Filibuster needed? or Not?

[TheAnvil 0]

You are using the overall #'s. I am referring to APPELLATE court nominees. I believe the actual # I read was 53% - don't recall where I read that though, so perhaps I'm in error. I believe if you include the lower court nominees the overall % should be in the high 90%'s.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 3,070]

> You are using the overall #'s. I am referring to APPELLATE court nominees.

Right. Overall the total number of nominees approved by congress is in the high 90's, considerably higher than the nominee rate under democratic presidents.

The filibuster system has worked for over 200 years now. It is working even better today; clearly, since more judges than ever are being nominated, it is not a big problem, and it brings attention to the few judges who _are_ big problems. Changing it to get a few judges nominated is like changing the first amendment so we can teach creationism in a Kansas school. Even if that's a desired goal, it's not worth screwing with a system that we've had for a few hundred years now.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Phew! I was worried there might be a political thread on Speaker's Corner that did not contain a gratuitous Clinton slam. Thanks for adding those comments from every republican's favorite politician.

To be honest GTA started with a slam on Republicans.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

Phew! I was worried there might be a political thread on Speaker's Corner that did not contain a gratuitous Clinton slam. Thanks for adding those comments from every republican's favorite politician.

To be honest GTA started with a slam on Republicans.

ARGH. Read it again. You will notice that I said we do not need Democrats for big goverment. Now we have republicans to do the same thing. My implication -- to ENTIRELY spell it out -- is that democrats were (are) responsible for big government, but now, so are the Republicans.

So yes, it was a slam on Republicans. It was also a slam on Democrats so no one needs to quote Democrats to show me how wrong I am.

As far as I am concerned, the democratic and republican parties can both disappear and we would be much better off.

Next time I will make sure to keep my slams on the two parties separate. Apparently, not liking them both in the same post just blows everyones' minds.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Ron 10]

Quote

ARGH. Read it again. You will notice that I said we do not need Democrats for big goverment. Now we have republicans to do the same thing.

OK I did.

Quote

Who needs the Democrats to make big goverment? With Republicans we have more Big Government AND a desire for more government influence in our personal lives.

Yep you said both want big government.Actually you said who needs Dems to do it seince the repubs are...then added "more government infulence in our lives" was pure topping.

You stated that we don't need Dems since the Republicans are doing the same thing...Slam #1. The added #2 with the influence in our lives thing.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[GTAVercetti 0]

And what exactly did I just say in my last post? That yes, I DID indeed slam Republican.

My point is not whether I did or did not take a poke at them, but that I don't need someone to show me that what I said applies to Democrats because I ALREADY KNOW THAT.

sheesh. You would think that if I say the moon sucks and the sun sucks, I would not have people from the moon camp coming back to tell me how the sun can give me cancer.

Instead, everyone could just go on knowing that I think they both suck. But I forgot, this is SC. My bad.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[jdhill 0]

Quote

As far as I am concerned, the democratic and republican parties can both disappear and we would be much better off.

On this, we can agree.

As for the filibuster, let the Democrates do it, it only goes to show them for what they are...

As for the "Constitutional Option" of revising the Senate rules... I'm on the fence... clearly they can do it... but perhaps the better option is to change the rule in such a way as to require the filibuster to be on topic, rather that just up there moving air around by reading the phonebook... unlimited debate is OK, but reading from the phonebook is not debate.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[wmw999 2,534]

Quote

change the rule in such a way as to require the filibuster to be on topic, rather that just up there moving air around by reading the phonebook... unlimited debate is OK, but reading from the phonebook is not debate.

I could side with that one.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Since you are into exposing hypocrisy, you could mention that Frist's voting record includes support of Republican filibuster against Clinton's nominees.

Both sides are hypocrites, john. Neither Republicans nor Democrats should get any support on this.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

perhaps I'm in error

Oh the Humanity!!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Did you know that the rule change they "say" they are going to make is....
1 Every nominee will make it out of committee. They can no longer be stopped there and
2 Debate will be allowed to go on for 100 hours!
3 After 100 hours all nominees get an up or down vote.

What is wrong with that?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[03CLS 0]

I kind of dumb, but aren't they using the filibuster because if they don't and vote no the repubicians have the votes to pass the judges through?

[TheAnvil 0]

200 years, eh Bill? Please tell us the names of a few judges who have been filibustered.

