Democratic Majority and Judicial Nominations - what does it mean?

[LynneSin]

Simple:

During the Patrick Leahy years (2001-2) there were about 8-10 activist judges that the democratic majority DENIED because of extremist views.

Now too many times I get these worry-warts that feel that a democratic majority means risking chances at putting someone like Alito on the bench because there would be too many centrist democrats like the "Gang of 14" willing to compromise the bench by supporting radical nominations.


Now, riddle me this - why is that above statement basically a load of crap.

Anyone?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. Because the Gang of 14 would be in OUR favor. That's why.

If we go nuclear while in the majority, we get OUR way - period. That's why it's bullshit.

[LynneSin]

2. WRONG

Gang of 14 would only be if we had a floor vote.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. I'm not sure if I understand...

The Gang of 14 was formed to avoid going nuclear. It had the effect of picking out which nominees were "suitable" for a filibuster and which ones deserved a vote. Therefore, if we held a majority, the "unsuitable" candidates would have to be considered too far to the left for the moderate 14 Senators.

Furthermore, I'm pretty certain you don't consider Alito and Roberts to be centrist. Thus, we'd get the lefty equivalent of Alito and Roberts.

Furthermore, the Gang of 14 agreements ends with the new Congress, unless they renew it. Of course, it's entirely possible that some of those Senators will be replaced in the elections, making that possibility remote.

So, I'm not sure why having a floor vote matters. It's pretty clear that the Gang of 14 influenced a lot without ever holding a floor vote.

[LynneSin]

4. See you keep thinking floor vote

And that's what so many people think which I'm trying to get people to see the bigger picture.

'Gang of 14' have some say over floor votes but what if the vote never gets to the floor from a Judiciary Committee that has no democratic members from that 'Gang'. If we get the majority we would have to add one more democrat and since John Kerry was the one that gave up his seat when we lost control - he would probably be the new addition

This is why we need a democratic majority - because our judiciary committee is strong and would never allow people like Alito to even get to the floor (they all voted against him including Feinstein).

I would rather have a democratic control Judiciary Committee with strong pro-choice stalwarts like Leahy, Kennedy, Feingold, Biden, Feintsein, Kohl controlling the flow of judicial nominations than having to fight this battle with a floor vote where filibusters can be questionable at best.

Say what you will about all the flaws of the democratic majority but our judiciary committee was AWESOME when they were in the majority keeping people like Estrada, Brown, Pickering et al from ever seeing the floor for voting. I could research the count but it was somewhere between 8-10 that never made it to the floor vote. Worst case was Bush gave them a recess appointment (Pickering) but that means they have to be renominated again at the beginning of the next congressional session

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. I was working from the assumption that we had the majority

I think I misunderstood what you were saying originally. I thought you were saying "Why would it matter whether or not we have a majority if the Gang of 14 are in place?"

[LynneSin]

6. The majority does matter because it nullifies the "Gang of 14"

they only have control over the floor vote and none of them are in the Judiciary Committee (you can look it up and historically speaking the party chairs tend to only allow members in who will stick with the party line vote).

I've seen too many threads where people make such bizarro statements like "So what if we have the democratic majority because they'll still let people like Alito on the bench thanks to the gang of 14". What I'm trying to point out is that is the most dumbest statement I've ever heard since no judicial nomination will even make it to the floor for the vote if the democratic majority in the committee all vote against said activist judge. And it's highly unlikely that Leahy is going to allow any of the 7 democrats from that gang on his committee

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. I think we're on the same page Lynne.

As usual. :toast:

[LynneSin]

8. I know I'm preaching to the choir with you

I just wish other people would think this through about the power of committees. I want better democratic representation but not at the cost of keeping republicans in power for another 2 years.

We will not be perfect with a democratic majority and I suspect there are people that are lining up to tell me "I told you so" each and everytime the democratic majority fails them (and it will).

But even if a democratic majority only is right about 50% of the time, that's still 50% more right than when republicans were in charge.

And those committees are so damn powerful - I wish people would consider that before grandstanding with these "I WON'T COMPROMISE MY VOTE IT'S TOO IMPORTANT TO ME" because when we think "ME" we lose

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. It's arrogant ignorance, Lynne.

I hate to say it, but a large portion of the people who post that tripe think they're political experts because they watch Meet the Press every Sunday. They have no understanding of how the system works even at a fundamental level. I bet you that if you asked them basic questions about how a bill becomes a law, they'd have no clue about half of what actually happens, and yet they speak as if they themselves were once Congressmen. I never cease to be amazed by it.

[LynneSin]

10. Amen

:pals: