filibuster (1 Viewer)

[Mixed View]

Are you for changing the filibuster law?

 

[pwo]

For judicial nominees: take it away. Gosh, dems don't care who Bush appoints, they just want to be difficult. Bush could appoint a liberal judge and the dems would object. Talk about sore losers.

For regular legislation, must keep the filibuster.

 

[Mixed View]

That sounds good to me.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Without the filibuster, you'd truly have a "tyranny of the majority."

The Senate was set up to be a more deliberative body, thus through the use of this tool, those who are part of the minority party can still be heard (and more importantly can still be relevant to the negotiations.)

Preserve it!

 

[ShamMol]

Ok, I won't tell people how I voted because it might seem wierd to them.

Two things really about this. There is a reason that it is called the Nuclear option (one being cause our president can't...nvm). That reason reason is because it is a last resort. Now, can anyone think of why these particular nominees are being held up? Anyone at all? It is becasue they are so conservative that it would create even more of what I like to call conservative activism. Now, does anyone know how many bush appointees have gotten through? Anyone? Over 90%. Wow, it sure doesn't seem like a problem if that many are getting through. Maybe the Republicans just feel they need that nice triple figure, I don't know. The problem with the nuclear option is that it would create a tyranny of the majority in the case of the courts (where conservatives already hold 75% of the posts-75% were appointed by Republican presidents). The nuclear option is just that, a last resort-and if over 90% are getting through, that doesn't seem like a last resort.

Number Two-If they do this, the Senate will effectively shut down. Why is this you may say. Well, the Democrats will shut it down to anything that is not essential. How is that for partisan politics? Its not right by any means, but it is their, how shall we put it, nuclear option. That wouldn't be very smart for the country if the Republicans did this knowing what the Democratic response will be. This could end up screwing both sides or one side in the next election, depending on how the public sees it. The smart thing for the Republicans to do is nothing-then they can claim that the Dems are obstructing the work of the Senate and pick up some more seats, but it looks like the leadership isn't smart enough to see that....sad for them...

 

[Schweddy]

Why is it that it only took 51 votes to get Clinton's judges in?

Now, they are demanding 61.

Many of the same congress folks that are screaming to keep it are the same one's that screemed in 95' against it.

Edit: In adition to the above, it is ment as a placeholder for a future vote. Not STOP them entirely.

 

[Arch Enemy]

Filibusters make for some good movies!

 

[ShamMol]

Why is it that it only took 51 votes to get Clinton's judges in?

Now, they are demanding 61.

Many of the same congress folks that are screaming to keep it are the same one's that screemed in 95' against it.

Edit: In adition to the above, it is ment as a placeholder for a future vote. Not STOP them entirely.

It really wasn't used with Clinton's people because the Repubs had control. Now the Democrats are just using what is the right of any party to do, or even any group (doesn't necessarily have to be a party). Why should they not be allowed to use what has been a part of American politics forever? Just so the courts can become 80% Republican?

 

[Schweddy]

It really wasn't used with Clinton's people because the Repubs had control. Now the Democrats are just using what is the right of any party to do, or even any group (doesn't necessarily have to be a party). Why should they not be allowed to use what has been a part of American politics forever? Just so the courts can become 80% Republican?

So now it's a moral argument rather than a legal one?

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

How many of you folks out there think that this issue really centers on the reversal of Roe v. Wade?

 

[Schweddy]

How many of you folks out there think that this issue really centers on the reversal of Roe v. Wade?

I do and I hope so.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

I would say I'm in agreement with you, Vauge.

Roe v. Wade is bad law. The moral implications aside, it set a precedent that the court has a ability to invent rights that are not contained in the Constitution and thus overturn legitimate state law.

I would like to see a Supreme Court that knows its limits of authority - to merely INTERPRET the Constitution.

But I am not willing to "throw the baby out with the bathwater." To weaken our system of checks and balances to get a good result for today will, in the long run, be disastrous.

Keep the filibusters. Negotiate hard. And redouble the efforts to convince the American people of the value of States' rights.

 

[ShamMol]

Well, it was based on the Bill of Rights-1, 5, 9, and 14th ammendments to be exact.

And vauge, I guess you could say that I see this as a two level argument. It is right to deny judicial nominees a vote/Is it right to deny a Senator their turn at what is garunteed? And the second level is the legal right of a fillibuster and whether it correct legally to do so. Ill just repost exactly what I said early seeing as nobody responded. so, enjoy.

Two things really about this. There is a reason that it is called the Nuclear option (one being cause our president can't...nvm). That reason reason is because it is a last resort. Now, can anyone think of why these particular nominees are being held up? Anyone at all? It is becasue they are so conservative that it would create even more of what I like to call conservative activism. Now, does anyone know how many bush appointees have gotten through? Anyone? Over 90%. Wow, it sure doesn't seem like a problem if that many are getting through. Maybe the Republicans just feel they need that nice triple figure, I don't know. The problem with the nuclear option is that it would create a tyranny of the majority in the case of the courts (where conservatives already hold 75% of the posts-75% were appointed by Republican presidents). The nuclear option is just that, a last resort-and if over 90% are getting through, that doesn't seem like a last resort.

Number Two-If they do this, the Senate will effectively shut down. Why is this you may say. Well, the Democrats will shut it down to anything that is not essential. How is that for partisan politics? Its not right by any means, but it is their, how shall we put it, nuclear option. That wouldn't be very smart for the country if the Republicans did this knowing what the Democratic response will be. This could end up screwing both sides or one side in the next election, depending on how the public sees it. The smart thing for the Republicans to do is nothing-then they can claim that the Dems are obstructing the work of the Senate and pick up some more seats, but it looks like the leadership isn't smart enough to see that....sad for them...

 

[Schweddy]

Well, it was based on the Bill of Rights-1, 5, 9, and 14th ammendments to be exact.

And vauge, I guess you could say that I see this as a two level argument. It is right to deny judicial nominees a vote/Is it right to deny a Senator their turn at what is garunteed? And the second level is the legal right of a fillibuster and whether it correct legally to do so. Ill just repost exactly what I said early seeing as nobody responded. so, enjoy.

Your second argument is almost irrelivant. The conservatives are not trying to do away with the filibuster altogether. Only judicial nominations. It is because the dems are attempting to STOP the votes altogeher. There is nothing fair about that. They know that the judges would go through without question. There really is no reason to hold them up.

The first argument I did indeed question. It sounds like you are attempting to turn a legal argument into a moral one.

To combat, your position - did not the American people vote them into office? I would feel exactly the same if the roles were reverse. I have found that you normally are more legal minded than many folks here and I would have guessed that your position would be the opposite and more precise. The Nuclear option would make more sense here if it were a crisis issue like the name indicates.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment XIV
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the
proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

ShamMol, where in the above do you see a "right" to terminate a pregnancy?

If you're honest enough to say that it's not in there, I would refer you to the Tenth Amendment:

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Thus I repeat my point that the federal courts should re-aquaint themselves with the limits of their power.

 

[Pacridge]

Why is it that it only took 51 votes to get Clinton's judges in?

Now, they are demanding 61.

Many of the same congress folks that are screaming to keep it are the same one's that screemed in 95' against it.

Edit: In adition to the above, it is ment as a placeholder for a future vote. Not STOP them entirely.

I'm sorry- what?

 

[ShamMol]

Your second argument is almost irrelivant. The conservatives are not trying to do away with the filibuster altogether. Only judicial nominations. It is because the dems are attempting to STOP the votes altogeher. There is nothing fair about that. They know that the judges would go through without question. There really is no reason to hold them up.

You know what the Republicans did when they were in control? They bottled them up in committee never allowing a vote (see Paez). Is that fair under your reasoning?

The first argument I did indeed question. It sounds like you are attempting to turn a legal argument into a moral one.

I see it as a two pronged attack.

To combat, your position - did not the American people vote them into office? I would feel exactly the same if the roles were reverse. I have found that you normally are more legal minded than many folks here and I would have guessed that your position would be the opposite and more precise. The Nuclear option would make more sense here if it were a crisis issue like the name indicates.

Yes, it would make more sense and is legal in the terms of the senate because those in power can change the rules. But is it practical for that option to come forward knowing htat it will stop all non-essential business in the senate? That is a practical argument-so now we have a semi-legal one, a moral one, and a practicality one...

And as to what Deus Ex Machina posted. The justices of the Supreme court found that the right to privacy was garunteed by the 1, 5, 9, and 14th Amendments and I honestly don't know how they came to that, only that they did. So it is based legally, not just a made up rule which is what I was getting at. As to the tenth amendement, they felt that the right to privacy was an right garunteed by the Constitution, thus, it was protected by Federal law and you know that federal law trumps state law any day.

 

[pwo]

Hey, maybe you libs should of thought about this before you let Kerry lose the election. Let Bush, appoint his nominees. Unless they are unable to do the job, are insane, or are on the farrrrrr right; I don't see the problem.

