- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Messages
- 1,988
- Reaction score
- 10
- Location
- Pasadena, California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Yeah, I should have worded it better. That is exactly what Russert was saying. But then the Republican said, "that's not the numbers I have." What a crock of bs. I liked the "makes changing things more difficult, but it makes making stupid changes difficult as well." very accurate.akyron said:"It is about the filibuster and the other ways that people can be blocked and what the Repubs did to Clinton's nominees."
Sort of. It seems he was saying there is not much of a difference between the two administrations confirmation and appointment numbers. Both parties have checked each other successfully.
I am for keeping the filibuster. It is another check in a system of checks and balances regardless of how cheesy it is. Yes it makes changing things more difficult but it makes making stupid changes difficult as well.
People in general tend to do stupid things more frequently than smart things I have observed.
Negotiate harder like the man said, If something can make it past partisanship to clearly show it is the right thing to do it should pass muster.
I venture that the majority of the masses does not have much understanding of the filibuster, its origin, its uses, and its changes over time. I know, I didn't.ShamMol said:Is that enough to justify changing the rules that have stood for so long?
Doesn't matter what the public knows, they should look it up like you did. The point stands.Fantasea said:I venture that the majority of the masses does not have much understanding of the filibuster, its origin, its uses, and its changes over time. I know, I didn't.
[/url]
What did you think of the stance of Kennedy, Biden, et.al.?ShamMol said:Doesn't matter what the public knows, they should look it up like you did. The point stands.
Did you read this? If so, kindly comment on it. If not, kindly do so, and then comment on it.RightatNYU said:I really don't see how any Republican can be for changing the filibuster laws.
Think about it. What are the democrats actually threatening? To filibuster the nominees.
SO LET THEM
There hasn't been a real filibuster in congress in a damn long time, and it's gotten too soft in there. If the democrats want to read from the phone book for 23 hours, let them. Then, when the public revolts, there will be a vote.
Don't change the rules because you're not willing to deal with the costs.
Fantasea said:Did you read this? If so, kindly comment on it. If not, kindly do so, and then comment on it.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-16-03.html
RightatNYU said:Verify.I haven't heard that the filibuster rules were changed so as to eliminate the need for actual debate. I have my doubts about the veracity of that statement.Changes occurred as recently as 1987. How much of a tradition is that?And you're right, no current Senate is bound to the decisions of the previous senate by anything other than tradition.Please comment on the references to Kennedy, Biden, et.al. They didn't seem to concerned about tradition.But tradition is one of the most important parts of our political process.
Fantasea said:RightatNYU said:Verify.
I can't find anything. I looked for it, but I've yet to see anyplace offer an opposing argument. However, I think this is more of a result of the fact that the statement offered by your source is rather out there. I have never heard a similar argument made, and have no reason to take the word of a fellow at Cato above anyone else. I personally have no reason to belive that it's true, and one of my professors who is knowledgeable on the subject intimated the same to me.
Changes occurred as recently as 1987. How much of a tradition is that?
I wasn't referring to the specific case of the filibuster. My point is that the attitude put forth in that article, saying that "no prior senate can lay down rules for the current senate" is detrimental to the political process.
Please comment on the references to Kennedy, Biden, et.al. They didn't seem to concerned about tradition.
What references are you referring to? The bill from 95 where they wanted to end all filibusters? It was political maneuvering by the left then, just as this is political maneuvering by the right now. You don't have to convince me that Kennedy is a hypocritical douchebag.
Big difference is that during Clinton's era the Republicans had a majority in the Senate and that means they prevented Clinton's appointees (60+) from leaving the committee and thus were never voted on. They didn't need to filibuster because they stopped it in committee.vauge said:Why is it that it only took 51 votes to get Clinton's judges in?
Now, they are demanding 61.
26 X World Champs said:Let's at least admit that both parties prevent judicial appointments for political reasons, and both sides have equally manipulated the system.
And as the elections of 1996 which launched their continuing slide to oblivion have shown, it's getting tougher and tougher for the Dems to avoid being marginalized.akyron said:Sure. It is a shame they can not work together to accomplish something worthwhile. Once again the parties appear to be more concerned with being reelected than accomplishing the job.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?