Your assertion that GWB's rate is 'considerably higher' for overall judge confirmations really doesn't give a good overall picture of how confirmations are going. Break the stat down into Appellate and Lower court nominations, show the raw data for # of judges nominated, and the like and you'll find that some gross disparaties exist. One nice little factoid you'll notice - should you choose to do as I've suggested - is that GWB has the LOWEST confirmation rate for appellate court nominees of ANY PRESIDENT SINCE WWII!!!!!! We're not talking by one or two percentage points here either - we're talking like 30+% less than other presidents.

This filibuster is a good thing. Makes fools of the Dims and gets these well qualified judges an up or down vote in the end, which is all the Republicans wanted. They should have started this long ago.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[PhreeZone 20]

How many judges have been nominated for those positions? The total count is very low and even 2 or 3 people is enough to skew the % numbers by a lot. Going on % really is'nt the best idea when the total count is about 50.

Here are some some numbers for you. : Bush nominated 52 appellate court judges in his first term and Congress approved 35 of them. Out of those 17 that were initially rejected only 10 were sent back for votes and ended up in the current fillbustering situation. 7 were deemed not worthy of sending to a vote for some reason. Should we be complaining about almost as bad of numbers of nominies as we are about the fillbustering?

Take a look at the seats that are open currently and compare those to seats that Clinton tried to fill and was fillbustered on then. You'll see a few match ups. Just because there is an opening does not mean that the seat needs to be filled. Some districts have said their case load is fine as is and they do not need additional judges. Do you really want them to fill the position just since its open even if the workload is not there to support it?

Its partisan politics as usual. When the coin flips and power goes to the Democrats in the future you'll see the Republicans playing politics to try and get their way from the minority. Power never rests in one parties hands too long in DC, thats one thing that can be counted on.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Zenister 0]

Quote

The filibuster is stupid...If you don't want something, just vote "no" and move along.

It just wastes time and energy...

actually it is a fundamental parliamentary procedure, and while i agree it should be based on substantive debate, it is a VERY necessary ability to protect the power of the minority in our system.. by removing it you completely remove any ability the minority has to force a compromise, and that is the intent in the first, to force compromise...

if the republicans go ahead with the 'nuklear' option it will have long lasting effects on how the senate operates.. in effect there will be no point in minority participation as the majority will have the ability to push thru whatever it wishes whenever it wishes...

this applies to BOTH sides of the current debate, but the necessity of filibuster and the reasoning behind it would be MUCH more obvious if our system had not denigrated into a simple two party conflict that was never intended by our founders...

"stalling" unto the point of your opponents frustration is hardly 'stupid'. in fact it is a GREAT tactic to wear down the opposition when the odds otherwise indicate you will simply lose on all fronts...

ever been involved in a team fencing event? there is a reason you send an obviously weaker opponent against someone he/she has no chance of defeating in a stand up fight...the weaker opponent then fences not to win, but to exhaust... by wearing down the strongest in a 'minor' engagement you force them to change tactics and increase your odds in the broader conflict that you would most likely lose if fought in an "up front" manner. This increases your odds overall of winning at a team level...

in reference to the Senate, the use of the filibuster forces the opposition to compromise and while taking MUCH longer than strictly necessary under 'normal' situation results in a better out come for everyone... the “team” in this case is the country as a whole case, not the politicians with their own political agendas as the moderate position (which is really that of the majority when political affilation is removed) is better represented when a simple political majority is unable dictate its whims to all...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

if the republicans go ahead with the 'nuklear' option . . .

Don't you mean "nukular"?

. . =(_8^(1)

[SkydivingNurse 0]

Quote

Phew! I was worried there might be a political thread on Speaker's Corner that did not contain a gratuitous Clinton slam. Thanks for adding those comments from every republican's favorite politician.

My favorite Democrat is Robert Byrd, the KKK guy.
Also the guy who is so in favor of not changing Senate rules.
Edit to add: I don't consider myself a Republican, just a conservative. I think a bunch of the people on both sides of the isle are full of crap.

[Ron 10]

Quote

actually it is a fundamental parliamentary procedure, and while i agree it should be based on substantive debate, it is a VERY necessary ability to protect the power of the minority in our system. by removing it you completely remove any ability the minority has to force a compromise, and that is the intent in the first, to force compromise...

