Did Spineless Dem leadership give in to Bush again?

[Atman]

What the hell is going on? Bush right now is at his most vulnerable, most powerless, moreso than at any time in his career. Finally, the dems have some leverage to use on him. So, what do Tommy D and the boys do? They "strike a deal" with the the most notoriously dishonest, flip-flopping p(r)esident in memory, a man who has yet to be shown to keep his word on anything except lining his buddies' pockets with tax cuts, a man so shamelessly meanspirited and vindictive...they take him at his word and free up his judicial nominees if he promises not to do any more recess appointments.

Is Daschle fucking insane? Dear god, what goods did the Bush Boys find on old Tommy when they were scouring the Hart Senate office building for those six weeks hunting "anthwax?" They must have got some great dirt on him, because ever since, he's rolled over like a good puppy, giving Bush unconditional love in exchange for a belly rub. I am soooooo disgusted with the democratic "leadership." If the stakes in this election were not so high, I would seriously be giving thought to casting a "third party" vote. Provided there was a real, viable third party candidate, which I've yet to see.

I would not for one second think of voting anything but democrat this election. It isn't even in any remote consideration. But I am not a happy voter. I don't want the democrats to become republicans and threaten and cajole everyone to toe the line. That isn't what we're about. But when political leverage comes your way, such as we seem to finally have a smidge of in DC currently, thanks to the early signs of an awakening, it must be used. Any opposition will make a judgement on our strength based upon our willingness to fight. To use the power we have. When we roll over on such an important issue as right-wing judges packing the courts, one that we've managed to use quite effectively so far, I can only scratch my head and ask "WTF?" Why give Bush an inch on ANYTHING? Why afford the man ANY margin of "victory" over anything at this point? He is a failed president; it is not the dems' resonsibility to send him a Pick Me Up™ Bouquet when he's feeling down in the dumps for his own stupidity.

Is there a nuance to this political dance over the judges and recess appointments I am missing? It seems we had Bush pretty much stalled. Was he really ready/willing or able to just appoint all of these judges as recess appointments anyway, and Daschle was actually trying prevent this? And when Bush lies again, via a Friday news dump the day after he announces 6 trillion new jobs were created, (using historically adjusted figures dating to the stone age), and goes ahead and does a recess appointment of some radical right-wing loony anyway, what can Daschle do? Throw sand at Bush? Kick and yell, take his ball and go home? All Bush has to say is "hey, you fucked up...you trusted me!"




*Sigh* I guess I'll go watch the senators kiss Rudy's ass.

[yelladawg]

1. The current Dems are spineless

Back home we we would call them a bunch of GW's...gutless wonders

[ElsewheresDaughter]

2. i concur!

[wtmusic]

3. Third party? I'd be happy with a second party right now

n/t

[UTUSN]

4. Huh. Our Beleaguered Senate Dems Won Something, So Let's Ream'em

They got Shrub to be on record with his worthless word. It really will mean something if he so publically breaches it. I might be wrong, but the deal doesn't mean AUTOMATIC approval of all of the regular nominees. These Dems fought a long, coordinated battle over ESTRADA and won. Being in the minority means measuring gains by inches. Can we give these people a tiny BREAK, please?

[Atman]

7. UTUSN, thanks, but...

Actually, perspective on this was exactly what I was looking for. I am sitting by myself right now, no one to ask "hey, did you see this?" and get some feedback. I don't necessarily agree with you. I am pretty pissed about this. Pissed at Daschle for trusting Bush. Pissed at Bush in general, of course. I was just honestly wondering if there was an angle to this I missed, all the rest of my rant aside.

[tarheel]

11. I'm sorry UTUSN

I have to agree with Atman. I think the Dems caved. They should have looked * right in his eye and told him, "Go ahead, make your recess appointments !" , and that way the appointments are only temporary and when John Kerry wins in November he can replace every one of them.

Now, with this agreement, *'s nominees will be ram rodded through the Senate with every single Repuke voting to approve. It only takes a simple majority to approve a judicial nominee.

Granted the Dems can always fillibuster to keep the vote from coming up on the floor, but this runs the risk of the Repukes screaming obstructionists from now until the elections.

It's true that * rammed a couple of his idealogue nominees through via the recess appointments (Pickering and Pryor), but their appointments are temporary and we can replace them when John Kerry gets in office.

I know there are some who think this would be a dangerous stategy as John Kerry might not win in November, ( I personally think * is toast), but even if Kerry loses. Following this strategy will place the blame for these lunatic judges (when the public sees them starting to trample on civil rights and constitutional guarantees and trying to legislate their religous fundemetalism into law) squarely on the shoulders of the Repukes.

[tom_paine]

19. I'm sorry, too, UTUSN, but I agree with atman

The Democrats are playing "politics" with Totalitarian Orwellian MONSTERS like it was the Old American Republic.

But that nation is GONE, perhaps forever.

[sangh0]

26. Here's what some Repukes have to say

from http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/19/politics/19judge.html

"...While Mr. Schumer was gleeful, some of his Republican counterparts were more equivocal. "It's disappointing, but this is the best we can do. I recognize that," said Senator Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican who is a member of the Judiciary Committee. "It's very unfair to these people who will not get confirmed."

