You call this "bipartisanship?" I call it infantile behavior.
Yesterday, Senate Democrats threatened to block all of George W. Bush's judicial nominees unless they get veto power over appointments in their home states. Tom Daschle said there is "absolute unanimity" among the Democrats, and they'll filibuster if they have to.
Which means California's Christopher Cox could be in for a rough ride. He's the first sitting member of Congress in line for a Bush appointment to a federal judgeship. But Dianne "Give Me Your Guns" Feinstein, whose support Cox is seeking, told the Washington Times, "Chris Cox comes from probably the most conservative district in the state. It isn’t the mainstream in the state of California by a long shot."
Bottom line: The Democrats don't like the idea of Republicans getting federal judgeships back home. They want Democratic judges they can count on to toe the party line...and so they're hell-bent on stopping Bush.
Never mind that, during Clintonian reign, Republicans were discouraged from filibustering the Senate to oppose nominees. Republicans approved 240 out of the first 241 Clinton-appointed judges in 1995. In eight years, 377 of Bill Clinton's judicial appointees got the green light from the Senate. That's comparable to the 382 judges Ronald Reagan appointed in his eight years.
Apparently it's not a two-way street. Then again, we knew those promises of bipartisan cooperation were hollow as soon as they left the Democrats' lips.
This is equivalent to a five-year-old throwing a temper tantrum because he didn't get what he wanted for breakfast.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20010503-825946.htm
Yesterday, Senate Democrats threatened to block all of George W. Bush's judicial nominees unless they get veto power over appointments in their home states. Tom Daschle said there is "absolute unanimity" among the Democrats, and they'll filibuster if they have to.
Which means California's Christopher Cox could be in for a rough ride. He's the first sitting member of Congress in line for a Bush appointment to a federal judgeship. But Dianne "Give Me Your Guns" Feinstein, whose support Cox is seeking, told the Washington Times, "Chris Cox comes from probably the most conservative district in the state. It isn’t the mainstream in the state of California by a long shot."
Bottom line: The Democrats don't like the idea of Republicans getting federal judgeships back home. They want Democratic judges they can count on to toe the party line...and so they're hell-bent on stopping Bush.
Never mind that, during Clintonian reign, Republicans were discouraged from filibustering the Senate to oppose nominees. Republicans approved 240 out of the first 241 Clinton-appointed judges in 1995. In eight years, 377 of Bill Clinton's judicial appointees got the green light from the Senate. That's comparable to the 382 judges Ronald Reagan appointed in his eight years.
Apparently it's not a two-way street. Then again, we knew those promises of bipartisan cooperation were hollow as soon as they left the Democrats' lips.
This is equivalent to a five-year-old throwing a temper tantrum because he didn't get what he wanted for breakfast.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20010503-825946.htm
