Radio Left :: Senate Democrats Sell Out the United States, Get Down on All Fours and Lick Bush's Boots

Get Your Own Blog

Powered By RADIO LEFT

Blogging Help Contact Us

Blogging Help

Lost Userid or Password

Receive UPDATE NOTIFICATIONS by EMAIL
Change EMAIL NOTIFICATION OPTIONS
	RADIO LEFT NETWORK
	RADIOLEFT.com
	THIS CATEGORY

Digg Radio Left Stories at digg.com

Year Archive

2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2000

Month Archive

July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005

Main Page » Radio Left

Previous:	Going Nowhere - or, What's Up with the DLC?
Next:	Dr. Hager's Family Values

Senate Democrats Sell Out the United States, Get Down on All Fours and Lick Bush's Boots

by Geoff Staples on Mon 23 May 2005 11:14 PM CDT | Permanent Link | Cosmos

Email this article

Senate Democrats abandoned the high ground and handed George Bush an undeserved victory complete with gift werapped judges.

Tonight, Senate Democrats agreed to support a cloture vote for Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and William Pryor so that their confirmation to the federal bench is now assured. George Bush sent these nominees back to the Senate after they were refused confirmation by a sustained filibuster in the 108th Congress along with eight more previously rejected judicial nominees. Mr. Bush resubmitted them solely to demonstrate that he could roll the Democrats, damage their base, and make them look like bigger cowards than he was during Viet Nam.

Bush succeeded.

Democratic Senators Inouye (HI), Landrieu (LA), Lieberman (CT), Pryor (AR), Salazar (CO), Byrd (WV), and Nelson (NE) delivered the victory to Mr. Bush on a silver platter.

The memorandum of agreement is written to allow the Republicans to implement the nuclear option if the Democrats attempt a filibuster on a judicial nominee.

When read carefully, the agreement simply states that the Republicans won't change the votes required for judicial confirmation to 51 votes if the Democrats won't filibuster the nominees except under "extraordinary circumstances".

Republicans have already set their next trap for the Democrats by cranking up the spin machine to drive home the claim that Democrats, by allowing Pryor, Brown, and Owen to be confirmed, have admitted that a radical right wing judicial philosophy is not sufficient to deny a nominee confirmation.

The very second the Democrats mount a filibuster on a judicial nominee, the Republicans will claim that no "extaordinary circumstances" exist and immediately change Senate rules so they can confirm judges with 51 votes.

The Democrats caved in despite the fact that they were winning in public opinion and were solidifying their Democratic base. An informal MSNBC poll had 60% of the respondents against the agreement and another 20% probably against it.

The Republicans will smuggly attack the Democrats for having no moral or spiritual center. (Democrats are weak scum if they concede and beligerent scum if they succeed.)

As a gesture of the new goodwill and trust between Democrats and Republicans, Senator Bill Frist rushed to the Senate floor to attack the Democrats for "creating this crisis in the first place." followed by Minority Leader Senator Harry Reid and many other Senate Democrats who gushed about the "new era" of centrist trust and cooperation in the Senate.

The Democrats were so delusional that they actually stated that President Bush would now nominate moderates to the federal bench instead of right wingers. But, the Republicans have done nothing to demonstrate their trustworthiness.

But, Mr. Bush, knowing that the Democrats will lick his boots on command, will send judicial nominees to the Senate that make Owen, Rogers, and Pryor look liberal.

Republicans gave up nothing, got three right wing judges, and the green light to take anything they want with impugnity.

Republicans have been laughing in amazement at Senator John Kerry, who had Bush beaten and then backed off, allowing Bush to pummel Senator Kerry into a bloody pulp, destroy his reputation, and win the 2004 election. Now, they are laughing at us again for once again retiring from the battlefield on the verge of victory.

In sum:

The Democrats have proven once again, that they do not have the backbone to oppose the Republicans in any serious manner while Republicans gleefully prepare their bludgeons, brass knuckles, and electric shock sticks.

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and Democratic Leader Reid. This memorandum confirms an understanding among the signatories, based upon mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future judicial nominations in the 109th Congress.

This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the Senate's Judiciary Committee.

We have agreed to the following:

Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations

A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit).

B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit).

Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations

A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.

B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.

We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word "Advice" speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President's power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.

Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.

We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold.

Posted to:

Radio Left

Comments

Click here to post a comment to this article

Get a free account so you can post your comments.

If you just can't stand to register and login,
Click here to post anonymously on the Graffiti Wall!

