Filibuster needed? or Not?

[kallend 1,648]

Fact is, the right wing of the Republican party is criticizing the Dems for doing the exact same thing they were doing themselves just 8 years ago. That is hypocrisy.

I'm not faulting all Republicans, I think most of the moderates are embarrassed about this.

...

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

Look. the minute I took a poke at BOTH parties

You took *maybe one at dems, but two at Repubs.

* I say maybe since your slam on Repubs was like they are LIKE dems and want big government.

Quote

I do not know what it. Not only that, but it is a poor debate tactic.

all he did was the SAME thing you did...Show the similarities between the two parties...He used quotes.

You should be gald he proved your point, not bitch at him.

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

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

Look. the minute I took a poke at BOTH parties

Quote

I do not know what it. Not only that, but it is a poor debate tactic.

all he did was the SAME thing you did...Show the similarities between the two parties...He used quotes.

You should be gald he proved your point, not bitch at him.

The way the reply started with "Yes, all those nasty republicans" followed by democrat examples, does notsound like he was agreeing that republicans are just as responsible for big government as democrats.

Quote

You took *maybe one at dems, but two at Repubs.

* I say maybe since your slam on Repubs was like they are LIKE dems and want big government.

If you cannot see that simply saying that republicans can replace democrats as big government creators is a slam to both, then there is not much else I can do.

Anyway, that's it. I am done with this line of debate. You are COUNTING the number of slams. Next time, I will make sure that I give out my jabs in even numbers. Jesus.


Besides, you should be glad I am bitching. Otherwise, what would you have to bitch about?

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

Besides, you should be glad I am bitching. Otherwise, what would you have to bitch about?

#1. who said I am not glad?

#2. I'd find SOMETHING..sorry its a slow day.

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

[jdhill 0]

Quote

Since an apointment takes 60% voting "No" is just as effective as a filibuster.

Huh? An appointment only takes a simple majority... it takes 60 to break a filibuster.

J

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

Huh? An appointment only takes a simple majority... it takes 60 to break a filibuster

Yeah, I got confused there. Sorry.

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

[TheAnvil 0]

Check your facts. Let the Dims filibuster and make fools of themselves. While they grind senate business to a crawl, the conservatives will showcase the nominees they are screeching about and show the lies and distortions used to malign them, further embarrassing the Dims.

Clicky

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

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Check your facts. Let the Dims filibuster and make fools of themselves. While they grind senate business to a crawl, the conservatives will showcase the nominees they are screeching about and show the lies and distortions used to malign them, further embarrassing the Dims.

Clicky

How many times are you going to repeat essentially the same post? WE got it, You don't like the democrats. And this filibuster will hurt them. Yes, we got that too.

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

[03CLS 0]

Quote

Check your facts. Let the Dims filibuster and make fools of themselves. While they grind senate business to a crawl, the conservatives will showcase the nominees they are screeching about and show the lies and distortions used to malign them, further embarrassing the Dims.

Clicky

The filibuster is needed and is really needed in this case. I mean who in the hell wants more PRO-LIFE conservative judges on their way to the supreme court.

This is what all the fuss is about isn't it?

[billvon 2,434]

> Let the Dims filibuster and make fools of themselves.

Did you think that the republicans who filibustered 60 appointees under the last democratic president were fools?

>further embarrassing the Dims.

In 2000, Sen. Frist voted to continue the filibuster against Richard Paez, a circuit court judge. Did that embarrass the GOP?

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

Quote

Check your facts. Let the Dims filibuster and make fools of themselves. While they grind senate business to a crawl, the conservatives will showcase the nominees they are screeching about and show the lies and distortions used to malign them, further embarrassing the Dims.

Clicky

The filibuster is needed and is really needed in this case. I mean who in the hell wants more PRO-LIFE conservative judges on their way to the supreme court.

This is what all the fuss is about isn't it?