Nonsense, all they have to do is vote "No". Then the canidate is dead in the water. They can use the fact that in this case without a few Dem votes these appointees are going nowhere. That is enough to give them barganing power. Since an apointment takes 60% voting "No" is just as effective as a filibuster.

Quote

if the republicans go ahead with the 'nuklear' option it will have long lasting effects on how the senate operates.. in effect there will be no point in minority participation as the majority will have the ability to push thru whatever it wishes whenever it wishes...

This I have already agreed with. However I think the fact that you can waste valuble time reading from a phone book is stupid.

Quote

"stalling" unto the point of your opponents frustration is hardly 'stupid'. in fact it is a GREAT tactic to wear down the opposition when the odds otherwise indicate you will simply lose on all fronts...

Never confuse lack of action with action. A Filibuster is nothing but wasting time. and in this case a filibuster will do nothing that a simple yes/no vote would not do.

Quote

ever been involved in a team fencing event? there is a reason you send an obviously weaker opponent against someone he/she has no chance of defeating in a stand up fight...the weaker opponent then fences not to win, but to exhaust... by wearing down the strongest in a 'minor' engagement you force them to change tactics and increase your odds in the broader conflict that you would most likely lose if fought in an "up front" manner. This increases your odds overall of winning at a team level...

No, but team fighting. And the repubs do that now. They send a person that could not get appointed and then back off and send a compromise. It happens all the time. The Filibuster is not needed to do this.

Quote

in reference to the Senate, the use of the filibuster forces the opposition to compromise

Needing 60% is all that is needed in this case. The Dems are forcing the issue. All the really need to do is vote "No" on the apointees and the issue is dead.

A filibuster is awaste of time, and never really changes things.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

actually it is a fundamental parliamentary procedure, and while i agree it should be based on substantive debate, it is a VERY necessary ability to protect the power of the minority in our system. by removing it you completely remove any ability the minority has to force a compromise, and that is the intent in the first, to force compromise...

Nonsense, all they have to do is vote "No". Then the canidate is dead in the water. They can use the fact that in this case without a few Dem votes these appointees are going nowhere. That is enough to give them barganing power. Since an apointment takes 60% voting "No" is just as effective as a filibuster.

not true..... judicial confirmation requires a simple majority (51 votes) so if they allowed the vote to proceed, and voted "No" the candidates they consider completely unacceptable will STILL be confirmed... removing the filibuster places ALL of the power in the hands of the majority... it as not as if the Dems are preventing EVERY confirmation (most have gone thru without issue) but by renominating judges previously deemed unacceptable Bush is stating he is unwilling to compromise…. Which of course sets the stage for the real issue, the SCOTUS nomination, Since then we are talking about a life time appointment that has long lasting effects on the 'attitude' of the judicial branch, compromise is the only reasonable course...something the extreme elements of the GOP has indicated they are unwilling to do...

filibuster IS the only method available to prevent those confirmations if (and it is nearly a given on the confirmations themselves, (it is the vote on the “nukular” option is questionable as many on both sides DO see the long term effects of such a decision) the vote falls out on party lines

the ability to filibuster changes LOTS of things.. even the threat of it has and does (as is intended) force compromise and it has been used by BOTH sides [I](we really need more than two sides for the system to work as designed but that has not been the case for a loooong time)[/I] in the past when they were the minority and it suited their ends to do so… even the consideration of the ‘nukular’ option shows how extreme some elements of the GOP have become in pushing thru their single sided view

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[TheAnvil 0]

Skew the #'s because the total amount is too low? LoL. 17 out of 50 some odd then by the #'s you present. A large portion regardless of how you examine it.

You know the nominees were bad and that's the reason they were not renominated? I think not. Some were not renominated by their own request.

El Jefe Clintonista was under threat of filibuster, not a filibuster itself. I hope the Dims filibuster, as I said before. It will be a great thing.

Your case loading model assumes a constant work-load. Though I've never examined it myself, I suspect that assumption isn't a good one.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

not liking them both in the same post just blows everyones' minds.

There was a futurama episode which match up candidate John Jameson with candidate James Johnson. They both had the same positions, they looked the same, they just spoke about the positions with a slightly different emphasis.

