Filibuster needed? or Not?

[Ron 10]

Quote

Dick Morris suggests the Republicans force what you wish for - a REAL filibuster. That is, forget the arm twisting, and nukular option threat and allow the public to see a real old-time filibuster in action - drop the no-oratory convention & let the Dems have the floor & a national audience.

I like it...If they want to do it, then they should have to really do it.

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

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

Dick Morris suggests the Republicans force what you wish for - a REAL filibuster. That is, forget the arm twisting, and nukular option threat and allow the public to see a real old-time filibuster in action - drop the no-oratory convention & let the Dems have the floor & a national audience.

I like it...If they want to do it, then they should have to really do it.

You can't have that, it would break a gentleman's agreement and Harry Reid would have to daiper up.

All this talk of no actual filibuster is the product of an agreement in place for years where the threat of a filibuster is agreed to be as good as. Nobody actually has to filibuster, but the house majority leader could force the issue.

FYI there are already rules preventing filibusters on budget issues. I guess overspending by a trillion dollars here or there and sending our grandkids to the poor house isn't enough to let someone with sense raise an objection, but judicial nominees.... now that's different. Just keep the money flowing.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

What the Republicans are pushing for is single party government with no opposition tolerated. I'm not a Democrat either, just an American who's concerned about the government being taken over by extreme right wing textbook fascists.

The Republicans aren't worried about no filibusters turning against them someday, because they confidently envision gassing their enemies and making lampshades of them. They're evil bastards and the Constitution means NOTHING to them, other than an obstacle to their ambitions for absolute power.

What the Democrats are pushing for is single party government with no opposition tolerated. I'm not a Republican either, just an American who's concerned about the government being taken over by extreme left wing, politically correct, textbook socialists thinking some people are MORE equal than others.

When the cycle turns back to the left, the Democrats aren't worried about no filibusters turning against them someday, because they confidently envision gassing their enemies and making lampshades of them (if they can't be brainwashed during their public upbringing). They're evil bastards and the Constitution means NOTHING to them, other than an obstacle to their ambitions for absolute power.

That works too.

...
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

[lawrocket 3]

Or, why I blame the Democrats more than I blame the Repblicans.

Back in May, 2001, Bush, Jr. put forward his first slate of judicial nominees. This list of 11 included two staunch liberals: Robert Gregory (a recess appointment by Clinton) and Barrington Parker. This deliberate inclusion of these two democrats was a deliberate effort at conciliation by the Bush admin and by the Repubs. The Repubs were hoping for some give by the Dems.

A few weeks later Senator James Jeffords switched from Republican to Democrat. This shifted the Senatorial balance of power into Democrat control. Judge Gregory and Judge Parker were the first two nominees confirmed. Over the next 17 months, one additional member of that list was confirmed. In the 18th month, another two were confirmed.

So, what you saw was the Democratic party assuming control of the Senate and immediately confirming the two olive branch candidates and delaying the hell out of everyone else on the list.

The first boil over on this happened with Miguel Estrada, who incidentally was an assistant solicitor general for Clinton. He was filibustered seven times starting in March, 2003, even though there was no home state objection (the blue cards that Boxer speaks about the long use of? Democrats poisoned that well). This cat had amazing credentials, but the Dems were worried about a possible future elevation to the Supreme Court (something that they would NOT allow a conservative hispanic to do - never, ever ever). Estrada eventually withdrew himself from consideration, likely with some prodding from the Republicans as a sacrifice to placate the Dems.

Then the Dems went after Priscilla Owen with just as much fury as they did with Estrada, filibustering her four times. The maneuvers of conciliation by the Republicans were ultimately used against them - the Dems took the Repub olive branches and smacked them with them - not once but twice.

10 of Bush's nominees have been filibustered. The Dems, while they speak so much about reconciliation, have taken the attempts of doing so by the Repubs and not given an inch. While they say that the decision to filibuster is because the Republicans are not using the informal systems to consult between parties, I don't blame the Repubs one bit for not consulting anymore when they've been bitten hard TWICE. Get me once, shame on you. Get me twice, shame on me. Well, the Repubs won't be bitten a third time.

Hence, the nuclear option. The Repubs, who were trying to play nice, simply won't take it anymore. This has been a FOUR YEAR process. That is unconscionable.

As an aside, I personally find it repugnant that the democrats are focusing their efforts on women and minorities. And I'm glad that the Republicans are standing up fighting for them.

In the end, though, there is a gamble. What do the American people find more important? Is it the ability to get an up or down vote? Or is it that the rules of the Senate remain as is. An up or down vote on that will be occuring in about another 18 months...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,070]

>The Repubs, who were trying to play nice, simply won't take it anymore.

