Redstate

other than the Democratic Party's talking points, you are either a total Pollyanna optimist or you have been taking Howard Dean's medications.

I've given up.  There's no reason to read them, or even care what they say.  They are not anything but an exempt wing of the Dean Democrats.

I'm expecting Markos Kos to take over their editorial page any day now.  Unless George Soros has a better candidate in mind, that is.

Ignore them.  That hurts them far worse than being abused.

And how does Bill Frist get to define what extraordinary means?  Was he part of The Deal?

There is no question that there is a fundamental divide about this issue from the Right and Left.  The Right feels they are being denied their right to vote on the nominees.  The Left feels they are doing no different fundamentally different than what the GOP did to Clinton's nominees.

But no matter the rhetoric it still boils down to the nominees themselves.  That is the argument that the Times is talking about.

It may be the BEST editorial the NYT has ever written! All downhill from there, and it's a looooooooong way down. ;)

This is really the Times' view of the Red States. Pejman, you're an anomaly, in their view. Nobody from a Red State does anything except think in these terms:

LOS ANGELES - It's been variously referred to as hick, redneck, Nascar or Wal-Mart comedy. The humor bends toward jokes about a grandmother's flatulence and deer hunting with the wife.

As opposed to, say, the soulful stirrings of geniuses like Klaus Nomi. He was a big hit in the Village for a while, even appeared with Bowie. Incredible sophistication. A really angular clown, and quite well loved.

Thanks for the post about the NYT inevitable redefinition of terms. Remember: Manhattan is an island.

That is what <i>Frist</i> is talking about.  Giving them the courtesy of an up-or-down vote, which is, of course, the Senate's job, and has been lo these past two hundred years or so.

On another note, I don't think Pejman or anyone else here was calling the editorial mean-spirited.  Stupid, ignorant of facts, and nakedly partisan perhaps...but not mean-spirited.

I was calling the editorial "mean-spirited"--especially because of its easy, ready and altogether unsubstantiated acceptance of the party line that Bush nominees are "extreme." And I stand by that characterization.

wasn't even a party to the Deal, how can you say with a straight face that he has any standing whatsoever to determine what it means?

I'd also point out that this is not a legal document, but a political one.  A judge will not rule on the meaning of "extraordinary," but the 14 senators will.  A pretty unremarkable proposition, to me.

Frist is entitled to try to get back on the horse after he fell on his face, but let's not pretend that he rode a great race the first time.  This was not his deal, and he doesn't get to define it.  He can try to pressure those who were party to it, and that's what he's doing now.

I won't even bother attempting to understand how you can differentiate between seven filibusters of Bush's nomineeds and the 60 Clinton nominees denied the fundamental "courtesy" of an up or down vote.

That's why I see no reason to read the NYT.  It's nothing more than Democratic talking points disguised as a rational opinion.  I'm glad they're making people charge for their editorial section online, which means less bloggers will talk about them

Uses the conservative blogosphere. Why not? It's FREE.

That Clinton's judicial nominees were blocked by the party that had the majority in the Senate and controlled the Senate Judiciary Committee, just as the Democrats had done to GW Bush while he was president.  (reference:  Terrance Boyle)

The Democrats are not the majority, the power of judicial filibusters are unprecedented (with one exception), and is done only as an obstructionist tactic.  The Democrats have nothing to stand on by using these tactics.

the issue isn't the judges but maintaining power over the minority party?

Control the White House - Nominate the Judges

Control the Senate - Control the Calender

But the POINT is to put good judges on the bench, right?

yes.

But in regards to the conflict in the Senate, the Democrats can vote against them if they want.  That's fine.  But they know they don't have a majority to vote down any of these nominees, which is what the filibuster is for.

I think it has to do with the fact that the Democrats are willing to do everything to neutralize progress in the Senate; not just with judicial nominations, but with other Bush appointments and bills.  Considering the Democrats haven't gained seats in the Senate since 2000, the Republicans should do whatever it takes to preserve their privileges as the majority party.

But the POINT is to put good judges on the bench, right?

Certainly, and if the senate is convinced that the judges aren't 'good' they can vote them down.
-bro

are charged under Article III, and actually have limited powers.  A 'Good Judge' will acknowledge this fact, and will strive to uphold the original intent of the US Consitution.

Anything more than that is judicial activism and the substitution of personal preference for original intent.

Your gripe is with the Democrats using procedure to diminish the power of the Republicans.  It has almost nothing to do with with the quality of the nominees.

