WASHINGTON - It's a grudge that's been building for two years. In a legislative version of "Survivor," Republicans and Democrats will square off Wednesday in an all-night Senate talkathon on who's to blame for some of President Bush's political nominees not making it to the federal appeals bench.
For 30 straight hours — from Wednesday evening through midnight Thursday — senators will condemn each other and Bush for the impasse over four U.S. Appeals Court nominees: Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, Texas judge Priscilla Owen, Mississippi judge Charles Pickering and Hispanic lawyer Miguel Estrada.
Yadda, yadda, yadda.
"The Republicans are consumed by those four jobs and ignore the 3 million jobs that we've lost over the course of the last three years under this administration's economic policies," said Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., who plans to take one of the late night shifts.
Republicans are joking about setting up cots in the Senate chamber for weary senators, but that likely will be unnecessary.
Instead of one senator trying to talk for the full 30 hours, the two sides will split the time and trade shifts so that there will be a senator from each party on the floor at all times.
For example, a Republican will talk from 3 a.m. to 3:30 a.m., while a Democrat watches. They'll switch roles for the next 30 minutes and then head home to bed, replaced by two others for the next shift lasting as little as one hour.
Because Senate rules require agreement from both sides to quickly confirm a nominee, the GOP can't force a confirmation vote as long as a Democrat is present on the floor to object. But if they fall asleep or stop paying attention, Santorum said the GOP will immediately confirm the nominees.
In turn, Daschle said if Republicans stop paying attention, they will immediately pass Democratic legislation like a bill to raise the minimum wage or one to create a tax credit to stimulate creation of manufacturing jobs.
I'm stuck watching T:3 Rise Of The Machines, but it looks terribly entertaining to me.
posted
You know, when the Republicans were blocking Clinton's nominees, they were just fine with it. They thought it was kind of funny, in fact. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, they're all upset about it.
My take? If they're going to dish it out, they need to be able to take it as well, like big boys and girls.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
lma, I don't exactly disagree with you. Remember, though, each side thinks its nominees are good for the country and the other side's are terribly bad. So blocking the other side's nominees is wise, and having them block yours is frustrating and dangerous. Just remember that the Democrats will do the same.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, you're conveniently overlooking the fact that Clinton's 'blocked' nominees would not have been confirmed by the full Senate, while President Bush's do have more than 50 votes.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most likely not true. Many of Clinton's nominees were blocked by Senator's privilege (a Senator from their home state voiced opposition, so they never got to even have committee hearings), a custom which has since been done away with. Far more of Bush's nominees are reaching the point where there's visible opposition because that roadblock no longer exists.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
