<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: JUDICIAL WARS</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/judicial_wars/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/judicial_wars/</link>
	<description>Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:49:13 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Kevin Drum</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/judicial_wars/comment-page-1/#comment-7943</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin Drum</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=3850#comment-7943</guid>
		<description>I wouldn&#039;t argue one way or the other for one blue slip, two blue slips, or no blue slips.  But it was Hatch&#039;s rule and he should stick with it.  It makes as much sense to give this power to the minority party now as it did in 1996, regardless of who&#039;s in the White House.

And if they want to agree on a change to the rule to take place in, say, 2008, that&#039;s fine too.  But in the meantime we should stick to the same rules that seemed OK to the Republicans back when Slick Willie was nominating judges.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wouldn't argue one way or the other for one blue slip, two blue slips, or no blue slips.  But it was Hatch's rule and he should stick with it.  It makes as much sense to give this power to the minority party now as it did in 1996, regardless of who's in the White House.</p>
<p>And if they want to agree on a change to the rule to take place in, say, 2008, that's fine too.  But in the meantime we should stick to the same rules that seemed OK to the Republicans back when Slick Willie was nominating judges.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Joyner</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/judicial_wars/comment-page-1/#comment-7944</link>
		<dc:creator>James Joyner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=3850#comment-7944</guid>
		<description>But they didn&#039;t give the power to the minority party in 1996--they were the majority.  The Democratic minority was rather unlikely to blue slip a Clinton nomineee.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But they didn't give the power to the minority party in 1996--they were the majority.  The Democratic minority was rather unlikely to blue slip a Clinton nomineee.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/judicial_wars/comment-page-1/#comment-7945</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=3850#comment-7945</guid>
		<description>Kevin conveniently sets up a straw man and dodges the facts. (which is just SHOCKING, I would have never guessed he would do that.)

He diddles over blue slips but is struck blind to this fact from the NYT:

&lt;i&gt; Democrats &lt;b&gt;say&lt;/b&gt; a handful of President Bill Clinton&#039;s appeals court nominees were blocked by Republican filibusters. Since under the modern, implicit filibuster, its existence  becomes apparent only when there is an effort to end it, the Democrats point to votes taken to end a filibuster to prove their point. Republicans assert the so-called cloture votes were only procedural matters used to fine-tune the legislative calendar. &lt;b&gt;In any event, all of those  nominees were eventually confirmed.&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/i&gt;

Like a good magician Kevin uses slight of hand and misdirection to confuse the issue. 

The issue is that the democrats are being scumbag weasels and not even giving these people a simple up or down vote because they know they will lose. It is not unlike a 5 year old upsetting a checker board.

Funny, they whine and scream and rug their hands about voters in poor areas being &quot;DISENFRANCHISED.&quot; 

Well what about the people who want to simply VOTE on the nominees?

Suddenly the hypocrisy becomes all too clear.



---</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kevin conveniently sets up a straw man and dodges the facts. (which is just SHOCKING, I would have never guessed he would do that.)</p>
<p>He diddles over blue slips but is struck blind to this fact from the NYT:</p>
<p><i> Democrats <b>say</b> a handful of President Bill Clinton's appeals court nominees were blocked by Republican filibusters. Since under the modern, implicit filibuster, its existence  becomes apparent only when there is an effort to end it, the Democrats point to votes taken to end a filibuster to prove their point. Republicans assert the so-called cloture votes were only procedural matters used to fine-tune the legislative calendar. <b>In any event, all of those  nominees were eventually confirmed.</b></i></p>
<p>Like a good magician Kevin uses slight of hand and misdirection to confuse the issue. </p>
<p>The issue is that the democrats are being scumbag weasels and not even giving these people a simple up or down vote because they know they will lose. It is not unlike a 5 year old upsetting a checker board.</p>
<p>Funny, they whine and scream and rug their hands about voters in poor areas being "DISENFRANCHISED." </p>
<p>Well what about the people who want to simply VOTE on the nominees?</p>
<p>Suddenly the hypocrisy becomes all too clear.</p>
<p>---</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
