Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Kyl: GOP Willing To Filibuster Obama’s Yet-To-Be-Named SCOTUS Nominee

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
cal04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 09:50 AM
Original message
Kyl: GOP Willing To Filibuster Obama’s Yet-To-Be-Named SCOTUS Nominee
The media have been in a flurry in recent weeks over whether Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens will retire this summer. Today on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) already held open the possibility that the person President Oabma nominates may face a filibuster:

WALLACE: Are you willing to pledge right now that the GOP will not filibuster whoever the president nominates?

KYL: It would — it will all depend on what kind of a person it is.

I want a judge who will read the law and declare it in each case that comes before him or her as it should be — in other words, don’t have somebody coming in with preconceived attitudes — I’m going to be tough on the executive, or, I’m going to be for the little guy, or whatever their preconceived attitudes are. We’ve had too much of that. <...>

I think the president will nominate a qualified person. I hope, however, he does not nominate an overly ideological person. That will be the test. And if he doesn’t nominate someone who is overly ideological, I don’t think — you may see Republicans voting against the nominee, but I don’t think you’ll see them engage in a filibuster.

Wallace then brought up the fact that Kyl previously denounced the judicial filibuster, saying, “It’s never been the case until the last two years that a minority could dictate to the majority what they could do.” Kyl responded by blaming Democrats for the rise of the filibuster:

KYL: I would prefer to go back to the situation where it is not done by either party, but the Democrats won that fight. They filibustered Miguel Estrada. He never got on the court. Seven other circuit nominees. So what we need to do is, I think, apply the rule that the Gang of 14 game up with a couple years ago that you don’t filibuster except in extraordinary circumstances, and I’m willing to live by that general rule.

Watch it:http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/04/kyl-filibuster-scotus/

As Wallace noted, in 2005 — when Republicans were in the majority — Kyl had a very different opinion of the filibuster. On Meet the Press on April 25, 2005, Kyl advocated for the end of filibustering judicial nominees: “It has never been the rule that a candidate for judgeship that had majority support was denied the ability to be confirmed once before the Senate. It has never happened before. So we’re not changing the rules in the middle of the game. We’re restoring the 214-year tradition of the Senate because in the last two years Democrats have begun to use this filibuster.”

Kyl, however, has been itching to use the judicial filibuster since Obama took office. Just a few days after the nation elected Obama president, Kyl was already threatening to filibuster potential Supreme Court nominees. He was rude to Sonia Sotomayor during her Senate hearings and tried to put up all sorts of procedural hurdles to block her confirmation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
1. Kyl represents a strong argument against evolution.
What an asshat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
2. I doubt they will
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
3. Those candy asses don't know what a filibuster is
because they've been getting away with balling up their fists and scrunching up their piggy little faces and getting a free ride just for threatening one.

Harry Reid needs to grow a pair and tell those pasty old bastards to get down on the floor and start talking or get out of the way while business proceeds without them.

Enough.

There's nothing that would discourage overuse of the filibuster like forcing those pampered old buggers to do them instead of just preening for the press.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
4. I'm not sure the GOP would remain unified on this.
Depending on the nominee, there may not be much support for filibustering from Snowe, Collins, ... and Brown.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Sotomayor got 68 votes in the Senate.
I'm sure the Obama nominee will get over 60 votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
5. It is way past due to get rid of the filibuster /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
7. Why am I NOT surprised?
:eyes:

Is there anything (or anybody) the Repubs WON'T filibuster nowadays? That being said, unless Obama nominates somebody REALLY extreme (sorry, can't think of a particular example at the moment), I doubt that there's going to be much support for unifying against a SCOTUS nominee. Even the Repubs in Newt's Congress allowed up-or-down votes on SCOTUS nominees and the Democrats- being the *obstructionists* they were during Bush's (P)residency- didn't end up filibustering any of his SCOTUS nominees even though many of them ultimately voted against them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Botany Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
8. I'm against it!
Edited on Sun Apr-04-10 10:28 AM by Botany
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Libertas1776 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. +100
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rustydog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
9. If only Jesus himself would return and Obama nominated Him!
Boener would break everyu bone in his body trying ot contort, twist and maneuver a negative response. The sad thing is, the Christian GOP would listen to him yell Hell no you can't! again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bitwit1234 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
10. Too bad they expect Democrats to be the tip top of virtue but
don't care if the republicans they pick come from the bottom of the barrel, are Parisian, and rule on laws so the benefit the republicans and corporations. Typical republican scabs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chipper Chat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
11. There is an easy way to stop GOP filibusters:
(well, not that easy)

Let's work on electing 60+ senators. It can be done with organization. Maybe bring back Dr. Dean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
12. Bookmark the video. Post it everywhere every time a RW pundit accuses DEMS of partisanship
Nail their asses for their agenda of attacking the very right to nominate, not any shortcoming of some unnamed nominee. Kyl is such a fool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
14. Oh, keep your rug on, Jon
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
15. And to think it's the Republicans who accuse Obama of not wanting
to work in a bipartisan manner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThoughtCriminal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 12:38 PM
Response to Original message
16. I certainly hope so
I would hate to think the nominee would be somebody acceptable to Kyl.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
City Lights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
17. Again proving that no matter what Obama is for, the GOPbaggers are against it.
The party of HELL NO strikes again.

You and your rancid party disgust me, vile Kyl.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 01:48 AM
Response to Original message
18. why shouldn't they be?
It would be ridiculous to rule that out. True, he made an argument against such a move when he was in the majority, but I never thought that argument was worth a damn. I urged Democratic Senators to filibuster both Alito and Roberts.

If a President nominates somebody WORTH filibustering, then a Senator ought to be prepared to filibuster them. The question, however, is what makes a nominee WORTH filibustering?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 02:53 AM
Response to Original message
19. "extraordinary circumstances" = anyone who doesn't want to overturn Griswold v. Connecticut. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC