Who Said each of these statements? (and no, the answer is not Bill or Hillary, or even Flip flopping John Kerry)
1. --"Acording to the US Constitution, the President nominates, and the Senate shall provide advice and consent. It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor."
2. "So we're saying we think you ought to get nine votes over the 51 required. That isn't to much to ask for sch a super important position. There ought to be a super vote. Don't you think so?"
3. If, after 150 days languishing in a committee there is no report on an individual, the name should come to the floor. If, after 150 days languishing on the executive calendar that name has not been called for a vote, it should be. Vote the person up or down. They are qualified or they are not."
4. We have to have the process where the rules are respcted, where we have checks and balances in our government, and where people seeking lifetime appointments must demonstrate not only honesty and competency but the fact that they are in tune with the values and needs of the American people. Unofortunately, in the case of 10 judges, may of us believe the nominees sent by the White House do not meet that test."
5. A nominee is entitled to a vote. Vote them up; vote them down...It is our job to confirm these judges. if we don't like them, we can vote against them. That is the honest thing to do. If there are things in their background, in their abilities that don't pass muster, vote no.
6. Out of 205 judges, we haven't confirmed 10 submitted by the President and have chosen to filibuster those, the Republicans want to break the filibuster rule. And I think that's a big problem.
7. The Constitution is clear that only individuals acceptable to both the President and the Senate should be confirmed. The presdent and the Senate do not always agree. But we should resolve these disagreements by voting on these nominees--yes or no.
8. But what has not ended is the resolution and the determination of the members of the United States Senate to continue to resist any Neanderthal that is nominated by this President of the United States for any...federal court in the United States.
9. I...do not want to see the Senate go down a path where a minoiry of the Senate is determining a judge's fate on votes of 41...During the Republican Administrations I rarely ever voted against a nomination by either President Reagan or President Bush. There were a couple I did. I also took the floor on occaision to oppose filibusters to hold them up and believe we should have a vote up or down.
10. If you remove the checks and balances so that youc an nominate judges who will be basically an arm of one element of the Republican Party, then you have taken a giant leap toward an unfettered executive controlling all three branches of the federal government...It will not only demean the Senate....it will destroy the comity on wich it depends.
11. I also plead with my colleagues to move judges with alacrity--vote them up or down. But this delay makes a mockery of the Constitution, makes a mockery of the fact that we are here working, and makes a mockery of the lvies of very sincere people who have put themselves forward to be judges and then they hang out there in limbo.
12. We will invoke every rule in the Senate that we can, without standing in the way of vitally needed programs, to show the people who put it in power that they cannot just by fiat undo 200 years of American history.
OK, no cheating. Time's up. I bet you are going to say that people like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Frist, and other Republican stalwarts said the odd numbered statements. Well, you would be wrong. Here are the answers.
Statement1 (Congressional Record, May 14, 1997) and Statement2(rally in Washington, March 16, 2005)--Barbara Boxer, D, CA
Statement3(Congressional Record, Sept. 28, 1999) and Statement4 (Congressional Record, April 20, 2005)--Dick Durbin, D, IL
Statement5(Congressional Record, Sept. 16, 1999) and Statement6(CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, April 17, 2005)--Dianne Feinstein, D, CA
Statement7 (Congressional Record, Jan. 28, 1998)and Statement8 (CNN Inside Politics, Nov. 14, 2003)--Ted "Hero of Chappaquiddick" Kennedy, D, MA
Statement9 (Congressional Record, Sept. 16, 1999) and Statement10 (Congressional Record, April 22, 2005)--Patrick "Leaky" Leahy, D, VT
Statement11 (Congressional Record, March 7, 2000) and Statement12(Fox News' Special Report, April 21, 2005)--Charles "Chuck the Shmuck" Schumer, D, NY
Who says there has not been some serious Kool-Aid drinking or drug use on Capitol Hill? How else to explain this amazing divergence from the same people? Or, could it simply be BLATANT, UNADULTERATED, JUVENILE, DETRIMENTAL TO THE NATION HYPOCRISY?