The Times editorial that you guys are gnashing your teeth over is referring to the actual JUDICIAL appoitnments.

You think this debate is about literal and relativist interpretation?  You seem pretty sharp so I find it hard to believe that you are that naive.

Just prefaced the fact that President Bush's nominees are in line with what's mandated in Article III.

Not naive at all.

This whole fight (I mean debate) is over the ideological domination of the federal judiciary for decades to come, and the left is losing this battle.  Both on the courts (conservative confirmations), and in the court of public opinion.

The liberal mantra: Litigate what you can't legislate, is in serious jeopardy; and without liberal control of the judiciary, the liberal agenda is toast.

it's a complaint about Frist trying to sabotage the deal and calling for more Republican senators to vote against more Bush nominees.

This has nothing to do with the quality of these judges; it's the will of the Democrats to obstruct Bush's nominees no matter what.

how many Liberal Mantra's there are.

Litigate what you can't legislate

More government is better

Soak the rich

We hate Christians

Apparently we have quite a few mantras.

You and I would be in line with what is mandated in Article III of the Constitution.  I suspect that neither you nor I would be considered desirable choices for the Federal bench by anyone other than an anarchist.

Over 60% of Federal judges have been chosen by Republican Presidents.  And yet the myth that the Left controls the Judiciary somehow still permeates our societs, particlarly the Conservative base.

were however blocked by the actions of a minority, sometimes by the action of a single senator. It was not the case that the GOP senate as a whole voted them down.

Both sides are well and truly guilty of obstructionism of presidential appointees. I believe that we should have a constitutional amendment allowing any appointee who is not voted on within 180 days take office on a provisional basis: s/he could be confirmed or rejected subsequently, and in any event would be required to leave office with the president who made the appointment. That would resolve this trouble quite nicely.

Pejman Yousefzadeh said:

"But that does not mean that Senator Frist cannot also make a claim as to whether extraordinary circumstances exist in the case of a particular judicial nominee."

And you said:

"And how does Bill Frist get to define what extraordinary means?"

How does what Pejman said translate to Bill Frist gets to define what extraordinary means?

That is a perfect example of exactly the same type exaggeration and mischaracterization that the author of the editorial is using.

You or I can make a claim as to what extraordinary means.   It would have as much as Frist's claim with regard to The Deal.

Having Frist involved in ANY WAY with defining what extraordinary would invalidate The Deal.  This is true of Harry Reid as well.  

Now perhaps one of those two guys can try to convince their side of the 14 that such and such a nominee is or is not extraordinary.  But that is the limit of their authority in this context.

I certainly can, and no doubt will, have an opinion about whether or not this or that is extraordinary circumstances. No doubt I will do so snark ...ily on my blog. This would not have as much weight Frist's claim with regard to the deal. His claim, whether the seven dems like it or not, will have more weight among the seven republicans, and vice versa.

In fact, this is one of his problems with the deal. He sees seven dems who will be the mouthpieces for naming everything Bush ever does to be 'extraordinary'. Democrats think George Bush is extraordinary circumstances. They think elections national elections not in their favor extraordinary circumstances. Will they not think pro-life judges are extraordinary? Or judges who are just generally conservative? Are they extraordinary?

Frist is not, as you and the Times say, complaining merely because he doesn't get to name what is extraordinary. He's mad, as so many other republicans are, that a handful of Senators get to arbitrarily decide what nominees are and are not extraordinary.

In practice, it hasn't been that bad, and Frist may have overreacted. But that doesn't mean the Times gets to reclassify his, or our, objection at will.

And this is only one of the points that were made that were inaccurate. See original post above.

First off...

[quote]They think elections national elections not in their favor extraordinary circumstances. Will they not think pro-life judges are extraordinary? Or judges who are just generally conservative? Are they extraordinary?[/quote]

I'm fairly certain that just about ANY objective observer would consider the 2000 elections an extraordinary event.  Perhaps you feel that the Supreme Court effectively choosing our President is just SOP but you would certainly be in the minority on that point.

Will the Democrats think that pro-life judges are extraordinary?  Absolutely.  Would Republicans think that pro-choice judges being nominated an extraordinary event?  It would appear that generally conservative isn't enough to bring out the extraordinary stamp, since both Owen and Brown are more than generally conservative.

Frist is upset because 7 Republicans usurped power from him.  It made HIM look weaker.  

