(With the votes from 9 Democrats) Senate Confirms Bush Nominee to Federal Appeals Court

[Totally Committed]

Senate Confirms Bush Nominee to Federal Appeals Court

Oct. 24 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Senate, over the objections of most Democrats and civil rights groups, confirmed a Bush administration appeals court nominee who has been accused of insensitivity to racism.

The Senate voted 59-38 to approve President George W. Bush's nomination of Leslie Southwick, 57, of Mississippi to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after 12 Democrats voted with Republicans to shut off debate on the appointment. Republicans warned that blocking Southwick by use of a filibuster could subject judicial nominees of a future Democratic president to the same treatment.

>snip

Feinstein ``took a tough stand and she showed a lot of courage,'' Mississippi Republican Trent Lott told a news conference today, choking back tears.

Feinstein said today that fights over judges can hurt both parties, and ``It's got to end.''

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20071024/pl_bloomberg/akjjnikch_t4_1

NAYs ---38
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

YEAs (The traitorous 9):

Akaka (D-HI)
Byrd (D-WV)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)


And, some people here have the nerve to lecture those of us who feel it's wrong to just vote for the (D)... It's becoming more and more apparent how wrong that is with every vote that goes down this way.

TC

[Horse with no Name]

1. Sigh.

There are no words anymore. I feel like our Congressional Democrats are bad boyfriends. Always cheating on us.

[hisownpetard]

5. Well said. Excellent post!!!

[Va Lefty]

2. The hits just keep on coming don't they?

WTF is up with Byrd voting to confirm? Did he have a "senior moment"?

[Totally Committed]

3. You can take the man out of the KKKlan, but you can't take the KKKlan out of the man.

Just a guess.

TC

[MrModerate]

4. A) This site is DEMOCRATIC Underground, so . . .

a certain amount of party loyalty ("nose holding at the polls") is inevitable, and B) while this was a terrible vote (Southwick is a bad actor who will now be with us for years, if not decades) if you look at the Yeas, these guys always lean this way, and C) the more "voting for the (D)" we do, the less these rightwing Dems will be able to compromise core party values.

Some of 'em might even grow backbones.

I lived in San Francisco when Feinstein became mayor, so I've followed her career for some time and why she thinks she has to vote right-of-center has always mystified me -- it's not like the electorate demands it of her -- unless she's a complete captive of her husband's pro-business agenda.

And there is a scintilla of truth in her statement about fighting over judges. Because 'Licans have tried to cram such shitty nominees down Dems' throats, the process of evaluating nominees on the merits has broken down. If Dems are *very* successful in 2008, then a little civility and give-and-take might reappear in the Congress, since 'Licans do just fine as back-benchers when they can't deflect important policies.

[spotbird]

6. We need a two party system,

we surly don't have one now.

[Horse with no Name]

9. Respectfully disagree

there is NO way the republicans will EVER be civil under a Democratic rule.

[MrModerate]

32. Given how they've pushed anyone who could spell the word . . .

"compromise" out of the party, you may well be right.

In that case, I'd settle for them becoming irrelevant. Not that Dems are or ever will be saints, or that any party in power doesn't need a "loyal opposition," to keep that checks 'n' balances thingie working, but the 'Lican congress is so full of wingnuts and assholes that we may have to wait for a new generation to achieve balance again.

For the short term we need enough Dem power (read "supermajority") to begin cleaning up the wreckage and rebuilding the burned bridges.

[Hawkowl]

7. Why schedule a vote?

WTF is wrong with Reid? Why even schedule a vote if you are going to lose? It just means you are weak and less likely to win the next vote? Why not filibuster? It is easy to filibuster WHEN YOU HAVE 40 DAMN GUYS!

The fault lies with our cowardly leadership.

[freestyle]

Defections on the cloture vote enabled this.

The filibuster failed.

[cobalt1999]

8. I don't know much about Leslie Southwick

The article only mentions one issue with Southwick which was not voting to fire a state employee who used a racial slur. Is that it? Anyone from Mississippi know any other controversial decisions?

[TwilightGardener]

10. Well, Golll-eee! Surprize surprize! Ben Nelson's on that list of yea's. Good work, Benjamin.

:eyes:

[Totally Committed]

11. Never mind.

Self-delete in the effort to be at least civil.

TC

[TwilightGardener]

14. LOL! Read my response underneath that one...

edit to add: He's been on my shit list because he voted against ending the Iraq war a few weeks ago (no on Levin-Reed)--so I'm on a "piss-on-Nelson" kick lately.

[Totally Committed]

15. I did... I think I'll leave it at that.

:rofl:

TC

[cali]

19. but you didn't

so i get to toy with you a little bit more. it may not be nice, but when people twist the truth, I don't mind batting them around.


:rofl:

[cali]

17. do you really think that that

post indicates that I like Nelson?

[TwilightGardener]

23. No, I don't think ANYONE really likes him, except for Nebraska Republicans

and Nebraska Almost-Republicans (that would be most of the Democrats here). You were making the point that he's good to have in the Senate because he often votes Dem, and I was making the point that that doesn't necessarily make someone a better Senator than a decent Repub, in my view. More useful, but not better. And sometimes it's not even useful, because when he votes against the Dems, like today, Repubs hold him up like Lieberman as a "bipartisan" example of why some measure passed or failed. Nelson knows his power lies in skirting the line between the parties, and he uses it, because he's safe in his seat--he's got the ear of the White House, and loves it--he's a slimy crapweasel. Hagel knew his opposition to the war and various other differences (habeas corpus, Gitmo, etc.) would put him on the outs with the WH, Repub leadership, AND his constituents, but chose to disagree anyway--frequently, loudly, and publicly. That's why he's a better Senator. But no, I don't think you like Nelson.