"Keep the filibusters. Negotiate hard."~ Deus Ex Machina

The problem is that the dems aren't neigotiating, they are just blabbering on to frustrate the republicans. If these nominees are so bad, why don't the dems show the public the reason behind not appointing these judges. They did so with the appointment of Bolton (even though he isn't a judge). They are stating why Bolton is a bad choice, something they aren't doing with normal judges. Maybe it's just me, but doesn't then Senate have better things to do than waste time for several hours a day?

Aww, screw it. We'll just wait a year and a half, then get a few more Republican senators elected. Then they can't filibuster period. 60 or more senators and we are unstoppable. Watch out liberals.

 

[ShamMol]

Hey, maybe you libs should of thought about this before you let Kerry lose the election. Let Bush, appoint his nominees. Unless they are unable to do the job, are insane, or are on the farrrrrr right; I don't see the problem.

"Keep the filibusters. Negotiate hard."~ Deus Ex Machina

The problem is that the dems aren't neigotiating, they are just blabbering on to frustrate the republicans. If these nominees are so bad, why don't the dems show the public the reason behind not appointing these judges. They did so with the appointment of Bolton (even though he isn't a judge). They are stating why Bolton is a bad choice, something they aren't doing with normal judges. Maybe it's just me, but doesn't then Senate have better things to do than waste time for several hours a day?

Aww, screw it. We'll just wait a year and a half, then get a few more Republican senators elected. Then they can't filibuster period. 60 or more senators and we are unstoppable. Watch out liberals.

Am I supposed to be scared? You wanna know what I voted? I voted to change it. Yeah, that is right. So the Republicans can fall flat on their face just like the last time the public thought they abused power-good ol' newt. The nominees are bad, why? Well, there is the ideaology that is brought up in the committees. And Bolton? He is a bully. There is no reason he should be our rep...unless Bush is signaling he wants the UN gone, then there is a reason. The Senate honestly doesn't have anything better to do, and they won't if they Republicans persue the nuclear option. The Democrats will shut down the Senate to anything nonessential, and that doesn't serve anyone (PS, judges aren't essential).

Oh, and FYI, the repubs aren't negotiating either, but why should they, they are the ones with all the power, especially considering they could avoid all this just by letting some of those 9 (this is what is about, 9 or 10 people) throuhg. How stupid is that? I mean, are you kidding me? The Dems don't do anything to over 90% of those nominees, and the Repubs are wrangling over 9?! You have got to be kidding me. The reason that the Dems have to use the fillibuster is because they can't just bottle up people in committee like the Repubs did when Clinton was in control. Get it into your minds. The Repubs did the exact same thing with Clinton, just through different means. The hypocrisy.

I am shocked that I am going less with a legal argument, but it is the one to make, the moral and practical argument is and should win out with the American public, but we shall see on election day (in the background softly, Newt!!)....

 

[ludahai]

It really wasn't used with Clinton's people because the Repubs had control. Now the Democrats are just using what is the right of any party to do, or even any group (doesn't necessarily have to be a party). Why should they not be allowed to use what has been a part of American politics forever? Just so the courts can become 80% Republican?

The Democrats controlled the Senate during the first two years of Clinton's term, so it COULD have been used with Clinton's people.

I think it is unconsionable for the Democrats to hold up judicial nominees in the manner that they are. Why are you so afraid of an up-or-down vote? Republicans gave them to YOUR nominees in the 1990s.

 

[ShamMol]

The Democrats controlled the Senate during the first two years of Clinton's term, so it COULD have been used with Clinton's people.

I think it is unconsionable for the Democrats to hold up judicial nominees in the manner that they are. Why are you so afraid of an up-or-down vote? Republicans gave them to YOUR nominees in the 1990s.

You must not have read my posts about how they prevented them from getting those posts. True, the Dems did control for part, but not the majority.

See the process of Richard Paez, a nominee, for an example of what the Repubs continually did.

And PS, I actually want the nuclear option to go forward, but for...cynical reasons.

 

[ludahai]

You must not have read my posts about how they prevented them from getting those posts. True, the Dems did control for part, but not the majority.

See the process of Richard Paez, a nominee, for an example of what the Repubs continually did.

And PS, I actually want the nuclear option to go forward, but for...cynical reasons.

For one, I disagree in principle with blocking an up-or-down vote on ANY judicial nominee, regardless of who is doing the nominating. Paez shouldn't have been confirmed, but there shouldn't have been such a delay in voting.

