving them a chance to appear as statemens, debating the merits of these terrible people.

    Re: Republican Senator Admits Blocking Clinton Nom (none / 0) (#14)
    by Dark Avenger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:55 PM EST
    Now what is your complaint? That I will endure insults to the max, but everynow(gmr) and then tell you when you've crossed the line? No, that you engage in the kind of stuff that mfox just quoted above, insulting scarshapedstar, but can't stand it if you're given the same treatment coming back to you. You can dish it out, but you can't take it, which is typical bully behavior. BTW - Do you ever make a comment that doesn't attack me? I do comment on stuff sometimes without you in mind, and if you choose to respond with snark, I respond in kind. So unfair and monstrous, isn't it? Sometimes I respond to a post you make, and get colorful. Sometimes I tell the truth about you, and as the writer said, injustice is relatively easy to bear, what stings is justice. This accounts for your reaction, no doubt..... I mean, go ahead, but it must boring(gmr) if your total life is worrying about PPJ. I don't know how you infer that my total life is worrying about PPJ because I call you on your b*******, but I can tell you that it never takes me long to come up with a reply, I post it, and since your replies are inherently unpredictable, give no further thought to you until I come back to the internets to read whatever reply you deign to leave here. Your twists and turns can be very amusing, and are well worth the 10 minutes or so it takes me in a typical day to respond to your wails. As Ripley used to say, Believe it or not!

    Re: Republican Senator Admits Blocking Clinton Nom (none / 0) (#15)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:55 PM EST
    DA - Then why do you keep on jumping in? I haven't initated a comment to you in months, instead only a response to your inital BS. Why can't you just leave well enough alone? Our hostess asked us to not chatter. What do you think the comment from mfox, and then you, were? Do you think I'm supposed to ignore your, and her comments?

    Re: Republican Senator Admits Blocking Clinton Nom (none / 0) (#16)
    by Dark Avenger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    Then why do you keep on jumping in? I haven't initated a comment to you in months, instead only a response to your inital BS. Sometimes I respond to a post you make, and get colorful. I guess you didn't see that part of my post. Is this months-long trend of my something horrible or evil? America wants to know. I don't know, maybe I'm exercizing freedom of speech, maybe you happen to say stupid stuff that needs correction most of of the time. People jump in all the time here in response to what you or others write here. I have made comments in threads that you didn't post on before, and if you haven't chosen to respond to them, in the words of Chris Rock, "What do you want? A cookie?" Why can't you just leave well enough alone? You mean shut up when you want me to? I'll let you know by the vernal equinox. Our hostess asked us to not chatter Yes, and your reply to me somehow doesn't go against her wishes, but my previous replies and this one does? LOL! Since some of my posts as well as yours got deleted from the Laura Ingraham cancer thread, I don't need any reminder of her recent requests any more than you do. She's has my e-mail address in Typekey if she feels the need to tell me anything discreetly, which hasn't happened, as of this morning. If she tells me here and now that I'm chattering, I will limit my posts to 4 a day or do whatever her wishes in this matter are What do you think the comment from mfox, and then you, were? The comment from mfox was a rebuke to your insult to SSS, and not mere chatter. My comment was supporting her observation, as I've seen a little more of your pathetic rhetorical tricks than she has. Do you think I'm supposed to ignore your, and her comments? Nobody here but Jeralyn has the right to tell folks here what they're spose to do. TTFN

    Re: Republican Senator Admits Blocking Clinton Nom (none / 0) (#17)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    "he said it, so he must believe it" Wow. New lows, in terms of analyzing political discourse, have now been reached. Hagel divulges facts whereas Miller spins out an evaluative claim. Let's see, whose style is more twistable in this case?.....

    Re: Republican Senator Admits Blocking Clinton Nom (none / 0) (#18)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    DA - mfox isn't my mother. And what she was doing was trying to make a point. You were looking for a reason. Now, back to the topic. Glanton - I never disputed Hagel's claim. My point was that Miller said it. If you said you didn't believe in religion, should we take you on your word? My other point was that Hagel is a RINO as Miller is a DINO. Their actions speak for themselves. Gesh. It can't be that hard.

    Re: Republican Senator Admits Blocking Clinton Nom (none / 0) (#19)
    by Dark Avenger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:57 PM EST
    DA - mfox isn't my mother. And what she was doing was trying to make a point. I never implied or meant for to infer that she was your mother. If you read my post, I was advising her how you would respond, based on my experience with you. And yes, I know she didn't ask for it, I was sticking my nose in and I should be ashamed of myself. Oh, and I forgot to confess I'm an "America-hating liberal". You were looking for a reason Good attempt at mind-reading, PPJ, but you can't prove it. Now, in the future, would like like my e-mail address so that you can tell me when I can and can't post in response to you? I'm in the Typepad database, you can look me up..........

    Republican Senator Admits Blocking Clinton Nominees | 19 comments (19 topical)