Another tepid reaction came from John Cornyn, a Texas Republican who also sits on the Judiciary Committee.

"Though it is encouraging to finally see some action on the president's highly qualified judicial nominees, many others are still blocked," Mr. Cornyn said. "My concern is now that the Democrat obstructionists have successfully negotiated in exchange for their hostages, what will stop them from blocking all future nominees?" ...

As of now, the Democrats have not abandoned or renounced their use of the filibuster, which the Republicans declared an outrageous flouting of the Constitution. But Mr. Bush has given up on recess appointments, which the Democrats declared a vile repudiation of the Constitution...

The agreement also benefits Democrats in another fashion, Democratic and Republican political aides said Tuesday, by making it more difficult for Republicans to complain in the upcoming political campaigns that the Democrats have been obstructionists."

[UTUSN]

29. Thanks. & for the Preceding Posts

Not even a teeny break?

[never cry wolf]

18. The deal was specific for 25 non-controversial nominees only

The dems were using the filibuster on ALL nominees as a protest about being left out of the process. They agreed to confirm only 25 of the nominees they really had no problem with anyway in exchange for no more recess confirmations.

It was a win for us!

[mrgorth]

5. What are you talking about?

What happened?

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

6. Every so often, Bush* sends a box of powdered sugar to his family's home

to remind him to stay in line...
That's why Daschle's been such a lapdog, IMO.

[Atman]

8. The story...sorry. It was buried.

I thought more might have seen it...

---

President, Senate Reach Pact on Judicial Nominations
Bush Vows He Won't Use Recess Appointments; 25 to Get Vote

By Helen Dewar
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 19, 2004; Page A21


The White House pledged yesterday that President Bush will not bypass the Senate in appointing federal judges for the next eight months as part of a bipartisan deal to break a seven-week impasse over votes on Bush's judicial nominees.

Under the agreement, Bush will not use his constitutional power to give temporary appointments to judicial nominees during congressional recesses for the rest of his current term ending Jan. 20 -- a power he exercised twice in recent months, infuriating Democrats.


In return, Democrats, who had been holding up action on all of Bush's judicial choices since March to protest the recess appointments, agreed to allow votes on 25 mostly noncontroversial nominations to district and appeals court posts over the next several weeks.

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37694-2004May18.html

[Atman]

9. Kick.

eom

[kiahzero]

10. This reads like a win

If they're allowing movement on "25 mostly noncontroversial nominations" in exchange for Bush not using recess appointments for the more egregious ones, that looks like a win to me.

[Atman]

12. My concern is Bush's trustworthiness

When he does a recess appointment anyway, what do we do? When he decides Roy Moore MUST be appointed for the good of the country, and renegs on his promise, then what? The man is a total liar. Not to mention that I don't trust their judgement on what is "non-controversial." I can't believe Bush would appoint anybody but a Bushie.

[aldian159]

23. as the previous poster said

if he breaks his word, everyone will know, because he essentially promised to not appoint anyone w/o the senate. The last thing Bush needs right now is to be looked at as a liar or worse, a flip-flop.

25 regular judges in exchange for keeping wing nuts off the bench? We won. We still can and will filibust the wackos.

We won.

[ibegurpard]

13. 25 mostly noncontroversial nominations?

noncontroversial? says who?

[kiahzero]

15. According to the Senate Dems.

The important part of the story that the OP "forgot" to mention, because it didn't mesh with his version of reality:

Democrats refused to include seven appeals court nominees they have been blocking -- or threatening to block -- as too ideologically conservative in their views on abortion, worker rights and other issues likely to confront a federal judge. Democrats will continue to oppose these nominees, Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) told reporters.

On Edit: Another important paragraph that was "forgotten"

The only seriously controversial nominee on the list of 25 is James Leon Holmes, whose nomination to a district court was sent to the full Senate without recommendation from the judiciary panel. Holmes had been criticized by some senators for his strong antiabortion views and his 1997 comments in a religious publication that a "wife is to subordinate herself to her husband."

So, out of the 25, there's maybe one that's seen as too extreme... compared to the ones that are being blocked, he's probably not nearly as bad. It's unfortunate that Bush gets to pick nominees at all, but that's why we need to get him out of office.

[lastliberalintexas]

20. And you trust their judgment?

Considering some of the people they've confirmed for this man, I don't think I'll take their word for it. In an area of Texas that is actually Democratic, we now have to put up with TWO Shrub appointees, who, must I remind you, can stay on the bench for life! And one of them is a freaking Nazi. If they made it through the confirmation process without much fuss and were therefore likely considered to be "noncontroversial," then our Senate Dems need to be better educated on Shrub's nominees.

We could have forced Shrub to use his recess power appointment for ALL of his nominees for the next 7 months and then replaced those TEMPORARY appointments with more moderate to liberal judges if Kerry wins in November. Instead, our court system has an additional 25 conservative judges who can act to erode environmental, reproductive and civil rights even further. All the while doing it at the district court and appellate levels, where it is very dangerous due to the fact that the SC rarely grants cert.

