#1 - The House of Representatives passed a budget seven months ago. There has been no Senate action on that budget other than the defense bill.
#2 - The House of Representatives passed homeland security three months ago. The Senate has taken no action.
#3 - President Bush has gotten 44% of his judges to the floor for a vote. Clinton had 93%, Reagan had 99%, and Bush 41 had 90% of his judges brought to the floor for a vote.
#4 - The House of Representatives has been dealing for five months on welfare reform. In fact, they passed it five months ago. There has been no action in the Senate on continuing welfare reform from 1996, which is a demonstrable success.
#5 - The House of Representatives passed a prescription drug bill five months ago. There has been no action on prescription drugs from the Senate.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
So is it accurate that the House is a rubber-stamp factory for whatever DeLay orders? Sure, why not?
Though if it is the truth we're after, why not, you know, look it up.
I'm not quite sure where to find the equivalent information for the House, but this appears a good place to start.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"President Bush has gotten 44% of his judges to the floor for a vote. Clinton had 93%, Reagan had 99%, and Bush 41 had 90% of his judges brought to the floor for a vote."
What is this even supposed to mean?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
That pushing judges may not as a a priotiry as with the others....
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
That whoever makes such decisions in the Senate, i.e. the Democrats, are making a significant effort to prevent Bush's nominees from getting voted on?
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Ah, I missed the hum of Omega's tiny conspiracy creating mind!!!!
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
keep in mind that a lot of the people that Bush has been trying to get pushed into judges seats are pretty contreversial, politically. in the past, it was generally fairly bland people who presidents nominated.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
How controversial? Myself, I haven't seen any of these judges referred to anywhere.
Sol's link was helpful - I didn't have time to peruse it all, but I got in 200 bills without finding one that had been voted on.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
I usually try to stay out of your funny internal politics but I found this in the Washinton post today.
quote:President Bush says the percentage of judges confirmed by the Senate this term is "way below those confirmed under President Clinton or President Bush or President Reagan." Democrats, who control the Senate, say they have confirmed "a record number of judges."
Who's correct?
According to a Brookings Institution analysis, the confirmation rate for the 107th Congress, 61 percent, is lower than the 90 percent Clinton enjoyed in his first two years -- when his own party controlled the Senate. Democrats prefer to point out they have confirmed more judges -- 79 -- than the 69 the GOP Congress confirmed in Clinton's last two years, the 106th Congress. In that Congress, the Senate confirmed 62 percent of Clinton's choices, virtually identical to the current rate.
Yes, but the confirmation rate is not the same as the "bringing to the floor for a vote" rate.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
So who decides whether or not potential judges get called to the floor? Where, I assume, they're either confirmed or not, said results being reflected in the figures above.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Does the president appoint any judges other than those on the federal Supreme Court? And isn't that full already?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
The President is tasked with appointing all Federal judges, no?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
1) Prezziechops appoints Federal & Supreme Court judges.
2) HSJC approves appointees, or not. Success rates at this stage are (apparently): Reagan 99%; Bush Sr 90%; Clinton 93%, Bush Jr 44%.
3) House approves (confirms, rather) those the HSJC passes on to them, or not. So far Bush Jr is batting 61% (with a fairly-even Senate?) as opposed to Clinton's 90% (with a Democrat-controlled Senate) or 62% (when Senate was Republican-controlled).
Is that right?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Mostly. Ever hear that a bill "died in committee?" Meaning that it was kept in a committee until the time limit for it to be voted on was passed, or it was superceded, or the sponsors just let it drop because it was obvious that the committee was not going to release it for a vote. Many bills die this way (including, fortunately, many of Jesse Helms's). It's like filibustering, but nobody has to talk. You just keep it off the agenda.
I believe that that's the belief expressed, that Bush's appointees are "dying in committee" rather than being either accepted or rejected outright. That they're being stalled, 'discussed' interminably rather than put through to the Senate for a yea or nay vote.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Maybe we should set it up where the presidential appointees are automatically in, unless SPECIFICALLY blocked? It'd keep people from pulling stunts like this, and force them to explain exactly WHY the judges were being blocked.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
So, if I'm reading the HSJC page right, there are currently 10 Democratic members to 9 Republican.
