News Snipet 'Blog

PREPARE!

Do Something!

Find Elected Officials

Enter ZIP Code:

or Search by State

See Issues & Action

Select An Issue Area:

Contact The Media

Enter ZIP Code:

or Search by State

Other things

Other things

JOHN KERRY ISN'T THE ONLY ONE...

Friday, May 27, 2005

Senator Edward Kennedy Then: "We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don't like them, vote against them. But give them a vote." – Senator Edward Kennedy, Congressional Record, 3 February 1998 Now: "The Senate Democrats are the only line of defense against George Bush's effort to pack our federal courts with reactionary right-wing judges who will roll back the fundamental constitutional rights that Americans in states across the country value the most in our free society. Now, our very ability to block the confirmation of these ideological judges is in jeopardy. Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has arrogantly threatened repeatedly to re-write the long-standing Senate rules and eliminate the filibuster rule, the basic procedure to prevent a narrow Senate majority from running roughshod over the rights of the Senate minority." – Senator Kennedy, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee newsletter, March 2005 Senator Charles Schumer Then: "The basic issue of holding up judgeships is the issue before us, not the qualifications of judges, which we can always debate. The problem is it takes so long for us to debate those qualifications. It is an example of Government not fulfilling its constitutional mandate because the President nominates, and we are charged with voting on the nominees. … I also plead with my colleagues to move judges with alacrity – vote them up or down. But this delay makes a mockery of the Constitution, makes a mockery of the fact that we are here working, and makes a mockery of the lives of very sincere people who have put themselves forward to be judges and then they hang out there in limbo." – Senator Schumer, Congressional Record, 7 March 2000 Now: "Whatever party is in charge always wants to control the whole thing, but that's not what America is all about, that’s not how the Founding Fathers set it up. The Democrats were wrong — I was not there when they wanted to get rid of the filibuster when they were in charge, and the Republicans are equally wrong. We believe in checks and balances; if you win 51 percent or 52 percent or 53 percent, that doesn't mean you run the whole show." – Interview, Fox and Friends, 25 April 2005 Senator Patrick Leahy Then: "I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would . . . object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported. …" – Senator Leahy, Congressional Record, 18 June 1998 Now: "Historically, the Senate has been one of the major parts of checks and balances in this country. When Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the Supreme Court, even though it was a heavily Democratic Senate, we said no. It's a good thing that we stood up and said no. George Washington had members of his own party — he's the most popular man in America — turn down some of his judges. Now, we put 95 percent, let's understand, we put through 95 percent of President Bush's judges, one of the highest percentages any president has gotten, that's been with Democratic help." – Senator Leahy, CNN Late Edition, 24 April 2005 Senator Richard Durbin Then: "I think that responsibility requires us to act in a timely fashion on nominees sent before us. The reason I oppose cloture is I would like to see that the Senate shall also be held to the responsibility of acting in a timely fashion. If, after 150 days languishing in a committee there is no report on an individual, the name should come to the floor. If, after 150 days languishing on the Executive Calendar that name has not been called for a vote, it should be. Vote the person up or down. They are qualified or they are not. But to impose all of the burden on the executive branch and to step away from our responsibility I don't think is fair." – Senator Durbin, Congressional Record, 28 September 1998 Now: "Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat and member of the Judiciary Committee, said Democrats will use the filibuster selectively. 'We have to pick and choose our fights in order to keep our unity and make our point,' he said." – Amy Fagan and Stephen Dinan, "GOP To 'Load' Senate With Votes On Judges," The Washington Times, 11 March 2003 Senator Joseph Biden Then: "But I also respectfully suggest that everyone who is nominated is entitled to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor." – Senator Biden, Congressional Record, 19 March 1997 Now: "The filibuster has always been available to stop extremes." – Senator Biden, WABC This Week, 24 April 2005 Senator Russell Feingold Then: "All Judge Paez has ever asked for was this opportunity: an up or down vote on his confirmation. Yet for years, the Senate has denied him that simple courtesy." – Senator Feingold, Congressional Record, 8 March 2000 Now: "My view has changed," said Feingold in an interview last week, saying he has come to value the filibuster "because of the abuse of power by those running the Senate." – Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 23 April 2005 Senator Ken Salazar Then: "In a pre-election interview with the News editorial