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 >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Republican Senator Admits Blocking Clinton Nominees | 15 comments (15 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) (#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) (#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) (#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.

    Republican Senator Admits Blocking Clinton Nominees | 15 comments (15 topical)