Ooh, look another patented Omega Logic Leap™! Farquad expresses a belief that may - or may not - be true (and I'm not even sure whether it's his belief that is being expressed); notice how Omeychops immediately leaps onto the bandwagon to demand that a major piece of legislation, one which could have serious implications for the whole three-branches-of-government thing, be instituted to stop THEM, THOSE PEOPLE, from doing it again.
OK, more questions (I gave up trying to figure your government out when I got stuck over Electoral Colleges; I'm trying to catch up): the Senate is basically even right now, correct? What about the House? What is happening with welfare reform? And who's behind it? And what's the prescription drugs Bill about?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Demand? Did I demand anything?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
No, he didn't appear to...
Then you would have the parties blocking the blocking, while a Pres's henchperson got the job... and maybe not for the benefit of the people overall....
So it would actually keep the status quo on politics, and let the Pres appoint away, maybe to the detrement of the people...
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Clarification: It's the opinion expressed, not necessarily mine (Honestly, I don't know enough about the proccess or who's been confirmed and who hasn't and who's stuck in committee to take a stand either way.)
I don't think that that change would help, Omega. Especially if we had a Democratic president instead. *shudder* No, let the system work the way it does, just put more scrutiny on the committee. Sort of a "watching the watchmen" thing.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Or, get this, the Democrats, those partisan lying scum, could just approve of all of Mr. Bush's judges because "we're at war!!!"
Or, get this part two, you could shut up about the Democrats, those partisan lying scum, because the Republicans, those non-partisan flowers of purity, when in control of the Senate did the same thing, i.e. using Senate procedure to not bring about a vote.
It's called politics. Apparently playing politics is ok and above board for Republicans, those non-partisan flowers of purity, but oh no, don't let the Democrats, those partisan lying scum, oppose any of Mr. Bush's Hard-Right judicial nominations.
It was interesting to hear the Republicans, those non-partisan flowers of purity, say 'what comes around goes around' after Priscilla Owen was rejected by the Judiciary Committee considering Mr. Bush bypassed a more moderate judge to nominate someone with Hard-Right, anti-consumer credentials. But we know, no Democrate, those partisan lying scum, has ever opposed a judge or ever even voted on principle. Republicans, those non-partisan flowers of purity, shun politics at every turn and only vote the way their principles tell them.
Must be tough to be a flower of purity in the Senate.
And get this, Mr. Bush is even out there saying he's going to nominate conservative judges! He doesn't even have the sense to say he's going to nominate the best judges. No, not Mr. Bush. He's going to nominate conservatives and then whine when they get opposed. As a uniter and not a divider, I guess that's the way to get things done.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Nice wording....
Need a mop to clean up the dripping tho....
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Welcome back, Jay. 8)
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: Nice wording....
Need a mop to clean up the dripping tho....
Yes, he does tend to drool and foam at the mouth a lot.
If he were as fair as he pretends to be, he'd note that I asked if anybody knew if these things were true, and I talked about the accusations that were being made, and reiterated a request for information. I did not make a statement.
Then again, his are the same folks who turn a memorial service into a partisan campaign rally, and ambushed the "enemy" who had just showed up to bid farewell to a respected opponent.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
That's a big brush. Where can I get one like it?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Funny thing about broad strokes: they're rarely wrong in their entirity. It's almost always a matter of degree. You're saying, "Oh, he said that Democrats did something that they did. It's a generalization, and therefore wrong." Even if it WAS a generalization, it would still be a correct and useful one, because the vast majority of Democrats present did, in fact, do what Rob said they did.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
It also hit home for both parties, since they both do act this way.... It is called politics...
I am sure that the Dems will have a reverse situation to through in your face in due time, and the same arguments will flow in the opposite...
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Yes, and I'm sure we can't call Hitler on his genocide, because I'm sure that in due time he'll have an example of it to throw back in our face.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Christ you are such a shit brain. Be nice if your parents had tought you to actually think for yourself.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Jeff, man, go find a cookie or something.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Though while he eats it, I'll call Godwin.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Omega... 1. broad strokes cover the actual item, and a whole area around it, so you are right there... Mountain and Mole Hill idea here...
2. He could claim to have wanted to prevent the problems the Palistinians are having with Israel, or sided with any number of Arab and/or Islamic nations. If allowed to continue his genocide the USS Liberty incident wouldn't have happened, Yom Kippur, the 6 Day War, etc wouldn't have happened, the Middle East may be the most stable region in the world...
Point of view.....