Re: Senate Democrats Sell Out the United States, Get Down on All Fours and Lick Bush's Boots

by nomasarbusto on Tue 24 May 2005 01:10 AM CDT | Profile | Permanent Link

thank you Geoff, for your piece on democrats cowtowing to the republicans on the filibuster. It is the best piece i have yet read and the one which best explains what has happened and the one which best explains the illogical reasoning of democrats for agreeing to whatever the republicans wanted--the up/down vote on the judicial nominees.

It also lays out most clearly how bush will mistreat the democrats if they as so much decide that they want to use the filibuster against any of his nominees.

This is the same twisted logic that had some senators voting for going to war in Iraq on the premise that bush wouldn't abuse the power he was being given.

Are the democrats demented? Do they not learn? How could BYRD ,out of all of the Senators, have voted for any deal with the republicans and then stood amidst them in a press conference to declare that the republic and free speech in the senate have been save. i saw that and i wanted to cry!

what has happened to this country? We have just been sunk. that is what has happened!

Is there any point any further in continuing to stand up to Bush and his flatulent government?

Re: Re: Senate Democrats Sell Out the United States, Get Down on All Fours and Lick Bush's Boots

by Geoff Staples on Tue 24 May 2005 01:53 AM CDT | Profile | Permanent Link

The one I was most disappointed in was Mary Landrieu. She has been one of my heros and have though of her as a great VP candidate.

I'm not terribly surprised about Bob Byrd. He has great reverence for the Senate as an institution and doing what he thinks will best protect the institution is what I would expect from him. So, he is the only one of the bunch that I won't criticize about this because he didn't sell out - really does put the institution first - which none of the others have that perspective.

We published an article last year about how the Republicans physically and emotionally abuse their spouses and the Democrats are the abused spouses.

I'm also not upset with the 7 Republicans who worked on this deal because they say how the Republican leadership was about to drive the Republican Senators right onto the rocks. (I really dislike a couple of them, but for the most part, they were working to save the institution.)

The difference is that the Republican leadership is out to destroy the Democrats. The moderate Republicans took a sensible position in trying to avert a disaster for their party.

The Democrats on the other hand, allowed the Republicans to bully them into submission - which is especially stupid when you have to give up your winning position to get down on your hands and knees so that the losers can beat you.

There's another aspect of this: The Democrats fell into the Republican trap by allowing the Republicans to make it about the appropriateness of the filibuster and the Frank Lutz "up or down" propaganda.

If I were calling the shots in the Senate, I'd be saying, "The Republicans are a bunch of spoiled, greedy bullies. They won't settle for a great success in judicial confirmations and instead have to get their way 100% of the time. If I were Bill Frist's or George Bush's Daddy, I'd pull their pants down, put them over my knee and whoop there butts so hard they wouldn't sit down for a month."

Geoff

Geoff

Re: Re: Re: Senate Democrats Sell Out the United States, Get Down on All Fours and Lick Bush's Boots

by rothgar on Tue 24 May 2005 10:49 AM CDT | Profile | Permanent Link

On C-SPAN Radio this morning it sounded like both sides felt they'd been let down. The host read articles from both conservative and liberal groups was complaining about the agreement. Some said that this compromise may have against jeopardized McCain's presidential aspirations. This may be very good since it means the GOP will end up nominating a clealry identifiable Christo-Nazi.

Recently, I had the misfortune of only being able to hear Hannity's show. He and Dick Morris were talking about how they were hoping/planning to make the Democrats look really bad when they enacted their part of the Nuclear scenario: slowing the Senator to a crawl. With their media megaphones they might have succeeded. Would the people have still been with teh Democrats when they saw that word in DC had come to a halt.

I think we need to see where this deal really goes. PFAW sent out what I felt was a cautious email that focuses on working to get the Senate to reject the three nominees selected for assured votes. Although I am pretty sure both of my Senators (Mikulski and Sarbanes) are in the against catagory, I will send them all I can find about these judges.

I had felt the likely outcome was the Nuclear option would win on a razor thin vote, but then the nominees would still be voted down. This would have been even a bigger disaster.

I reccommend that everyone who's unhappy with the compromise, and has human Senators (not the Bush robots you are "blessed" with in Texas) find and send as much information about the judicial failings of these judges to their Senators ASAP. Knowing you will probably be writing to pro-life Senators, I'd stay away from abortion or parential notification issues but from what I've seen there are plenty of other reasons to oppose these folks. The kind of activism that even some moderates distain.

As someone once said, "it ain't over til it's over".