New Hampshire Republican Bob Smith, Fall 1999: "Don't pontificate on the floor of the Senate and tell me that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States of America by blocking a judge or filibustering a judge that I don't think deserves to be on the circuit court ... . That is my responsibility. That is my advice and consent role, and I intend to exercise it."

>What do the American people find more important?

Indeed. The Senate or the GOP? We will discover which is more important to GOP senators tomorrow.

[dorbie 0]

I sometimes wonder if you actually believe in the points you try to make.

One filibuster does not a constitutional crisis make. An unprecedented and systematic obstruction of multiple nominees does, at this rate all we have to do is wait and Bush will be robbed of his executive prerogative.
The Senate has gone a century in the past without as many filibusters as now occur in a 2 year period. There's clearly something wrong with the system in modern times.

Pretty soon there will be some perfectly legal and constitutional moves to remedy this farce and get the Senate voting again and you can make some hollow accusations about the damage to the Senate after the Democrats have treated it with contempt.

It's amazing to watch people imply that an effort to get the senate voting on issues stalled for 4 years is an attack on the institution. See earlier post for the etymology of the word filibuster.

[billvon 3,070]

>An unprecedented and systematic obstruction of multiple nominees does . . .

And when did that happen? Surely you are not referring to the last session of Congress, where 204 nominees were approved and 10 were rejected. This (for the math challenged out there) represents a 95% approval rating. I know, when you break it down that way it doesn't sound like "an unprecedented and systematic obstruction of multiple nominees", but it surely does represent the GOP not getting their way 100% of the time. And that, to them, is completely unacceptable. The solution? Change our government so there are no messy roadblocks to one party being in complete control of the government. I'm sure that's what the founding fathers intended.

>The Senate has gone a century in the past without as many filibusters
>as now occur in a 2 year period.

No filibusters have actually occurred in recent history, again despite GOP efforts to make it sound like Congress is dead in the water.

I can only imagine the shrill screams of rage that would be occurring if the situation were reversed, and the democrats were trying to change senate rules to get pro-gay-marriage judges rammed through. We'd all be deafened.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I sometimes wonder if you actually believe in the points you try to make.

Sometimes, but not this time.

There is absolutely nothing different about now versus when the Republicans had only 43 senators and Clinton was in the White House. The quote he just posted was a perfect demonstration of such.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

>An unprecedented and systematic obstruction of multiple nominees does . . .

And when did that happen? Surely you are not referring to the last session of Congress, where 204 nominees were approved and 10 were rejected. This (for the math challenged out there) represents a 95% approval rating. I know, when you break it down that way it doesn't sound like "an unprecedented and systematic obstruction of multiple nominees", but it surely does represent the GOP not getting their way 100% of the time. And that, to them, is completely unacceptable. The solution? Change our government so there are no messy roadblocks to one party being in complete control of the government. I'm sure that's what the founding fathers intended.

>The Senate has gone a century in the past without as many filibusters
>as now occur in a 2 year period.

No filibusters have actually occurred in recent history, again despite GOP efforts to make it sound like Congress is dead in the water.

I can only imagine the shrill screams of rage that would be occurring if the situation were reversed, and the democrats were trying to change senate rules to get pro-gay-marriage judges rammed through. We'd all be deafened.

This is exactly what I'm talking about w.r.t. abuse of statistics to cloud the issue, the details of who was nominated and to what positions is important, but it makes a nice sounbite to hide what's going on from the masses. Do you ever follow the links posted in filibuster threads?

Thanks to an agreement since the Clinton era a filibuster threat is the equivalent of a filibuster, hence the false claim oft repeated that there have been no actual filibusters. Yes there have, you no longer have to stand there for hours, you threaten a filibuster and it's the equivalent with reguards to allowing a vote. So please don't promulgate the party line that there have been no filibusters, it's just more smoke generated to obscure what's actually going on here.

The abuse of procedures to repeatedly obstruct an up or down vote means tghat a key executive power granted the President is being completely undermined. You might not like the GOP getting its way but these judicial appointees are nominated by the President and approved by Congress. Repeatedly blocking that process because you aren't happy with the result of the election is what undermines the Senate, not restoring a situation where a poll is actually taken. Geeze, what a disaster, the elected representatives being allowed to vote on a nomination!!! How dare they!!
If there have been no filibusters then what's the problem getting rid of them? Surely it's irrelevant if I take a DNC lie at face value.

Maybe the GOP would be shrill, then again maybe they wouldn't have provoked the crisis in the first place. It's amazing that this whole mess is being spun the way it is IMHO.