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
You can always tell adolescents, they nitpick to the point of obsessiveness. Yes, Omeychops didn't actually demand anything, he said:
quote:Maybe we should set it up where the presidential appointees are automatically in, unless SPECIFICALLY blocked? It'd keep people from pulling stunts like this, and force them to explain exactly WHY the judges were being blocked.
. . . however, I was being facetious. It's a perfectly valid reaction to someone who has endlessly defended, say, the ineffable carving in stone in the Constitution of the right to bear arms, yet in the quote above is actually proposing something that erodes away at the very democratic principles the document is founded on.
I guess we should expect nothing less from someone who once said (again, I'm paraphrasing - think of it as another of theose broad strokes that eren't entirely without merit) "I do everything the Bible tells me, apart from a few areas where it could be improved, like being more explicit in the utter damnation of homosexuals."
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
quote:I guess we should expect nothing less from someone who once said (again, I'm paraphrasing - think of it as another of theose broad strokes that eren't entirely without merit) "I do everything the Bible tells me, apart from a few areas where it could be improved, like being more explicit in the utter damnation of homosexuals."
This sounds like he said that he is a homosexual, because the Bible isn't explicit enough....
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Really? Must be some sort of cultural difference, it seems to make sense to me. Mind you, I used the phrase "out of interest" (as in "out of curiosity") when asking a question on another BB the other day and the person I was addressing assumed I meant I wasn't actually interested.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
I understand that reference.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Lee:
proposal != advocation
Learn your own language. Until you do, I see no reason to even acknowledge your posts.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
He's regressing. He hasn't used the old "you made one small grammatical mistake in your last post, thereby invalidating everything you've ever said to anyone in the world ever, so I don't need to ackowledge your post, let alone try to argue against it, look I've got my fingers in my ears, la la la, I can't hear you" gambit (othewise known as the "dog ate my homework" tactic) in at least, what, six months? This is what happens when you stop actively not wanting to lust and start trying to acquire sexual favours with peanut butter & jelly sandwiches.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
honey....
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
No, it happens when you're talking to a jerk who constantly misunderstands posts that a third grader could grasp.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Well, we've known that for quite a while Omega, it's just good to see you're able to take a semi-objective look at yourself. I don't think it is neccessary for you to call yourself an idiot, however.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Now let's dip some girl's pigtails in the inkwell!
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
honey......
This is the only proper response.....
Ink tastes funny...
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Ouch.
OK. It's time to play nice now.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I don't really feel inclined to 'play nice' with people who threaten my life, you know.
Yup, that's right, folks, it's official - the whatever-the-fuck-it-is Commandment now reads "Thou Shalt Not Kill, Unless It's Officially State-Sanctioned Execution, Or Someone Says Your Girlfriend Is A Bloke."
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Where'd he threaten to kill you?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poet: I don't really feel inclined to 'play nice' with people who threaten my life, you know.
Yup, that's right, folks, it's official - the whatever-the-fuck-it-is Commandment now reads "Thou Shalt Not Kill, Unless It's Officially State-Sanctioned Execution, Or Someone Says Your Girlfriend Is A Bloke."
But apparently it's perfectly all right to tell someone to kill themselves.
Hypocrite.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Yeah, but you didn't have to do it. No matter how much we all wish you would. I gave you the option of taking personal control of your destiny, unlike Omeychops, who thinks he should be able to play God with the fates of others.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Daryus, this is Omega's quote:
quote:Oh, pray that I never see you in person, Lee. After that crack about this particular girl, you wouldn't be safe.
Wow. Christianity is such a wonderful religion.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Awfully small, though, since one person seems to constitute a representative sample.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
It's that nice big kickass brush. Everyone's got one, it seems.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Yes, and they only paint in black and white....
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Lee:
proposal != advocation
Learn your own language. Until you do, I see no reason to even acknowledge your posts.
1/ You spent over a year thinking that Lee and I lived in "Brittain".
2/ You are using logic symbols and structure unneccessarily in conversational English.
3/ You didn't capitalise the "p" of proposal.
4/ You're a big fat smelly head.
[ November 03, 2002, 09:11: Message edited by: PsyLiam ]
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Brazil is really spelled with an s also....
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Only in Brazil. Which...
*checks*
We're not in.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Unless you mean the pseudo-1984 police state represented in Terry Gilliam's film of the same name, which these days is certainly nearer to the truth.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)