I'll have to re-read the Time piece because I don't recall them classifying Frist's position.

It would appear that generally conservative isn't enough to bring out the extraordinary stamp, since both Owen and Brown are more than generally conservative.

Like I said already, in practice it's turning out not to be so bad.

I don't understand how you can't understand that an arbitrary assessment of extraordinary by a group of random senators wouldn't be troublesome. What if Bill Frist could automatically veto anything any democrate ever suggested merely by calling it extraordinary. Would that be ridiculous? Wouldn't you expect him to just call everything extraordinary merely by not liking it?

Don't you think he expected these senators to merely use extraordinary as a synonym for conservative??? I certainly did.

As for the election comment, give me a break! In case you missed it, we've had another whole election since then, no supreme court necessary, and the dems still think it is extraordinary. They call any election of a conservative extraordinary circumstances and would gleefully "filibuster" him or her out of office given the slightest grounds on which to do so.

Frist has every reason not to like the deal. You and the Times trying to characterize it as some kind of tantrum over not being the man is not only a gross misrepresentation, it's flat out lame.

What if Bill Frist could automatically veto anything any democrate ever suggested merely by calling it extraordinary.

What if I was Bill Gates.  Wouldn't that be great?  Just about as relevant.  These Senators are not OBLIGED to adhere to the direction of ANY OTHER Senator.  And the current rules allow for a fillibuster.  So how is that the same as making up extreme theoretical powers?

Don't you think he expected these senators to merely use extraordinary as a synonym for conservative??? I certainly did.

Well they haven't so far and the fact that they agreed up front to allow two of the most contentious choices go through suggests that they had no intention.

In case you missed it, we've had another whole election since then, no supreme court necessary, and the dems still think it is extraordinary.

Huh?  Just going for straight ad hominem I see.  The lunatic fringe is not emblematic of the entire party.

Frist has every reason not to like the deal. You and the Times trying to characterize it as some kind of tantrum over not being the man is not only a gross misrepresentation, it's flat out lame.

I'm not trying to characterize it as a tantrum.  And if you think this is some sort of way out Left theory you don't even read your fellow Conservative's thoughts on this matter.

"And if you think this is some sort of way out Left theory you don't even read your fellow Conservative's thoughts on this matter."

That's patently ridiculous. Because some conservatives, myself included above I might add, think Frist is overreacting doesn't mean that you and the Times are correct in your assertions. That's ridiculous.

Nice try with the Bill Gates comment but this was legitimate use of reductio ad absurdum. The point was to establish agreement that arbitrary classification of what is extraordinary is not the same thing as something actually being extraordinary, and that it easily has the potential to be abused.

"Well they haven't so far and the fact that they agreed up front to allow two of the most contentious choices go through suggests that they had no intention."

Well I don't know any other way to say this same thing, which I have already said several times, in a way which may get across to you that I already said the exact same thing.

"Just going for straight ad hominem I see.  The lunatic fringe is not emblematic of the entire party."

From now it is considered the official record that DKos, Air America, Nancy Pelosi, insert mainstream democrat name here are all the lunatic fringe. Also, please note that stating observations about public behavior of democrats is considered ad hominem. Kind of like directly quoting them is considered attacking them.

You are characterizing it as a tantrum. Why deny yourself now? I'm shrill and snarky because, just like the rag in question, you talk out of both sides of your mouth. You use the fact that Frist quite reasonably had a problem with the terms of the deal to be ipso facto evidence of the fact that he whining because he doesn't have absolute power. It would be like stripping all executive authority from the president and then claiming his objection was based on his lust for dictatorship. Your conclusion isn't reality based.

Frist had every reason, every reason, to think the dems would simply carry on blocking everyone and merely apply the term extraordinary in place of conservative. Saying that this didn't happen doesn't mean he didn't have every reason to expect it to.

I'm shrill because in each reply you imply that I have not already said that this is not what is happening.

You tried to turn Pejman's point about claims of extraordinary into some kind of authoritative definition of authority. In the same way the Times tries to claim that because Bill Frist is not happy with the way extraordinary is being defined is the same thing as him being not happy that it is not him that is the one defining it. Not liking the way something is defined is not the same as saying you don't like that you are not the one defining it.

These kind of illogical conclusions are exactly the kind of mischaracterization we are on about. It's exactly what you are doing to me right now!!

Do you guys get a manual or what?