Again, look up the etymology of filibuster.

[billvon 3,070]

>This is exactly what I'm talking about w.r.t. abuse of statistics to cloud
>the issue . .. .

Would you prefer rhetoric to numbers? Numbers can be inconveniently factual; rhetoric is much easier to manipulate.

>The abuse of procedures to repeatedly obstruct an up or down vote
>means tghat a key executive power granted the President is being
>completely undermined.

Nope, sorry. Again, most have been accepted, so the statement "completely undermined" makes no sense. What you are seeing is the legislature exercising their power to reject _some_ nominees through procedural means. This is part of the checks and balances built into the system so no one person, party or branch of government can take control of the US government, and it has worked pretty well for some 200 years now.

>If there have been no filibusters then what's the problem getting rid of
>them? Surely it's irrelevant if I take a DNC lie at face value.

Read up on how filibusters are done nowadays. No one stands at the podium and reads; there is a gentleman's agreement that they don't need to do that. It's like threatening to take someone to court. It doesn't mean you physically drag them there.

But this conversation is now moot anyway. Thanks to some moderate republicans and democrats, a compromise has been reached where the worst of the candidates were rejected and the democrats have agreed to restrict the use of the filibuster to only the most serious causes. The system worked.

[dorbie 0]

Who'se numbers?

The ones I've seen for the top positions place the figure at 53% not 90%. And then there's the issue of including the olive branch nominees that the Democrats approved then rejected the rest. Like I said, statistics, lies & smoke.

Quote

Read up on how filibusters are done nowadays. No one stands at the podium and reads; there is a gentleman's agreement that they don't need to do that. It's like threatening to take someone to court. It doesn't mean you physically drag them there.

Geeze, you say there have been no filibusters, I say yes there have and you don't need to stand and talk, there's a gentleman's agreement, and addend that it's a DEM lie and you respond that I should read up on them there's a gentleman's agreement.

I ALREADY SAID THAT, about three times in this thread including the post you responded to. Be consistent and READ THE POST if you're going to respond.

It's like arguing with a goldfish.

[lawrocket 3]

Hmmm. It looks like an interesting agreement that opens the door to a vote on three of them.

Personally, I'm very glad judge Janice Rogers Brown is being allowed this up or down vote.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,070]

>It's like arguing with a goldfish.

So you argue with your fish a lot, I take it? Who wins?

[dorbie 0]

You:

Quote

No filibusters have actually occurred in recent history, again despite GOP efforts to make it sound like Congress is dead in the water.

Me:

Quote

Thanks to an agreement since the Clinton era a filibuster threat is the equivalent of a filibuster, hence the false claim oft repeated that there have been no actual filibusters.

If there have been no filibusters then what's the problem getting rid of them? Surely it's irrelevant if I take a DNC lie at face value.

You:

Quote

Read up on how filibusters are done nowadays. No one stands at the podium and reads; there is a gentleman's agreement that they don't need to do that.

I would get better from a goldfish if I were to try. It does make me wonder what you were thinking when you posted the first part though?

[billvon 3,070]

And for the hypocrite of the day, we go to Kansas, where a GOP senator is blocking a vote on a pro-choice ambassador. Yet somehow, I think the cries of outrage from our local GOP contingent will be less than deafening on this particular 'denial of democracy.'

------------------------------------
An Up-or-Down Vote?
Tuesday, June 7, 2005

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.
--------------------------



Story.

[rehmwa 2]

I wonder what one's stance on abortion has to do with being an ambassador.

I forget, which country is this? "the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe"

Obviously the specific Senator from Kansas is a buttnut cowtowing to his special interest constituents. No better than what some dems did on the judgeships.

And after all this, the usless polital and partisan tool of the filibuster is once again abused for no good cause.

As for him being a hypocrite, I don't know his personal position on the judicial filibusters to make that call. And I won't just make a stereotyped labeling just because he's from a specific party.

...
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

[kelpdiver 2]

Can anyone here say the phrase "President Brownback" without cringing. Talk about an unelectable name.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Can anyone here say the phrase "President Brownback" without cringing. Talk about an unelectable name.

"PRESIDENT Brownba....Presideant Brownb.. PResident Burtbower... P..."

Nope, can't do it.

...
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

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

And for the hypocrite of the day

Actually, bill, I believe that you could probably find any politician and call that person a hypocrite - and quite accurately, too.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,070]

>Actually, bill, I believe that you could probably find any politician
>and call that person a hypocrite . .

I agree, for the most part. Hence, this one is simply the hypocrite of the day.