We are there already today. Both parties want to take and spend our money and want to control certain aspects of our lives. Organized government is like organized religion - all the best intentions in the beginning do not stop the eventual cynicism and corruption. And it is funny to see people take sides in such an emotional manner. The indoctrination of the people is complete.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

not liking them both in the same post just blows everyones' minds.

There was a futurama episode which match up candidate John Jameson with candidate James Johnson. They both had the same positions, they looked the same, they just spoke about the positions with a slightly different emphasis.

We are there already today. Both parties want to take and spend our money and want to control certain aspects of our lives. Organized government is like organized religion - all the best intentions in the beginning do not stop the eventual cynicism and corruption. And it is funny to see people take sides in such an emotional manner. The indoctrination of the people is complete.

I will have to check that episode out. I love Futurama.

Yes, I think it is hilarious and yet disturbing how polarized people get. You are totally correct though, the main idea is that both parties want control. The only difference is the method they use to get it. And even then, the results are often so similar it is hard to see the distinction.

It is a testament to how unproductive and sad partisan politics are today that when I say something bad about one party it is AUTOMATICALLY assummed that I support the other. This is followed then by party line and canned party response (hmm, sounds like cable news).

There may be only two major parties, but there are CERTAINLY NOT two major trains of thought.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Ron 10]

Quote

It is a testament to how unproductive and sad partisan politics are today that when I say something bad about one party it is AUTOMATICALLY assummed that I support the other. This is followed then by party line and canned party response (hmm, sounds like cable news).

Never said you supported one...I said you slammed one.

Its a shame that people assume when you mention that they are slamming something you assume that they think you support the other.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

It is a testament to how unproductive and sad partisan politics are today that when I say something bad about one party it is AUTOMATICALLY assummed that I support the other. This is followed then by party line and canned party response (hmm, sounds like cable news).

Never said you supported one...I said you slammed one.

Its a shame that people assume when you mention that they are slamming something you assume that they think you support the other.

Look. the minute I took a poke at BOTH parties, a response was posted using Bill Clinton's quotes to show me that I was wrong to think poorly about Republicans. For some reason, only the jab at Republicans was seen and instead of simply showing why that is not true about THEM, I was given examples of how it is true of the other major party. If that is not assumption that I support the opposition, I do not know what it. Not only that, but it is a poor debate tactic.

If tell you that the engine is blown and that the tires are flat, reiterating that the tires are out of air does not convince me that the engine is okay.

You also assumed that my previous post was about you. It was not. But I am glad that you can point out that I made a slam.

Hey look! I just typed the word 'slam'. I hope someone points that out to. People may not realize it unless someone says something about it.

Pointing out the obvious is fun.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[PhreeZone 20]

Look into it some, in at least 3 of the circuits the judges that are currently on the bench were asked if they wanted all the potential openings filled. The DC circuit came out and said no since their caseload was not overwhelming and they thought they could handle it just fine. I'm trying to find the replies from the other districts.

Out of 52 judges 35 passed with out an issue. 67% have passed with out a fight pasically. that leaves 32% that did not recieve enough support on the initial nomination. 7 or 14% of those 52 did not recieve enough support for renomination. In my research only 2 or 3 of those asked not to be nominated again. The 4 or 5 others did not recieve support from their home state senators from either party to be renominated usually. It looked like there were some questions asked on different thoughts on the judical and political process and when objections were raised on both sides of the aisle those nomines were passed over.

The number that everone is fighting over is 10 people or 19% of the total group. From your previous post:

Quote

We're not talking by one or two percentage points here either - we're talking like 30+% less than other presidents.

The total number is at 32% so unless the other presidents were getting 100% passing rates its a little hard to believe your numbers.


Out of those 10, 5 really should'nt have that big of an issue once they get to the floor for a vote, Repubs will vote yes, some Dems will vote yes, otheres will vote nop and they move on. The issue is that there are a few judges up that the minority party objects to so strongly that they do not want them to be voted in since it takes a 51 vote count to accept. That is the power of the fillbuster, the minority party is still able to have power with out being walked all over. Remember in the case of a tie the VP gets to vote and that means the presidental party really does have the power in a tie.

Look up the Senate rules on voting sometime, I think its rule 14 that says any senator can ask for the entire bill to be read in its entirity 3 times on 3 seperate days. If people really wanted to get nasty they could invoke that rule and have the bills read every few weeks apart before they are up for a vote. The senate would grind to a halt in no time.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com