However, here we are not talking about a single nominee, we are talking about multiple nominees. The Democrats can't accept the fact that they are losing election after election, and will use every trick in the book. This is unacceptible. Are Democrats going to do this on the next Supreme Court nomination? This sounds a lot easier for them than the high-tech lynching of Clarence Thomas and the Borking of Thomas Bork in the 1980s.

Democrats have no case to complain about a single judge when they have such a long history of using various tactics to try to block SUPREME COURT nominations, among other judicial appointments.

Your side would have been screaming bloody murder had the Republicans used similiar tactics on Bader-Ginsberg that the Democrats used on Thomas and Bork.

 

[Pacridge]

For one, I disagree in principle with blocking an up-or-down vote on ANY judicial nominee, regardless of who is doing the nominating. Paez shouldn't have been confirmed, but there shouldn't have been such a delay in voting.

However, here we are not talking about a single nominee, we are talking about multiple nominees. The Democrats can't accept the fact that they are losing election after election, and will use every trick in the book. This is unacceptible. Are Democrats going to do this on the next Supreme Court nomination? This sounds a lot easier for them than the high-tech lynching of Clarence Thomas and the Borking of Thomas Bork in the 1980s.

Democrats have no case to complain about a single judge when they have such a long history of using various tactics to try to block SUPREME COURT nominations, among other judicial appointments.

Your side would have been screaming bloody murder had the Republicans used similiar tactics on Bader-Ginsberg that the Democrats used on Thomas and Bork.

It is multiple nominees. It’s about 10 out of 215. 205 have been confirmed. The 10 or that haven’t been, have been turned away more than once and Bush keep re-nominating them.



Your post makes it sound, at least to me anyway, that this is a one sided thing. That the Dems will use any tactic they can to keep the ultra-conservative judges from being confirmed. The GOP and the right would do (and has done) the same thing if the tables were turned and were their ten judges being nominated that openly supported vastly left, liberal positions.



I think you’re seeing this same thing with the constant harping about “activist judges.” It’s become a mantra of the right of late. Any time a judge makes a decision they don’t agree with these days its labeled “activism.” But when judges on the conservative side of the fence leave huge, obvious boot prints on the Constitution. That’s completely fine. In fact I heard it called “righteous interpretation” by Rush Limbaugh one day. So it’s not what the Constitution says- but hey it’s Ok because it’s “righteous

 

[Pacridge]

You must not have read my posts about how they prevented them from getting those posts. True, the Dems did control for part, but not the majority.

See the process of Richard Paez, a nominee, for an example of what the Repubs continually did.

And PS, I actually want the nuclear option to go forward, but for...cynical reasons.

You’re not alone. There’s a lot of Dems and liberals hoping this goes through. They know the tide ebbs and flows. Sooner or later low tide will began to set on the neo-cons and this move may well come back on them. Several within in the GOP were on the Sunday morning news shows making statements questioning whether or not this was a smart move.

 

[ShamMol]

For one, I disagree in principle with blocking an up-or-down vote on ANY judicial nominee, regardless of who is doing the nominating. Paez shouldn't have been confirmed, but there shouldn't have been such a delay in voting.

However, here we are not talking about a single nominee, we are talking about multiple nominees. The Democrats can't accept the fact that they are losing election after election, and will use every trick in the book. This is unacceptible. Are Democrats going to do this on the next Supreme Court nomination? This sounds a lot easier for them than the high-tech lynching of Clarence Thomas and the Borking of Thomas Bork in the 1980s.

Democrats have no case to complain about a single judge when they have such a long history of using various tactics to try to block SUPREME COURT nominations, among other judicial appointments.

Your side would have been screaming bloody murder had the Republicans used similiar tactics on Bader-Ginsberg that the Democrats used on Thomas and Bork.

We aren't talking about, wait let me do it as you did, SUPREME COURT nominatinations. We are talking about the appeals courts or district courts. We are talking about those 10 people, ten! This happened when the Repubs had control of it last time, they use the tatics at their disposal to ensure that either the most liberal/most conservative do not get on the courts. It is that simple. There was no reason given for Justice Paez's not getting a vote, just as there is no reason for these here. That is the beauty of it. You don't have to say. The Repubs could do it when the Dems get control of the Senate or Presidency back and it is a two sided coin that can be used by either side. It is not just the Dems who have done this.

And I guess I will close with...10, ten people is what we are talking about. Is that enough to justify changing the rules that have stood for so long? just so the right can control that much more of the courts which they deem activist (75% of the courts were appointed by the right-welcome to america). I guess I just don't see the necessity to get it up another percentile, but there you go, i don't have that manic intensity that drives the bases of both parties.