Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.
Published on May 10, 2005 By COL Gene In Politics



The GOP is playing a dangerous game by threatening to change the rules of the Senate. The GOP claims the president deserves an up or down vote on his judicial nominations. If that is true, many more judicial nominations under Clinton never got an up or down vote because they were bottled up in committee. If the objective is an UP or DOWN vote, the tactics of the Republicans during the Clinton administration to prevent a vote through committee is just as much of a problem is holding up a vote in the Senate through filibuster. The end result is the same in both scenarios - no UP or DOWN vote.

Only nine of the Bush judges out of over 200 have not been approved by the Senate. If the Republicans force this change of the Senate rules, I hope to see the day when the Senate is controlled by the Democrats and they have to live with the change they are attempting to force upon the Senate. The old saying , "Be careful what you asked for " may come back to haunt the Republicans.

Comments (Page 1)
on May 10, 2005
I'm all for an Up/Down vote rule. Stalling this stuff in committee is just plain bad. I don't care which side is doing it, if you're going to oppose an appointee, at least have the guts to actually DO it. This committee crap is just cowardly.

Yeah, both sides do it, but who cares which side is proposing this change? It's a good one. Once the rule is there, everyone has to play by it.
on May 10, 2005
That is my point. I hope the GOP will relish this changes as much when it works against them in the future.
on May 10, 2005
I agree and disagree with you here.

To me, the only Constitutional thing to do is to change the rules. While the filibuster is Constitutional, it doesn't excuse the Senate of their responsibility of Advise and Consent. The Senate does not have the authority to decide who can and can't be nominated by the president. They also have no authority to decide which of the president's nominees they will consider. Their Constitutional mandate is to vote on the names presented, plain and simple.

Yes, the Republicans used their own tactics for blocking the vote, and those were just as unconstitutional as what the democrats are doing now. Don't argue one miscarraige of Constitutional mandates by pointing out another. That only makes you sound like a kid trying to justify actions by saying, "Well, Little Johnny did it first!"

"I hope to see the day when the Senate is controlled by the Democrats and they have to live with the change they are attempting to force upon the Senate." I hope to see that day too, it would be refreshing to see the Senate run by Constitutional rules for once. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"during the Clinton administration"

Wait a minute, don't I keep hearing from you and many Democrats that Prs. Clinton isn't in office anymore, so why keep bringing his name into the argument! ;~D
on May 10, 2005
Only nine of the Bush judges out of over 200 have not been approved by the Senate. If the Republicans force this change of the Senate rules, I hope to see the day when the Senate is controlled by the Democrats and they have to live with the change they are attempting to force upon the Senate. The old saying , "Be careful what you asked for " may come back to haunt the Republicans.


Democrats should just allow a vote to be taken.

It will be a long time before democrats are in control of anything. The party is self-destructing.
on May 10, 2005
We are not talking about who's is president were talking about tactics that have been used over the years in the United States Senate.
on May 10, 2005
We are not talking about who's is president were talking about tactics that have been used over the years in the United States Senate.


So do you support the democrats tactics?
on May 10, 2005
We are not talking about who's is president were talking about tactics that have been used over the years in the United States Senate.


I know, that is why I seperated my main thought from the joke. ;~D
on May 10, 2005
They are doing the same thing as the GOP did to Clinton. I do not think everyone a presiident nominates must be approved. Only 9 out of 200 were not approved.
on May 10, 2005
hey are doing the same thing as the GOP did to Clinton. I do not think everyone a presiident nominates must be approved. Only 9 out of 200 were not approved


The person the President nominates doesn't have to be approved, but shouldn't they be allowed a vote.
on May 10, 2005
They are doing the same thing as the GOP did to Clinton. I do not think everyone a president nominates must be approved. Only 9 out of 200 were not approved.


Then for christ's sake just give them an up or down vote. You don't want them in? Give them a down vote. The reason that isn't happening is that they know that they'll get a majority of up votes.
on May 11, 2005
They are doing the same thing as the GOP did to Clinton. I do not think everyone a presiident nominates must be approved. Only 9 out of 200 were not approved.


Yeah, 9 out of 200. That's all. The repugs blocked over 60 of Clinton's nominees, using the same tactics, that being the fillibuster, but they won't talk about that. All they do is claim liberal and democrat obstructionism when all the dems are doing is exactly what the repubs have done, and to a greater extent, in the past. I sure hope it comes back to haunt them. They deserve it.
on May 11, 2005
The GOP did not give an Up or Down vote to the Clinton nominees- They kept them in committee. What is the reason the Bush nominees should receive and Up or Down vote?
on May 11, 2005
Once again, who the hell cares who's calling for this change or when they're doing it or even why. Yeah, it will benefit them this time around, but a time will come where it doesn't and they'll have to give an up/down vote anyway. For once I wish we could get past the "Everything republicans do is evil/Everything democrats do is two-faced" argument and actually see the issues at hand.

This is a GOOD RULE no matter who proposes it.
on May 11, 2005
The GOP did not give an Up or Down vote to the Clinton nominees- They kept them in committee. What is the reason the Bush nominees should receive and Up or Down vote?


No... the correct question "should" be, "why shouldn't they?"
on May 11, 2005
To answer the question, "why shouldn't they" Answer the great Compermise in the Congress was to make sure in the Senate protected the interests of the minority groups and the house was based on the majority. It does not seem to me that that should be changed so Bush can get 100% of his judges approved! . Senate was to be more deliberative and recognize the minority in this country. Therefore changing the rules for judges violates that principal. When the Republicans want to do something else like change Social Security or make tax cuts permanent and Democrats filibuster, will the next change the ram through those kinds of actions?

Again I say someday the Republicans will be sorry if they change the rules in the Senate. I do not believe 9 out of 200 judges that were not approved is worth changing the way in which the Senate operates and to violate the compromise in the House and Senate.