This is just one more reason why our current Dem party "leadership" MUST be replaced if we ever want to have a 2 party system again.

[kiahzero]

21. Whatever

It seems that no matter what happens, some will not be pleased unless our elected representatives do what the Republicans did to Clinton - do everything in their power to make sure that nothing got done, damn the consequences. I condemned that behavior when the Republicans did it, and it'd be damn hypocritical to not do so now.

Government's first obligation is to govern, not to turn everything into a partisan battle.

You know what? We can't shut down the government just because Bush purged voter roles. And the President gets to appoint court justices. Expecting the Senate to refuse to confirm any nominees whatsoever is just unreasonable.

We could have forced Shrub to use his recess power appointment for ALL of his nominees for the next 7 months and then replaced those TEMPORARY appointments with more moderate to liberal judges if Kerry wins in November.

If we did that, it'd make it that much harder for Kerry to win. Because if we did that, the Republicans accusing the Democrats of obstructionism would be right, and would easily convince the American people of that fact.

[lastliberalintexas]

24. Maybe it's easy for you to say whatever

In addition to the fact that I am diametrically opposed to the beliefs of 99% of Shrub's appointees, I also happen to be an attorney. I am therefore forced to practice in front of some of these people- who are only interested in results oriented decision making so as to ensure that the defense wins in civil matters.

While there may be areas in which we can give some ground, the court system is not one of them. Appointments for LIFE. If the neocons control the courts, it won't matter if we are able to take back the White House, Senate and House. And despite all appearances to the contrary, the repubs aren't entirely stupid. Many of these appointees are in their 40s, meaning we could be forced to deal with them for the next 30 years.

I'm not asking for all out war here. I simply want our side to hold one of the many fronts- and the one that is the most important in the long run.


On edit- The president appoints judges with the approval of the Senate. The founding fathers never intended the power of appointment to be absolute- they *wanted* a check on the executive.

[derby378]

14. Way to go, Tom...

Never mind that this is a critical election year; it's time for business as usual on the Hill.


Want to purchase this bumper sticker? Send me a private message!

[papau]

16. Bush, Senate make deal on judges (helps both GOP and Dem in 04 election?)

Bush, Senate make deal on judges (helps both GOP and Dem in 04 election?)


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0405190181may19,1,...

Bush, Senate make deal on judges
Democrats agree to allow votes on 25 nominees


By Richard Simon, Tribune Newspapers. Los Angeles Times; Tribune news services contributed to this report

May 19, 2004

WASHINGTON -- In an unusual display of election-year harmony, Senate Democrats and Republicans, along with the White House, struck a political compromise Tuesday that clears the way for confirmation of (25 of) President Bush's less controversial judicial nominees.<snip>

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) called the agreement, which lasts through the end of Bush's current term, a "temporary cease-fire in the ongoing war" over judicial nominees.

"As a practical matter, the likelihood of a recess appointment between now and Nov. 2 is very small, so I suggest to you that he's not really giving up a lot in exchange for an up-or-down vote on 25 judges," Cornyn said.<snip>

Democrats, he said, can point to the absolute number of confirmations of Bush nominees and claim that the focus should be on that figure, not the relatively few who have been held up. "It becomes more difficult for the Republicans to charge the Democrats with obstructionism," he said. He said the Democratic political base would be pleased that the most controversial nominees still face opposition.

He said Republicans could claim victory on the 25 confirmations, noting that "there could easily have been none."

[Cocoa]

17. the dems won

[Freddie Stubbs]

22. They did not give in

They only agreed to vote on the noncontroversial ones. People like Marcia Cooke will get approved, but not Priscilla Owen, Charles Pickering, or Miguel Estrada.

[maggrwaggr]

25. they still haven't figured out they're dealing with evil scumbags

and you can't DEAL with evil scumbags, you can only fight them and defeat them.

[Zinfandel]

27. Fucking Daschle from a red state and desperately afraid the republicans

will turn their money machine on him if he makes waves...so the republicans want to keep their little lap dog Daschle right where he is, Democrat Minority "leader", and Daschle is happy as a clam he get to keep his Senate job (is this spineless scrum or what?)

And as sure as your reading this, if Daschle gets a little too "upitty" he's gone, defeated, sent back to the lovely hills and plains of South Dakota and good bye to the night life, glamour and power of Washington DC.

And the republicans will make sure another puppy dog is the democrats Minority "leader".

"People like me have to save liberals from themselves. This is not a job I went looking for; it wasn't in the career guidance I received in high school. I may come off as abrasive, but what am I supposed to do, wait around for the next Tom Daschle to lead us?"
-Michael Moore

[SoCalDem]

28. Minority... has no power... sadly, didn't have it when he was NOT minority

No filibusters if Bush promises to not "recess appoint"..Nothing changed, folks..

If he had NOT said that Bush would recess-appoint anyway..

Result..judges get in anyway..

heads we lose...tails they win...

WE NEED THE MAJORITY..THAT'S THE ANSWER :)