Well Ginsberg had 3 no votes (and no filibuster).  She was extreme by any measure on the current court and she was pro-Roe.  Somehow Republicans must have missed your memo that "pro-choice judges being nominated an extraordinary event."  Can you name any SC appointees by Dems that were bottled up by Reps?  Even when Rs were in the majority, they gave votes on all candidates.

I continue to believe that if a candidate is out of the mainstream, a majority of the Senate will vote him/her down.  At present, that means convincing Chafee, Snowe, Collins, Specter, McCain, Hagel, and Allen (or any 6 of them) to vote against a candidate.  But if a majority of the Senate approves a nominee, they are by definition in the mainstream.

PS: I'm not a Christian, so I believe I'm not part of The Theocracy<sup>(c)</sup&gt ...

Fortas was also vehemently opposed by Richard Russell (very powerful guy) and a whole lot of other Democrat Senators. Otherwise it would not have been possible for a Senate with only 36 GOP Senators to filibuster a Democrat President's nomination for the Chief Judgeship of the Supreme Court (Fortas was already a Associate Justice of the Supreme Court).

Either way, trying to force a vote on the man just four days after the nomination was submitted to the Senate is also a bit much, isn't it?

That is what Frist is talking about.  Giving them the courtesy of an up-or-down vote, which is, of course, the Senate's job, and has been lo these past two hundred years or so

The idea that each judicial nominee has gotten an up-or-down vote, or even that more Bush judicial nominees are being denied it than in the past, is patently false.  This has been debunked repeatedly.  The only difference is this session instead of being denied a hearing, denied blue-slip clearance, or denied exit from committee it is being done through an actual filibuster.  

The problem is that your premise is based solely on your belief that the GOP is in the right and the Dems are in the wrong.  Since you have already assigned right and wrong you aren't really analyzing the sitaution as much as simply arguing to fit your pre-conceived notions.

Why would Frist have EVERY reason to think the Dems would simply carry on blocking everyone.  First off all they agreed UP FRONT to allow 2 of the most CONTENTIOUS appointments to get to the floor.  But let's assume he did believe that.  How did things materially change for him?  The Deal got 7 Dems to back off the fillibuster.  At best they hold firm and all nominees go to the floor.  At worst they renege and Frist is back to using the Nuclear Option.  

How did things significantly deteriorate for the GOP and their agenda because of The Deal?  The only way you can think this is POSSIBLE is if you believe that the GOP SHOULD invoke the Nuclear Option.   Otherwise this was a win-win for the GOP.  Either those 7 play ball or they don't but politically the Democrats are on much less stable ground politically because they now must term blocked judges as extraordinary situations and since they allowed Brown and Owen to go through, two nominees they were very outspoken about, they will need a real smoking gun to stop them.  

So if things have, at worst, not changed and at best have helped the GOP why is Frist in an uproar about it?  BECAUSE THOSE 7 GOP SENATORS undermined his authority and made him look weak.  

Virtually EVERYONE that has commented about The Deal has said that the only CLEAR loser was Frist, although I feel that Reid was as well.  You seem to think otherwise, at least your argument that Frist is upset with the principle and not the politics suggests that.

We can either have a thoughtful discussion about this or we can simply throw barbs at each other.  Your choice.  I for one am not all that interesting in ad hominem.  I have not said one disparaging word about the Republicans, The Deal, or even Bill Frist.  You, otoh, seemed to be intent on disparaging me, The New York Times, Democrats, and anything that is loosely associated with The Left.

Every single judicial nominee with majority support (partisan or not) in the Senate who has duly been reported to the floor from the Judiciary committee has recieved an up or down vote.

NONE have EVER been filibustered.

Fortas did not have majority support so he doesn't count. And considering that the number of GOP Senators was about 36 at the time, and that up to twenty Democrat Senators opposed him as well ...

Redefining ad hominem is as bad as ad hominem.

"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."

Just for the record. Citing examples of democrats calling non-extraordinary things extraordinary is not ad hominem, it's citation. Let's keep our terms clear.

Barbs schmarbs. Just because my tone isn't reverent doesn't mean I'm not engaging substantive discussion.

I will leave it to you, not the other way around. Are you going to keep claiming persecution or argue the merits?

As long as you keep rewording my statements, and keep reworking the original posters comments, and keep reclassifying what it is that Bill Frist is mad about, I'll keep being snarky. So you can either cope or quit. I leave it to you.

I have repeatedly tried to explain to you how I read the Times article.  