We can still stop these nominees (Maybe??)

by rothgar on Tue 24 May 2005 11:01 AM CDT | Profile | Permanent Link

FYI:
Here is the DNC Women's Vote Center talking points about Justice Owens:

Priscilla Owen: Altering the Law to Suit her Personal Opinions

Priscilla Owen, a current Texas Supreme Court justice, has a long judicial record and it �s a record that shows she never met a corporate interest she didn't like. In all her time on the bench, she never ruled in favor of a consumer interest. Instead, Owen uniformly rules or argues for the adoption of her own pro-business agenda not the law. Criticism of Owen did not begin with Democrats; her own conservative Republican colleagues on the bench most notably Alberto Gonzales (then on the Texas Supreme Court) questioned her impartiality, calling one such Owen overreach an unconscionable act of judicial activism.� Owen is nominated to the Fifth Circuit seat that President Clinton attempted to afford to Enrique Moreno. Moreno was pocket filibustered by the Republicans, he never received a hearing, much less vote. He would have been the first Hispanic on the Fifth Circuit.

Priscilla Owen's repeated and aggressive attempts to alter the law to suit her personal opinions have drawn sharp criticism, even from her Republican colleagues. She has sided with corporate interests over consumers, victims, and individual plaintiffs. The majority has made clear just how out of the mainstream Owen is in her opinions on the following important issues:

Age discrimination. In Quantum Chemical Corp. V. Toennies, Owen would have denied relief to a 55 year old employee who alleged he was fired because of age discrimination. The majority opinion stated that Owen's argument that ignored the "plain meaning of an unambiguous statute� to reach a conclusion that would limit the rights of the employee.
Water quality and environmental ordinances. In FM Properties v. City of Austin, The majority specifically criticized Owen's dissent, explaining that most of it is "nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric.� Owen argued in favor of a campaign contributor in this case.
Medical malpractice. In Weiner v. Wasson, Then-Justice John Cornyn unequivocally rejected Owen��s argument, stating it was contrary to the Texas State Constitution. Owen wrote a dissent advocating a ruling against a medical malpractice plaintiff injured while he was still a minor. The issue was the constitutionality of a state law requiring minors to file medical malpractice actions before reaching the age of majority, or risk being outside the state of limitations.
Infliction of emotional distress and defamation. The majority opinion in Collins v. Ison-Newsome, joined by Bush appointees Baker and Hankinson, stated that Justice Owen's dissent defies the Legislatures clear and express limits on our jurisdiction.� At issue was whether the Supreme Court had the proper conflicts jurisdiction to hear the appeal of school officials being sued for defamation. The majority explained that it did not.
Scope of Texas parental consent law. Owen��s dissent in In re: Jane Doe 1 was called an unconscionable act of judicial activism by then-Justice Alberto Gonzales. Owen attempted to create a state-mandated religious counseling requirement for pregnant teens.

Priscilla Owen Shows Insufficient Concern for Ethical Issues: Cases Show Owen Ruled for Campaign Donors. Owen has repeatedly presided over cases involving law firms or litigants who contributed substantially to her election campaigns, failing to either disclose such contributions to the parties before her or disqualify herself.

Owen's failure to disclose indicates that she lacks the moral and ethical commitment to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, despite the fact that disclosure or recusal is not required under controlling Texas law.
In one case where Owen dissented to write in favor of a contributor, the majority, which included then-Justice Alberto Gonzales, called her dissent, nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric� FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin

In H.E. Butt Grocery Company v. Bilotto, Owen dissented when the majority decided to affirm the jury verdict awarding damages to a customer injured in a grocery store fall. H.E. Butt Chairman Charles Butt personally donated $7500 to Justice Owen, $5000 of which was given to her shortly after this case was decided.

Re: We can still stop these nominees (Maybe??)

by rothgar on Tue 24 May 2005 11:14 AM CDT | Profile | Permanent Link

Here's the first part of the DNC Women's Vote Center talking points about Janice Rogers Brown:

I couldn't insert the whole document since it concludes with a Word Table.

JANICE ROGERS BROWN:
WAGING AN IDEOLOGICAL WAR FROM THE BENCH

Janice Rogers Brown, a California Supreme Court justice nominated to the D.C. Circuit, is waging an ideological war from the bench against America's social safety net. She wants to take America back to the 19th Century and undo the New Deal, which includes Social Security and vital protections for working Americans like the minimum wage. Her abysmal record on civil rights safeguards has caused the nation's top African-American and civil rights leaders to oppose her nomination. She has consistently used her position as a member of the court to advocate for her own extreme ideological agenda. If confirmed, her jurisprudence of convenience will be brought to one of the courts considered to be crucially important for its role in deciding cases determining the fate of our most important protections for the environment and the rights of workers and women --- protections that Justice Brown has unequivocally denounced.

