« moore-on | Main | gratuitous link.. »

fo shizzle, hatchizzle!

So the debate/filibuster rages on.

I have to say, I am mighty disappointed. I thought by now someone would bust out the rhymes, or they would have frozen Hilary's bra while she slept or put Rick Santorum's hand in a glass of water.

These people do not know how to throw a slumber party.

What would you give to see Orin Hatch do his debate in Snoop talk?

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference fo shizzle, hatchizzle!:

» Hatch Straight Up, And Snoop-i-fied from Late Final
Because it's a slow news day so far, and some observers believe the current matters in Congress could use some flair: Senator Orrin Hatch's remarks, straight up, during this week's filibuster: Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I think it is appropriate... [Read More]

Comments

It doesn't seem to be getting much coverage in the "legit" press either.

Not even Drudge is linking to it.

This is the funniest thing I have ever seen. I have to play with this some more.

I've watched quite a bit on-line and so far just about every single Democrat has bitched about wasting this time on "just 3 nominees".
Why the fu*# don't they just vote them up or down and move on?
Or is there some rule I don't know of that says they can't?

The Dems don't want them on the bench. The Dems don't have a majority, and so if they vote, they'll get on the bench. The only way to stop a vote is to filibuster.

The GOP senators know this isn't going to accomplish anything. It's basically theater designed for consumption by the religious right.

I'm becoming more and more concerned that national politics is devolving into a far left vs. far right conflict, where each set of crazies enacts their dangerously goofy ideas into law whenever they have the power to do so.

I'm afraid our civil liberties are going to suffer some serious (if not fatal) wounds in the conflict between those two radical extremes.

On the other hand, though, I would pay money to see Orrin Hatch doing Snoop talk. ;-)

I want to see Byrd break down and start crying and blubbering about how it's a sad day for America. Oh wait, he's already done that. Nevermind.

This is theater designed at least as much for the left, MikeR, or do you not think Leahy and Schumer get their talking points straight from People For The American Way? I'm not a member of the "religious right" by any means, but I want these judges confirmed. I'm sure I can't say anything that hasn't already been said, but letting a minority of the Senate veto nominations like this not only flies in the face of the Constitution, but has a practical effect on litigants whose cases are being backlogged by judicial vacancies: justice delayed is justice denied.

It'll be funny to see how the left reacts if and when GWB follows Clinton's example and makes one or more recess appointments to fill the seats over the winter break--it'll be a while before the question of a vote to confirm them comes up again, and it'll be rather near a Presidential election for the Democrats to want a public debate about minority judges who are already on the bench, where the Democrats are trying to get rid of them and the Republicans are trying to keep them on.

Give me a break, Dave. The GOP is just getting a little bit of their own medicine from what they did with Clinton's judicial nominations, and I wouldn't exactly call four out of 168 (or whatever) a massive assault. If they can't take it, they shouldn't have dished it out.

It's perfectly fine for them to bitch about it - they're entitled to bitch all they like. If they can swing public opinion to their side, the Dem's will probably turn tail and run. What's not fine is all the bluster about changing the rules of the Senate to accommodate them getting what they want.

Wise people on both sides of the aisle know that's a very dangerous path, because the party that's in power now will not always be in power. Someday the other side will win control, and they will proceed to re-write the rules in their favor, and back and forth it will go. It's precisely the sort of thing I was referring to in my earlier post - the far left and the far right becoming so powerful in intra-party politics that inter-party politics becomes a permanent war-zone devoid of reason or compromise.

In a winner-take-all fight between the far left and the far right, I know I'm guaranteed to lose.

MikeR, 4 out of 168 isn't the big issue: it's the number of times these nominations have been filibustered before this year: zero.

Key point:

"No judicial nominee who has enjoyed the support of a majority of senators has ever been denied an up-or-down vote until now."

Someday the other side (or some other side, at least) will have power. And then it would still be wrong (and possibly unconstitutional) for the minority to block confirmations this way. Maybe it's time for the rules to change.

I don't see any significant distinction between a majority blocking nominations by using the rules of the Senate to prevent them from ever coming before a subcommittee, or a minority using the rules of the Senate to prevent nominations from being passed out of committee to go to a floor vote. I don't think most of the public sees a major difference, either.

Again, the worm will eventually turn, the GOP will eventually become the minority party again, and their view on Senate procedures and the prerogatives of the majority will change at that same friggin' instant. If they were to succeed in their efforts to change the rules of the Senate, I guarantee you it would eventually come back around to bite them in the ass. Which would of course make them even more bitter the next time around, and so forth and so on. It's starting to sound like a religious war.

Sure this is unprecedented political vitriol - that was my point. These Democrat and Republican senators should be able to get along and make compromises as necessary to keep things working smoothly - that's what politics is supposed to be about. Instead of hearing boos from all the people in the middle for their failure to work together, though, they're hearing the loud cheers of those on the far left and right.

There's an abundance of blame to go around for both sides in this but given their treatment of Clinton, these Republican cries of innocent victimhood are particularly laughable.

MikeR, just move on!

MikeR wrote: "I don't see any significant distinction between a majority blocking nominations by using the rules of the Senate to prevent them from ever coming before a subcommittee, or a minority using the rules of the Senate to prevent nominations from being passed out of committee to go to a floor vote."

1) the majority blocks nominations by keeping them in the subcommittee and preventing an up or down full Senate vote.

2) the minority uses the rules of the Senate to prevent an up or down vote once the nomination is out of the subcommittee

3) the significant distinction you're looking for is between "majority" and "minority," a.k.a. "the will of the American people."