I don't expect reverent.  But most adults do think that respectful is the norm.

not unlimited filibuster (as in days vs. years).

Furthermore, 19 democrats and 24 republicans voted against cloture.  Hardly a partisan filibuster to compare to current circumstances.

They should not have to leave office when the President leaves.  They should be granted the same term of service as a judge who had received the courtesy of a vote.

"But most adults do think that respectful is the norm."

That's demonstrably false in the first place, and in the second place the topic has been done to death, and in the third place, who defines respectful? I'm not mollycoddling you, to me that is respectful.

Your first changing of wording is in your first response to the posted diary, which I addressed in my first reply to your response.

The second is broader, in that you and the Times are asserting some type of deviousness in Frists objection, such as that he objects on the grounds of lost power, and that such power shouldn't have been his in the first place.

All other considerations aside, a deal that gives democrats the power to define a nomination as extraordinary justifiably seems ridiculous on the face of it. If you are so keen on observing my fellow conservatives who don't think that, have the deceny to observe the equal number of my fellow conservatives who do.

Now, in practice this thing isn't working out so bad. A point I am belaboring. A point which you keep replying to me with as if I hadn't already made it. This is the third way in which you are rewording me.

The bottom line is quite simple. The Times is painting some portrait of an enraged and impotent Bill Frist, to their own ends, and in this thread, you support their position on the flimsy grounds you started our side conversation with. A point which I have tried to make several times.

Now if you want to talk to me about whether or not the deal is good, that's different. But that doesn't make the Times article accurate, and it doesn't absolve it of mean-spiritedness, and certainly not because Bill Frist does or does not get to 'define' anything. And that is my point.

One more thing on respectful tones, and this is a side-note... what about your leadership? What about Dean? Are they not adults? Or are they just not the norm? Just curious.

that I do not imply.  There is absolutely NOTHING devious about Bill Frist's actions.  However you want to ignore political reality and instead describe as the White Knight of Truth and Justice.  

The Times WASN'T trying to crucify Frist.  It was simply pointing out that Frist does not get to control the context of The Deal because he was NOT part of it.  

You however which to gore one of the Conservative's favorite oxes, The New York Times.  You wish to paint the editorial as Leftist agenda intended, well I really have no idea what you think the Times is trying to do.  

I've read this particular editorial about 3 times now and I STILL see no mean-spiritedness.  But then I don't consider The New York Times an Agent of the Devil.  

As for Dean and his comments I fail to see how they are relevant. I've never had a conversation with Dr. Dean and I personally don't consider rhetoric to be discussion. But that's just me.  

"instead describe as the White Knight of Truth and Justice."

Absolutely didn't do that. EXACTLY the kind of mischaracterization you continue to make.

"As for Dean and his comments I fail to see how they are relevant. "

Well you made a blanket statement about what 'adults' consider to be the 'norm'. I am just observing that your party leadership doesn't meet your stated norms and am wondering how you feel about that. How the relevance of that example escaped you ... escapes me.

that referencing a White Knight was me rewording your comments and not simply hyperbole?  Ok.  Whatever floats your boat.

By comment about respect was directed at YOU and not your party.  

Do you or do you not believe that Bill Frist was primarily concerned with getting all of the justices to the floor for a vote and not concerned with political powerplays and his own personal standing in the Party?  

Simple enough question.  

was interpreting the constitution fairly and accurately considered extreme?  Does anyone remember the free passage of Darth Bader Ginsberg, considered far extreme by any reasonable standards to most people, through the approval process?  Are democrats afraid that the constitution will be applied appropriately? I've yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to why democrats oppose these seemingly very reasonable appointments.  Seems to me like they are trying to hang on to their last thread of power that the American public repeatedly votes away from them.  Can anyone give one legitimate example of why these judges are so "extreme" that they don't even deserve a vote?  I submit that the answer is "NO."

is troubling to Democrats primarily because of her writings.  While some of her rulings are questionable her writings are very disturbing.  

However this has already been discussed here.

but first. It can be both hyperbole AND mischaracterization. The purpose of hyperbole is to illustrate a point. The purpose of your hyperbole was to illustrate an incorrect point. It is incorrect to say that I was stating that it was not hyperbole, or to now extend that to say that I am against hyperbole.

Anyway, your comment about respect may have been directed at me, but it absolutely encompassed a great deal more than that. You didn't say most adults do think that absentee being respectful is the norm, after all.