A RESULTS-ORIENTED, AGENDA-DRIVEN JUDGE:
Justice Brown has proven herself to be a results-oriented, agenda-driven judge whose respect for precedent and rules of judicial interpretation change depending on the subject matter before her and the results she wants to reach. Speaking recently at a church on "Justice Sunday� Brown proclaimed a war "between religious people and the rest of America."

DISREGARDS PRECEDENT: In her opinions, Justice Brown has repeatedly argued that precedents are expendable when they conflict with a result she desires. She has ignored precedent to expand the rights of corporations at the expense of individuals arguing to give corporations more leeway against attempts to prevent consumer fraud, to stop the sale of cigarettes to minors, and to prevent discrimination against women and homosexuals.
This is a huge issue that may be able to persuade Moderates to oppose this women.

ADVOCATES TURNING BACK THE CLOCK 100 YEARS: Justice Brown has consistently advocated returning to an era where worker protections laws were found unconstitutional. She has questioned the constitutionality of Social Security and the entire New Deal and described the year 1937 the year in which much of President Roosevelt's New Deal legislation took effect -- as "the triumph of our own socialist revolution.�

DISDAIN FOR GOVERNMENT:
Justice Brown has been nominated to the court that oversees the actions of federal agencies that are responsible for worker protections, environmental laws, and civil rights and consumer protections. She has made no secret of her disdain for government. According to Justice Brown, government destroys families, takes property, is the cause of a "debased, debauched culture," and threatens civilization. In an age-discrimination case, she wrote a lone dissent against a fired 60-year-old employee, warning that the case could harm the "stability of the business community," and she contended that age discrimination "does not mark its victim with a stigma of inferiority," unlike other forms of discrimination. [Stevenson v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 16 Cal. 4th 880 (Ca. 1997)] She has even said that senior citizens cannibalize �their grandchildren by asking for society's support in their old age.

NOT QUALIFIED FOR THE BENCH:
Justice Brown received a not qualified rating from the California Judicial Commission when she was nominated for the California Supreme Court in 1996 because of her "tendency to interject her political and philosophical views into her opinions� and complaints that she was insensitive to established legal precedent, had difficulty grasping complex civil litigation, lacked compassion and intellectual tolerance for opposing views, misunderstood legal standards and was slow to produce opinions. The American Bar Association gave Justice Brown a partially "not qualified" rating to serve on the D.C. Circuit.

# # # # #

Re: Senate Democrats Sell Out the United States, Get Down on All Fours and Lick Bush's Boots

by Geoff Staples on Tue 24 May 2005 11:04 AM CDT | Profile | Permanent Link

Don't waste your time gathering more inforamtion. Just email your opposition to your Senator or a friendly neighbor Senator.

This will do NO good, though because the Dems sold us out by agreeing not to filibuster Brown, Pryor, or Owen.

The Repbublicans have 55 votes - more than enough to confirm these judges.

Let me point out that over 3,000 votes have been cast by Republicans for Bush judicial nominees and only ONE Republican voted agains ONE nominee. So, the Republicans have won.

Face it. We've been sold down the river by the Senate Democrats.

Geoff

Re: Senate Democrats Sell Out the United States, Get Down on All Fours and Lick Bush's Boots

by nomasarbusto on Tue 24 May 2005 04:09 PM CDT | Profile | Permanent Link

it is too bad neither bill frist nor george bush has/had a daddy who would tell them enough with your bullying power-and-control dictatorial stiercol...and that no one in the senate is standing up to either one -- except that hillary clinton said yesterday she hoped senators would say, "no mr. President, You cannot have your way all of the time. It is time to respect the Institution..." or something like that... i don't have the right quote in front of me, so i am just playing it back from memory--but obviously, what she said was not enough!

Re: Senate Democrats Sell Out the United States, Get Down on All Fours and Lick Bush's Boots

by JayHawk on Wed 25 May 2005 05:31 AM CDT | Profile | Permanent Link

Geoff wrote :
"The difference is that the Republican leadership is out to destroy the Democrats. The moderate Republicans took a sensible position in trying to avert a disaster for their party."

Let me just ask us one question which I have asked time and time again, most recently on the white rose forum :

Is it just one big (political) party with a right wing (disguised as the Rs) and a left wing ( the Ds) ??

This is very disappointing. Just when I thought the Ds were waking up and showing some spine. Guess I was wrong.

What now friends ? Shall we just sit back and wait until the whole damned thing eats itself ?

Re: Senate Democrats Sell Out the United States, Get Down on All Fours and Lick Bush's Boots

by JayHawk on Wed 25 May 2005 05:31 AM CDT | Profile | Permanent Link