[cali]

26. yep. I think Hagel is a better person than Nelson

and has stood for better things. My point was simply that I'd still rather have a Nelson or Landrieu, sickening a I find them, than a republican. I still think it means something to have Barbara Boxer chairing Environment rather than Inhof.

[TwilightGardener]

29. Yes, true--nothing is ever black/white. Nelson's not my guy, but unless

there's a better primary alternative next go-round, I won't vote against him. Landrieu--I just don't get her at all. Louisiana can't possibly be as red as Nebraska, Jindal notwithstanding.

[cali]

31. It's my understanding that Katrina

and the abyssmal aftermath acted as ethnic cleansing, turning LA solidly red.

[cali]

16. ah, more petty prevarication. let me clear this up for you

I am not a fan of Nelson's. Not even a little bit. and of course, that post of mine, demonstrates no fondness for him whatsoever. it notes procedural fact. Now how did Hagel vote on Southwick, hmm?
And if Nelson and Byrd and all the others on that list were replaced with repukes, how do you think they'd vote? Ooh, that was tough wasn't it? And guess what? The Senate would be majority repuke and inhofe would be chair of the environmental committee, not to mention all the other pukes chairing vital committees. Now I know some people with limited perspective don't understand why, despite a weak dem leadership, having repukes in the majority is worse.

And you know what's really funny? That post of mine you're so proudly displaying as "proof" that I'm a "fan" of Nelson's? It serves only to make you look petty and foolish. not that that disturbs me particularly.

[cali]

30. good for you.

and you got rid of an obvious mistruth too.

[Nutmegger]

12. Unforgivable....

God I'm tired of this shit. It's always a few who end up handing the Repukes a victory. Damn it.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

13. Feinstein is a pig n/t

[AtomicKitten]

18. You know those activist judges the GOP is always sniveling about?

Nine Democrats just installed another one.

Effin hell.

K&R.

[Totally Committed]

21. And, the argument around here when someone says they won't vote

in the next election is "the courts!"

They tell us Democrats will give us better courts (Supreme and all) than the Republicans. Well, after this, THAT argument has bitten the dust. The Democrats just worked with the Republicans to install a RW racist activist judge.

Pisses me off.

TC

[AtomicKitten]

25. I wonder if the Dem power-brokers notice that the GOP judge shops -

to find that extra special RW wingnut to play along.

That's why Cheney's Energy Commission records never saw the light of day.

That's why further evidence of atrocities at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo has been suppressed.

It works out so nicely for the GOP, and some Dems are more than happy to lend a hand in this travesty.

My head is exploding ...

[cali]

28. No. The democrats as a whole did not

work with the repukes to install this creep. 9 democrats did so- reprehensibly, no doubt about it. But guess what? There are 42 dems who didn't vote for him.

Extrapolating from the fact that 9 dems voted for Southwick, and thus that's proof that a dem president and dem congress wouldn't nominate and confirm good judges, is a whopper of a logical fallacy.
I have history on my side to demonstrate that dems nominate and confirm reasonable judges and justices. What do you have? Oh, that's right, a logical fallacy.

funny as hell to watch your exercise of "logic"

:rofl:

[leftynyc]

24. As Calli so eloquently pointed out above

9 pukes would have voted the same way - I still will put my money on the democrats not putting another Scalia/Thomas/Alito on the court.

[AtomicKitten]

27. I do believe it remains critical that a Democrat -

any Democrat, appoints the next Supreme Court justice(s).

However, I am livid that some Dems are playing along packing the courts for the opposition, courts where I predict many elections will be settled in the future owing to the "success" of the 2000 judicial coup d'etat.

[leftynyc]

33. I'm in total agreement

My #1 issue is the Supreme Court - long after any president is gone, his legacy of supreme picks lives on.

But letting this yahoo get a vote is sickening

[truebrit71]

20. Byrd - Yea? Wtf?

..what happened there?

I expect this kind of back stabbing from the other 8...but Byrd?

Has me baffled... :shrug:

[leftynyc]

22. I guess I can't complain

both my senators voted against (Clinton and Schumer). But I'm sick to death of getting beaten by the minority party. I know that something like 92% of the votes democrats wanted passed but it sure doesn't seem that way. I think the Stark apology yesterday just really hit me the wrong way - forcing him to apologize to avoid the censure was bullshit. That vote should never had hit the floor (and yes, I understand it didn't really hit the floor but the democrats should have fillibustered until the cows came home).

[LWolf]

34. Vote for the D.

Of course it's all about the judges. Democrats won't put rw judges on the bench.


Right. :sarcasm:

[MLFerrell]

35. What is with Byrd constantly voting for shithead's judicial nominees?

:shrug:

That is one thing I'll never figure out.

[incapsulated]

36. Because he believes a President should get whoever he wants

Unless the nominee is a convicted felon or something, it's absurd.