To your question:

I think Bill Frist didn't like the deal for political reasons among other reasons. What I do not think is that he is throwing some childish fit, I do not think he thinks that he alone should determine extraordinary (this is what the Times wants you to believe), and I do not think that the original diary used 'define' and 'claim' interchangeably, which was why I replied to your first response.

You keep looking to quibble about the words being used.  Ok.  You said I was rewording what you said.  When I point out that I was using hyperbole you now claim I was mischaracterizing your comments, not rewording them.  

I do like how you can tell me what MY sentence actually means.  I said most adults consider respect the norm in discussions.  I said this in the context of your ascerbic and occsionally disparaging writing style.  You wanted to bring it into another context to deflect my point.

I have said at least 2 times that I don't think that Bill Frist was having a fit.  Please show me where the New York Times or I have stated that Frist threw a fit.  They commented on his relevance in regards to the Deal.

I do not think he thinks that he alone should determine extraordinary (this is what the Times wants you to believe

One more time.  Bill Frist does NOT GET TO DETERMINE what extraordinary means in ANY WAY.  If the 14 Senators that agreed to the deal feel it is extraordinary then IT IS.  If they do not then it ISN'T.  If only the Democrats decide it is then Frist can invoke the Nuclear Option.   However in that case The Deal is null and voice.

How do you know if a judge had majority support if he was blocked from even receiving a hearing?  Did James Wynn have majority support?  He was unanimously well qualified by the Barr Assoc. but was blocked by Jesse Helms alone.

What about Roger Gregory?

Roger Gregory is a highly-respected Richmond litigator who has tried hundreds of cases in the Virginia courts. His seat has been declared a judicial emergency by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. A founding member and managing partner of the law firm of Wilder & Gregory, Gregory's nomination has garnered substantial bi-partisan support. After interviewing Roger Gregory, Senator Warner of Virginia wrote to Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, stating that he found Gregory "a well-qualified nominee who would serve as an excellent jurist on this circuit which is vital to our state." Gregory has not received a Judiciary Committee hearing.

Neither even got a hearing, let alone an "up-or-down vote."  

Judge Helene White was confirmed to the district level, but not given an up or down vote for the Circuit level (or a hearing).  The blue slip technique was used even in 1992-1994 when the Dems controlled Congress.  John Tait was nominated to be a district judge in 93 (when Ds controlled Congress) and was blocked from a hearing by Senators Larry Craig(R) and Dirk Kempthorne(R).

There are dozens of examples like this (60+ under Clinton alone).  Its just silly to still claim this.

Roger Gregory sits on the 4th Circuit but he never got an up or down vote? The Congressional Research Service seems to be under the mistaken impression that he was confirmed by the Senate on July 20, 2001.

I'll repeat myself (and highlight the part you ignored) ...

Every single judicial nominee with majority support (partisan or not) in the Senate who has duly been reported to the floor from the Judiciary committee has recieved an up or down vote.

Shenanigans have happened throughout the history of judicial confirmations. After all, 54 of George H. W. Bush nominees never received a vote (and he served just one term and never enjoyed a Senate under his own party's control throughout).

In fact, I do not believe that there has been a President in the past one and a half centuries that has had every single one of his nominees voted on.

But once they got to the floor, they were voted on. I repeat: NONE have EVER been filibustered.

"Bill Frist does NOT GET TO DETERMINE what extraordinary means in ANY WAY."

"I do not think he thinks that he alone should determine extraordinary"

This is my whole point. One more time (LAST time) While it is the case that Bill has no say, and while furthermore Bill and I both don't like that, it is not the case that the reason he doesn't like this is because of some lust to be the sole power. Which is what the times, and all the lefties, want you to think. This is what I keep saying. You make a statement about the current state of affairs as if that's evidence for your position. It is not.

This is so very simple.

"If Democrats filibuster a nominee who does not meet his standard of 'extraordinary'".

You need to take a class in logic. Just because we don't like the Dems having what amounts to veto power based on some nebulous standard of extraordinary does not mean that it is because we want Bill Frist to use his standard instead.

"If Democrats filibuster a nominee who does not meet his standard of 'extraordinary'".

It's not just the Times that wants us to believe this.

"And how does Bill Frist get to define what extraordinary means?  Was he part of The Deal?"

That's what you said and have been trying to shore up for the last however many posts. Just admit you got it wrong.

