Filibustering Bill Clinton's judges?

[election_2004]

Does anyone know of a government website or another online resource where I could go to look up who which of Clinton's judicial nominees were filibustered during his 8 years in office?

With all the Rovian spin about how every judge deserves an "up or down vote" on the Senate floor, I'm just curious to see how many or what percentage of Bill Clinton's nominees were given that same courtesy between 1993-2001.

I would also be VERY curious to see a roll call vote of how each U.S. Senator at the time voted for Breyer and Ginsburg ("yay" vs. "nay"), back when those vacancies opened on the Supreme Court. It would be interesting to see if any Republican U.S. Senators who were still serving back then actually voted to confirm Breyer or Ginsburg, yet are now complaining about a "liberal U.S. Supreme Court."

Can anyone point me in the right direction as to where I could go to do some digging, because I'm VERY curious to see how much judicial filibustering has been done by Republicans in the recent past?

[tritsofme]

1. There were only a handful of filibusters

Because the GOP was in the majority for most of Clinton's term and this allowed them to block nominees in the Judiciary Committee or even deny them a hearing there.

If they were in the minority very long you can bet your bottom dollar they would be doing the same thing Dems are doing now.

[pk_du]

2. There were 61 Clinton judicial nominees that never got the

"up-or-down vote".....most of them were "blue-slipped" by the Repug on the judiciary committee ( each home state senator gets a blue slip for a nominee , hands it in the Committe Chairman to allow them to proceed.....no blue slip....no committee hearing....never even needs a fillibuster)

[fob]

5. And the repukes already changed, (read eliminated) that option

for the Dems leaving them only the filibuster as a way to stop their rw stacking of the courts.

[pk_du]

3. Good backgrounder here from PFAW

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=7623

[curlyred]

4. try this link

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/printer_051205F.shtml

[LiberalFighter]

6. This article was in our local newspaper

Judicial fight has deep roots
Republicans were no kinder to Clinton, experts say

With Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist promising to press this week for a vote on two of President Bush’s most controversial stalled judicial nominees, the normally staid U.S. Senate is bracing for what could be an ugly, and potentially historic, procedural clash.

Republicans have cast the looming fight as a matter of basic fairness. Legal and political experts say GOP complaints about blocked judges and partisan stalling tactics ignore the key point that both parties broadly used less-visible maneuvers to stop judicial nominees as the feuds over the federal courts escalated in the 1990s.

Using the weight of their majority status, Senate Republicans blocked dozens of President Clinton’s judicial nominees by refusing in some cases to schedule committee hearings or bring candidates to the floor for a vote. In other instances, individual senators used anonymous holds or “blue slips” to effectively veto judicial candidates.

[flpoljunkie]

7. Kudos to the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette!

[CBHagman]

8. Remember that peope waited years just for a hearing...

...let alone a vote. So when the GOP cries bitterly about no one ever being denied an up-or-down vote before, it's horse manure.

Remember, too, that even Rehnquist was asking the Republican-controlled Senate to confirm more judges during the Clinton presidency. The GOP chose instead to wait for a president of their own party and engage in major whining when the Democrats didn't roll over on cue.