It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Republican Senator Now Blocking Up or Down Vote on Bush "Pro-Choice" Appointee

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 10:49 PM
After all that hell raising, calling parlimentary procedure not only unconstitutional but anti-christian, and bemoaning the lack of a simple up or down vote on nothing less than every single one of Bush's nominees, just look at this shameless hypocrisy.

An Up-or-Down Vote? (Only if they're Anti-Choice)
Tuesday, June 7, 2005; Page A22

WHILE REPUBLICAN senators insist on prompt votes for every judicial nominee, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) has placed a "hold" on President Bush's nomination of Julie Finley as ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Mrs. Finley is well qualified. Like many ambassadorial appointees, she has been a major Republican fundraiser, but she has also been a strong and active advocate in Washington for the expansion of NATO, the integration of Turkey into the European Union and the spread of democracy to countries of the former Soviet Union. These are issues that would be central in her new post -- and issues that Mr. Brownback also has highlighted. Nevertheless, Mr. Brownback, a possible presidential candidate in 2008, as of last night was employing a parliamentary maneuver to block any Senate vote -- on the grounds that Mrs. Finley is pro-choice on abortion.

The move may please Republican anti abortion activists, who have launched a campaign against Mrs. Finley, demanding that the president withdraw her nomination. But the hold is repugnant, on both procedural and substantive grounds. If a filibuster is at best a controversial way of deciding policy, allowing a single senator to have effective say over whether to hold a vote on a particular presidential appointment would seem completely unacceptable.

More to the point, Mrs. Finley's opinions on abortion, whatever they may be, have nothing whatsoever to do with European security and democracy, peacekeeping in Chechnya, or the enforcement of arms control treaties, the main issues of concern to the OSCE. Mr. Brownback has in the past shared Mrs. Finley's enthusiasm for expanding NATO and promoting democracy in Eastern Europe. That he would slight those ideals and abandon a firm supporter of those causes bodes ill for his potential candidacy and for the next presidential election more generally.

Oh no, Bush may have accidentally appointed an ambassador that happens to be pro-choice (you know, like most Americans). Stop everything and grind that vote to a halt! Somebody get President Dobson and the Klan on the line for approval. :shk:

I personally don't care either way. She's still Republican trash, it's just funny when they eat their own.

posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 11:10 PM
A single senator can block a nomination from moving forward by placing a hold on it. link

Did the Democrats have this power with the Judicial nominees or do Republicans only have the ability to hold Republican nominees and vice versa?

posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 06:11 AM

Originally posted by AceOfBase
A single senator can block a nomination from moving forward by placing a hold on it. link

Did the Democrats have this power with the Judicial nominees or do Republicans only have the ability to hold Republican nominees and vice versa?

It certainly appears a single Republican can block an up or down vote as long as he's got the complicit silence of the majority party behind him, but the whole minority party representative of 49% of America can not.

Here's more fun news. Now Bush is the one obstructing a vote on his own UN Nominee..

Bush has refused to turn over documents on Bolton for a week. Reid says no documents, no vote.

"You can't ignore the Senate. We've told them what we've wanted. The ball is in his court," Reid, D-Nevada, told CNN. "If they want John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations, give us this information. If they don't, there will be no Bolton."

"The president is obstructing a vote on John Bolton," he said. "We've asked for simple information that Congresses over many decades that we have been in existence have been given by the White House."

There's no good reason for Bush to not make the information available to Senators expected to vote on Bolton. Unless he's a criminal and the records prove it.

Bush criticized the delay last week, telling reporters that the information Democrats want was given to Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kansas and ranking committee Democrat John Rockefeller, D-West Virginia.

But Democrats have tried to argue that lawmakers have a right to that information in order to make an informed decision on Bolton, who has been accused of threatening intelligence analysts whose conclusions did not match his. (Bolton Misled Panel)

"We know very categorically that John Bolton tried to have fired two intelligence analysts because he didn't like the conclusions they reached about America's intelligence," Dodd told CNN's "Inside Politics" Wednesday.

"That, to me, is going way beyond the prerogatives of a policymaker here. Did he go further than that? I need to know the answers to those questions. I have a right to know it as a senator -- not me personally, but the Senate does."

posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 06:04 PM
Rant, you realize no republican will read this, right? I did a test, since I have a brain, I wanted to prove that no good republican will read a post by someone who uses their brain for more then a hood ornament. So I said that Clinton was the Gov. of Alabama, not Arkansas. Guess what? NO republican read my post, and none caught it. Only Dems and Libertarians caught it. I gave my congrats to them and voted them for TWATS because they read people's posts, unlike republicans. Let's see if I can find a link to my little test.

Here it is....

[edit on 10-6-2005 by James the Lesser]

top topics

log in