I don't have a problem with pro-life judges. I do have a problem with anti-choice judges though. The government should keep its busybodying nose out of the people's bodies. What any adult puts into or takes out of their own body is their business and theirs alone.

...

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

[TheAnvil 0]

No. They never filibustered, merely threatened to do so. I'm sure they would have embarrassed the hell out of themselves had they actually filibustered.

Senator Frist's vote didn't embarass the GOP at all.

I hope the filibuster occurs. I really do. I support it.

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

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

No. They never filibustered, merely threatened to do so. I'm sure they would have embarrassed the hell out of themselves had they actually filibustered.

Senator Frist's vote didn't embarass the GOP at all.

I hope the filibuster occurs. I really do. I support it.

That kind of line walking gets you no where. Just because get the filibuster did not happen does not mean they did not try hard to get it;with probably the same effort democrats are giving it now.

And all this talk about it being unprecedented forgets about Abe Fortas:

In June 1968, Chief Justice Earl Warren informed President Lyndon Johnson that he planned to retire from the Supreme Court. Concern that Richard Nixon might win the presidency later that year and get to choose his successor dictated Warren's timing.

In the final months of his presidency, Johnson shared Warren's concerns about Nixon and welcomed the opportunity to add his third appointee to the Court. To replace Warren, he nominated Associate Justice Abe Fortas, his longtime confidant. Anticipating Senate concerns about the prospective chief justice's liberal opinions, Johnson simultaneously declared his intention to fill the vacancy created by Fortas' elevation with Appeals Court Judge Homer Thornberry. The president believed that Thornberry, a Texan, would mollify skeptical southern senators.

A seasoned Senate vote-counter, Johnson concluded that despite filibuster warnings he just barely had the support to confirm Fortas. The president took encouragement from indications that his former Senate mentor, Richard Russell, and Republican Minority Leader Everett Dirksen would support Fortas, whose legal brilliance both men respected.

The president soon lost Russell's support, however, because of administration delays in nominating the senator's candidate to a Georgia federal judgeship. Johnson urged Senate leaders to waste no time in convening Fortas' confirmation hearings. Responding to staff assurances of Dirksen's continued support, Johnson told an aide, "Just take my word for it. I know [Dirksen]. I know the Senate. If they get this thing drug out very long, we're going to get beat. Dirksen will leave us."

Fortas became the first sitting associate justice, nominated for chief justice, to testify at his own confirmation hearing. Those hearings reinforced what some senators already knew about the nominee. As a sitting justice, he regularly attended White House staff meetings; he briefed the president on secret Court deliberations; and, on behalf of the president, he pressured senators who opposed the war in Vietnam. When the Judiciary Committee revealed that Fortas received a privately funded stipend, equivalent to 40 percent of his Court salary, to teach an American University summer course, Dirksen and others withdrew their support. Although the committee recommended confirmation, floor consideration sparked the first filibuster in Senate history on a Supreme Court nomination.

On October 1, 1968, the Senate failed to invoke cloture. Johnson then withdrew the nomination, privately observing that if he had another term, "the Fortas appointment would have been different."

-----------------------

He may not be an appellate judge but I say a filibuster of a Supreme Court Judge is pretty damn signifigant

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

[TheAnvil 0]

I know about Abe Fortas, but thanks for the refresher. A bit skewed, but a refresher nonetheless.

Note the Fortas nomination was withdrawn. Unlike the extremely well qualified candidates being refused a floor vote at present.

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

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

I know about Abe Fortas, but thanks for the refresher. A bit skewed, but a refresher nonetheless.

Note the Fortas nomination was withdrawn. Unlike the extremely well qualified candidates being refused a floor vote at present.

Yes, withdrawn after a cloture failed. But that does not mean a fillbuster on a judical candidate was never implemented by Republicans as they are fond of saying these days.

I love blinding following my political party. Its fun and the whole family can do it!

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

[TheAnvil 0]

Don't recall where I've stated that in this thread. Perhaps you can point that out to me.

care to do the compare and contrast I put forth earlier?



