News-Record.com

Ending the old "rule" used by Dems to delay, obstruct, and block normal operations will not affect proper debate on anything. It restores the normal order of things, which has been bastardized by the Dems of late.
From your "right wing" comment I gather you'd rather all judges be "left wing" so your minority can trample the rights of the majority?

Thomas-How do you think the republicans shot down all of clinton's nominees. The democrats have already approved significantly more than were approved under Clinton. Not to mention, many of the practicing judges that people like frist call "activist left-wing judges" were appointed during the reagan and senior bush eras. It is a lifetime appointment and the democrats must have some form of debate. Because the current majority takes a "my way or the highway" attitude and does not select very many moderate nominees, the democrats must resort to filibusters, which have been used for years. The republicans are the ones who want to "bastardize" things, by changing rules to fit their needs. How would you feel if the republicans were in the minority and the democrats stripped them of their only method to protect the beliefs of the people who elected them. Its so funny how quickly you all forget.

When in power, the Dems tried every dirty, nasty, underhanded trick to destroy Republicans. They're still doing it. Dems don't change.
Doing away with the improper use of filibusters in no way diminishes the debate options available as first designed.

k,
How about some stats to back up your info. on judicial appointments by Clinton. Credible links, please. Also, how come the Democrats were pushing to eliminate the filibuster in the 1990's but don't think it's such a great idea now?

Thomas,

The Reps shut down government twice during the '90s. Now that's delay obstruct & blocking normal operations.

It's good that the minority can on occasion block what it sees as extreme behavior. It was good when the Reps were in the minority & it's good now. It keeps the majority honest so to speak and protects it (and the country) from their hubris. I think the Reps need that protection right now.

When Clinton was in office he submitted 246 names to be approved, 200 were (81%). Thus far W has submitted 225, with 198 being approved (88%). Check any political website from either party or the white house web pages for information (you will need to count each nominee and whether or not they were approved individually) Bottom line is, both got a great deal of their judges approved, but the way the republicans are spinning it, you would have thought that W isn't getting any of his nominees approved and that they let clintons walk right on through. Its funny that you mention that the democrats wanted to eliminate the fillibuster-Im guessing you were for its elimination then, otherwise you really care less about the fillibuster's elimination and more about whatever side your party takes. I on the other hand would not want either side to end it. I do not believe that the democrats should have eliminated then, nor do I believe the republicans should do so now. Both parties cannot be completely trusted to compromise and a fillibuster is the last right of the minority (whether or not that happens to be Republican or Democrat)

I see where Bobby Conrad , US Attorney from Charlotte finally got confirmed as a Federal District Court Judge after being put on hold by former Senator John Edwards.If a Senator from the nominee's home state fails to return the " blue slip " this kills any chance of approval.

You may recall that in 1996 Conrad was given a special assignment ( Campaign Finance Task Force ) to look into Al Gore and the Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple fund-raiser.On April 18, 2000 Gore was grilled by Conrad for 4 hours, becoming purple with rage and incohernt at times.(The transcript is available at the Washington Post and after reading it you would have to be a fool not to see that Gore was lying ). Conrad like Charles LaBella before him afterwards recommeneded a Special prosecutor for the matter. AG Janet Reno like a good sychophant said no.

Thus when Conrad's name was submitted by Bush to be a judge John Edwards did a payback without having to explain, as if any of the MSM would even bother to ask why the hold . Well good riddance to Edwards. Robert Conrand will make a fine jurist.

"I do not want to see right-wing judges overturning laws that protect civil liberties, workers' rights and the environment"

But it would be fine and f**king dandy if left-wing judges do it, wouldn't it?

Barbara:

I know you liberals don't like to let facts get in the way of your mindless rants but let me try. First, Mr Frist has unfortunately offered 100 hours of debate on each nominee. Secondly there has been on extended debate. The Demagogues simply said we're filibustering the candidates without actually ever doing so, as did Senator Byrd when trying to stall civil rights legislation. Thirdly, the current rules, which are in conflict with the Constitution which mandates a simple majority for confriming judges, were changed by the Demagogues when they controlled the Senate for so many years. Finally, you and those like you are far from a "majority" of the American people. You might wish to refer to the electoral map of the 2004 elections where more than 80% of the counties rejected your idealogy. Your side now has fewer Senators than at any time since the 1920's, and if they keep up the obstructionism, they will have even fewer after the next election. See Tom Daschle! Since your ideas have rejected by an actual majority of the American people, the only way you can get any legislation passed if is by unelected, tyrannical judges. If late term and partial birth abortion are good for America it shouldn't be too hard to get a majority of the people behind you. But then why do you need judges legislating from the bench to keep the right to slaughter innocent, unborn childrn!

Tony Moschetti

I hope the liberals in congress do everything in their power to keep these conservative activists out of judgeships!

Yes Greg it would be just dandy if all federal judgeships went to my fellow liberals.

Tony
first considering the republicans held up many of Clintons nominees in committee in essence blocking his nominations, for you and anyone else to whine about what the dems are doing is nothing but pure hypocritical.

I dont know about this 80% as to how true it is but lets keep the numbers in perspective. Bush may have, I mean may have won this 80% but he did not win 100% of these votes and given the large number of people who voted for Bush because they saw nothing in Kerry it is reaching to say the least he had some outright victory. But then again Bush and his people thought he had an outright victory in 2000 even after loosing by 500,000.

psssst...somebody call the home - Moshetti's out again.

So, Hayes, now a presidential candidtate must win by getting 100% of the vote before you accept that he's legitimate? Dream on...

Brian Harper:
I hope the Republicans do everything they can to keep the left wing whacko judges off of the bench and keep them from "legislating" from the bench, undermining our legislators, and imposing left wing values on the majority.

greg

don't you have enough words in your vocabulary without trying to act so smart and use words that you can't even spell out in this column.
can't you clean it up and still get your message out?

Paul
You badly misread what I wrote,intentially or not is for you to say. My point is that Bush may have won these all these counties, but given how close some of the results were I think, sorry I know it is a reach to make it sound Bush had some outright victory in these counties and his comment about the majority makes in sound Bush won in a landslide and that the small minority should keep its opinion to themselves.

Well.....Bushies.....King George didn't win Guilford. So, You are in the minority. Get Over IT.

Hmmm. I got over Bush losing Guilford county a long time ago. Shortly after I found out that he won the state and the nation.

I don't think Bush means that anyone who disagrees with him should be told to shut up though. If you have valid complaints or issues, I think it is your right as an American to speak about whatever is on your mind. And work in your party to make the changes necessary to enact whatever your agenda is. I think it is time to get over the bitterness and get on with the business of doing what it takes to make this country great!

Oops. Mistyped something. What I meant to say was "I don't think Bush winning means that anyone...."

Sorry.

greg,

"don't you have enough words in your vocabulary without trying to act so smart and use words that you can't even spell out in this column.
can't you clean it up and still get your message out? "

Sorry, reader. Let me spell it out for you.

f-u-c-k y-o-u

greg, How totally base and common.

ouch. feel better, greg?

Greg,

Your mom called, she said to be in before dark and not to forget to feed the dog . . .

All:

This obviously isn't my blog, but I do work at the place that lets y'all debate each and every one of these letters.

So, please, try to keep the profanity and the personal taunts from leaving your brains and coming out your fingers onto the keyboard.

That's a gentle reminder. Don't make me get Allen Johnson or Doug Clark to come down here. ;)

-- John Newsom, asst. sports editor and host of "The Spotter" blog

THANKS JOHN !!!!!!!