I'm not even going to bother going over how badly you screwed up the entire hyperbole discussion. I laid it out quite logically enough and anyone can see it.

And you're just going to have to go ahead and get over yourself on the respect comment. You said what you said, it's right there to be seen. It's silly to try and backpedal it now. Geez you guys will even try to reword yourselves.

Well flyerhawk, this has been peachy. I hope in the future you can avoid that feeling of being flamed or disrespected by taking steps toward being logical.

The Times made a point.  You disagree.  You have no evidence to support YOUR belief but apparently you are so certain of YOUR belief that any OTHER belief is patently wrong.  YOUR belief isn't based on fact but on faith.  

You seem to want to intermingle the collective WE with the singular Bill Frist reference.  Whether YOU  collectively want Bill Frist to use HIS standard or not is completely irrelevant.  The discussion is about BILL FRIST, not your wishes.  

You so stuck in an Us vs Them mentality that you view everything through that prism.  A criticism of Bill Frist is a criticism of the collective.  A criticism of YOU is a criticism of the collective.  If you are not part of the collective then you are the enemy.  

I don't feel like I've been disrespected or flamed.  I feel you have been disrepectful in your manner.  Not the same thing.  

Anyway, it doesn't much matter.  You can make another nonsensical post about my failings if you like.  Obviously discussing the actual topic is a little too difficult for you.

You make another change. I'm sorry this logic is so difficult for you to grasp, I really am.

"A criticism of Bill Frist is a criticism of the collective."

Well that's just plain idiotic. Whether or not I had any feelings of collectivism are purely immaterial to the topic in the first place, and in the second place, merely asserting it doesn't make it so (a concept you clearly have an enourmous amount of trouble with).

My evidence is purely logical. If I say I don't like the way my chicken is prepared, you cannot logically draw the conclusion that this is because I like chicken burned. You can only conclude that I don't like the way it was cooked.

Because someone doesn't like the way that 'extraordinary circumstances' is defined does NOT mean that the person only wants it defined by themselves.

There's no basis for your conclusion, or that of the Times.

As for not addressing the topic, that's absurd. I've been addressing your points AND the topic in general in every reply. Suggesting otherwise is yet ANOTHER example of your revisionism.

You just can't help it can you?

Keep in mind that many of us have looked into the actual substance of this particular factoid and found it wanting.  You already managed to pick a nominee that was supposedly denied an up-or-down vote but was in reality approved and sits on the federal bench.  

So just for fun, try naming the 60 plus nominees that were supposed denied an up-or-down vote and I'm sure you'll find that (a) there wasn't close to 60 (the Dem's were counting nominees who were returned at the end of a session but received an up-or-down vote the next session), (b) many of them were submitted late in the process (Clinton actually sent 9 nominees in January of 2001 which was a big no-no), and (c) there were substantial defects in the nominees themselves (e.g. didn't have the necessary paperwork/background checks completed before sent to the Senate, unqualified for the position, etc.).

The question is was the nominee blocked an up-or-down vote.  There is no difference if the judge was blocked in committee or not.  Tacking of caveats like "A nominee who had majority support AND reached the floor who was successfully blocked*" is like saying Alfonso Soriano is the best player in the majors named Alfonso.  Its meaningless.  

*Abe Fortas was blocked in this manner also.  He was thought to have majority support.  Several members of the current GOP leadership have in the past filibustered a judicial nominee unsuccessfully that later passed by overwhelming margins.  Sen Frist participated in such a filibuster with Richard Paez under Clinton.

Here's a short list of Clinton judges that were blocked by the GOP that were blocked using blue slips or other committee tactics.  

Helene White (6th Circuit), Jorge Rangel (5th Circuit), Robert Raymer (3rd Circuit), Barry Goode (9th Circuit), Christine Arguello (10th Circuit), Elizabeth Gibson (4th Circuit), Elana Kagan (D.C. Circuit), James Wynn (4th Circuit), Bonnie Campbell (8th Circuit), Kent Markus (6th Circuit), Roger Gregory (4th Circuit), H. Alston Johnson (5th Circuit), James Duffy (9th Circuit), Kathleen McCree-Lewis (6th Circuit), Enrique Moreno (5th Circuit), James Lyons (10th Circuit), Robert Cindrich (3rd Circuit), Stephen Orlofsky (3rd Circuit), Andre Davis (4th Circuit), James Beaty (4th Circuit), and J. Rich Leonard (4th Circuit).