And I'm a hypocritical libertarian, by the way. I doubt my desire to legalize drugs would go over well with most Republicans.

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

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I don't have a problem with pro-life judges. I do have a problem with anti-choice judges though..

I don't have a problem with a judge having any personal opinion on any issue - Provided he's demonstrated he follows the law without letting personal political positions affect his judgement. Ability to objectively enforce the law without personal bias should be the ONLY litmus test for judges. We have failed that test in both parties. Judicial activism is at least as bad on the left as the right. The appointments and the filibuster processes are self-fulling prophecies because appointments are nearly always in direct conflict with my litmus test - judges which have a potential to be biased are sought out, not rejected. And when they aren't, everyone is too paranoid to recognize them.

...
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

[Alias 0]

Quote

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

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/democrats_open_fire_filibuster_509.htm

I'm not Bill, but can help. Although it does seem that majority of these examples "voted" to filibuster

The Unprecedented, break in tradition began in 1968, when Goopers Filibustered LBJ's nomination of Abe Fortas. Fortas, who had been on the Supreme Court, as an Associated Justice, since 1965, was nominated to replace Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1968

Some senators, like Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), have filibustered as many as 13 nominees

Senator Allard blocked two of Clinton’s judicial nominees from receiving an up-or-down vote: James Lyons, 10th Circuit-Colorado and Patricia Coan, a District Court nominee


and on and on

Carpe Diem

[boudy 0]

>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.<

AS I understand it, there currently is no practicle difference between a filibuster & the threat of a filibuster under a gentlemen's agreement that has been in force since the Dems were in the majority. You merely announce a filibuster (or "threaten" filibuster) The Senate has dispensed with requiring continous oratory on the floor under the agreement. Morris calls it a virtual filibuster.

If the 60 votes necessary to end a "filibuster" can't be mustered, the issue is simply not brought to a vote. All the behind the scenes manipulations & public posturing proceed -absent the embarrassment of having C-Span cover our illustrious Seantors babbling hours on end about soup recipes, bunion cures, etc.

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.

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/DickMorris/042705.html

[TheAnvil 0]

I agree with Dick Morris. That's exactly what I want to occur.

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

[tbrown 26]

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.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

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.

See the "Godwin's Rule" thread.

. . =(_8^(1)

[fallingchip 0]

Quote

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

It just wastes time and energy.

Couldn't agree more.

______________________________________________
"A radical man is a man with both feet firmly planted in the air."
-Franklin Delano Roosevelt

[dorbie 0]

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.

Please explain how requiring a vote by elected representatives on an issue, equates to totalitarianism?

The very name comes from "filibusteros", pirates who held ships hostage for ransom.

A filibuster seems like the ultimate totalitarianism, and while I can see the value in limited use of it, the repeated and systematic use or threat of use beyond any semblance of democratic intent makes it beyond repair.

The more fascinating thing in all of this is how both sides appeal to precedent and statistics of various sorts, often completely rigged. Everyone's so blinded by ideology that you can't even decide if this is a unique abuse of the filibuster or not, but who can without research and knowledge beyond our means? Thankfully those stats have been produced online but what an effort just to cut through the crap. The capacity to misrepresent the situation seems boundless and now with talk of gassing and lampshades, we've hit rock bottom on this one.

[dorbie 0]

It seems that the early congress had no filibuster, it was always possible to move to the next debate and force a vote. In 1806 this was eliminated allowing filibusters. In 1917 a rule was introduced allowing two thirds of those voting to end a filibuster. In 1949 it was changed to require two thirds of the entire senate, in 1959 it was back to two thirds of those present, and in 1975 it was changed to the current three fifths of the entire senate where it stands today, that would be 60 folks.

So here we are today, the inviolate filibuster of course now being a sacrosanct part of the republic according to some.

FWIW, the "nuclear option" is about eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominees only.