board, Senator-elect Ken Salazar said he favored an up-or-down vote in the full Senate on judicial nominations. We hope he sticks with that position even if his Democratic colleagues-to-be lean on him, as they are almost certain to do." – Editorial, "Salazar's Pledge," [Denver] Rocky Mountain News, 8 November 2004 Now: Q: How do you square the consistency of opposing the nuclear option now with saying during your campaign that every judge deserves an up-or-down vote? I'm not real clear on that. A: You know, you come here as a new senator, and you learn. And I've learned a lot about this place. … Q: So you were wrong in your campaign statement? A: Now I am much more informed today about how these rules work and operate than I was back when I was a candidate for the office. – Senator Salazar, at a press conference with Senator Joe Lieberman, 20 April 2005 Senator Joseph Lieberman Then: "For too long, we have accepted the premise that the filibuster rule is immune. Yet, Mr. President, there is no constitutional basis for it. We impose it on ourselves. And if I may say so respectfully, it is, in its way, inconsistent with the Constitution, one might almost say an amendment of the Constitution by the rules of the U.S. Senate." – Sen. Lieberman, Congressional Record, 4 January 1995, p. 38 Now: "And particularly when it comes to a judicial nomination, somebody who's going to be on the federal bench for life, we ought to say that this person ought to command the support of at least 60 of 100 senators, as kind of a minimum standard. So bottom line, circumstances changed, and my opinion about the supermajority change." – Senator Lieberman, at a press conference with Senator Salazar, April 20, 2005 Senator Barbara Boxer Then: "Mr. President, I am very glad that we are moving forward with judges today. We all hear, as we are growing up, that, 'Justice delayed is justice denied,' and we have, in many of our courts, vacancies that have gone on for a year, 2 years, and in many cases it is getting to the crisis level. So I am pleased that we will be voting. I think, whether the delays are on the Republican side or the Democratic side, let these names come up, let us have debate, let us vote." – Senator Boxer, Congressional Record, 28 January 1998 Now: "They're going after judges, they're going after the filibuster, and it is dangerous," she told the news leaders. "You have a dog in that fight. Your whole basis of what you do is exercising that freedom of speech. These checks and balances are crucial for all of us. We exercise them." – Joe Strupp, "Sen. Boxer: 'Nuclear Option' Can Hurt Newspapers, Too," Editor and Publisher, 12 April 2005 Senator Harry Reid Then: "I don't think we should have litmus tests for members of the sub-Cabinet, the Cabinet or the judges. … [Y]ou take the 106th Congress, it took 285 days on an average to get a judge approved; 103rd Congress when we controlled, it was 80 days. So you can see the difference there. Fifty-five percent of President Clinton’s judicial nominations to the appellate court were turned down. We're not going to do that. We're going to have hearings. We're going to have the process vetted as soon as possible. And I think we should have up-or-down votes in the committee and on the floor." – Senator Reid, CNN's "Evans Novak Hunt & Shields," 9 June 2001 Now: "Reid indicated Monday his party would not agree to give up the filibuster entirely, as Frist and most other Republicans want: 'As part of any resolution, the "nuclear option" must be off the table,' Reid said, referring to Frist's proposal." – "Frist chills talk of judges deal," MSNBC.com, 26 April 2005. Senator Hillary Clinton Then: "The Senate is bottling up people who deserve to be voted on — up or down." – Paul Shepard, "In Poke At Bush, First Lady Tells NAACP Compassionate Isn't Enough," The Associated Press, July 11, 2000 Now: "If invoked, the 'nuclear option' would be, in my view, one of the most egregious abuses of power that the Senate has experienced in its history. ...[T]he majority seeks to turn the United States Senate into a rubber stamp for President Bush's extreme judicial nominees and force all Senators to abdicate our constitutional responsibility of advice and consent. As one sworn to uphold the Constitution, that is something that I cannot do and will not do and that is why I will continue to do all I can to fight for our democratic principles." – Friends of Hillary.com newsletter, 26 April 2005 Senator Dianne Feinstein Then: "It is our job to confirm these judges. If we don't like them, we can vote against them. That is the honest thing to do. If there are things in their background, in their abilities that don't pass muster, vote no. I think every one of us on this side is prepared for that. The problem is, we have a few people who prevent them from having a vote, and this goes on month after month, year after year." – Senator Dianne Feinstein, Congressional Record, 16 September 1999 Now: "[O]ut of 205 judges, we haven't confirmed 10 submitted by the President and have chosen to filibuster those, the Republicans want to break the filibuster rule. And I think that's a big problem." – Senator Dianne Feinstein, CNN's "Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer," 17 April 2005

posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/27/2005 05:12:00 AM

0 Comments: