posted
#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.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
"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?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
posted
Yes, but the confirmation rate is not the same as the "bringing to the floor for a vote" rate.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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
Does the president appoint any judges other than those on the federal Supreme Court? And isn't that full already?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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).
Printer-friendly view of this topic
