NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7193614/

Well, if we're talking 38 Senators, they still have a quarum without them, and they can override the filibusters as is. I don't see why they bother.

No where in the US Constitution does it say that the Republicans can't do that.

No where in the US Constitution does it say that the Republicans can't do that.
I fail to see how that makes tyranny by majority ok.

I fail to see how that makes tyranny by majority ok.


Or how the minority can be obstructionists to a fault. Remember when the Dems had the power, and Kennedy complained about a little filibustering going on, which is nothing compared to the amount Dingey Reid wants to do. The dems should keep this up, then it'll be yet another nail in their political coffin.

The Democrats are running scared. They have no ideas, and they have no constituency.

The Democrats are running scared. They have no ideas, and they have no constituency.
Yeah, I guess confronted with that much logical fallacy is overwhelming for even the most stubborn people

Or how the minority can be obstructionists to a fault. Remember when the Dems had the power, and Kennedy complained about a little filibustering going on, which is nothing compared to the amount Scarey Reid wants to do. The dems should keep this up, then it'll be yet another nail in their political coffin.
Complain all you want, but the fact is the minority still needs a way to make its voice heard. If the majority can simply just pass everything it wants, with no opposition, this country is in trouble. That goes for both sides. I don't want democrats passing any crazy law they want anymore than I would want republicans to.

Think about how you will feel when your party eventually becomes the minority again, do you want the political opposition to simply ignore everything you say and do what they want anyway? No you want them to respond to your charges, and filibustering is a way to make them do just that.

Yeah, I guess confronted with that much logical fallacy is overwhelming for even the most stubborn people

I am quoting someone I heard on NPR. Cokie Roberts. You know, that paragon of liberal reporting. She said that it was strange that the Democrats, given an opportunity like the Social Security gaffe by Bush, haven't come up with any alternative ideas, other than "no". She thought that they are desperate, but can't come up with a single idea on any subject.

That's all they seem to be able to say, "no". Rather like watching Matt Damon act.

So, it's not a logical fallacy. I'm quoting a liberal.

Good, maybe they'll get ahold of one of the houses of congress next election, and we can have divided government. That's the way it should be. Forces compromises and the like.

The Democrats are running scared. They have no ideas, and they have no constituency.
Unfortunately, speaking as a Democrat, I am forced to agree with Whispering Legs. The Democratic Party needs to get it together and find some kind of galvanizing force to unite behind or we're screwed. We're inherently more fractious than the Republicans are as it is, but at the moment, we're just a shapeless mass of not-Republicans and it's not working.

The thing is that we need another Clinton, not necessarily a person with his politics but a person with his feel for people, and we just haven't got one, whereas the Republicans have a person whose ideology is way, way on the other spectrum from mine, but who seems to have a real knack for making things happen politically (more's the pity).

So what do we do?

Here is a little something on how the Democrats are truely a sorry party. Standing in the way of nominations, do you remember the Thomas hearings? They all but lynched him for something that was proven false. Dems can't win at the polls, so they try to win through scandal.

Thank you Rush:

I'll tell you something else, folks. Mr. Snerdley just sent me a note here, and this is an excellent point. The reason why something has to be done on these judges is not because it started with Bush. It started with Bork. We have a verb now for a judge that gets hammered by Democrats in committee or on the floor of the Senate. He's "Borked". Robert Bork was eminently qualified, eminently qualified to be on the US Supreme Court but because he was scary; he frightened; he was original-intent man. He was a man that looked to the original intent, believed the original text, believes essentially the same things that you heard Scalia say today from his speech last night and they went back and they nailed Bork on the Griswold case out of Connecticut. He made the mistake of saying the Constitution doesn't say anything about a right to privacy, which it doesn't, and of course the right to privacy is the huge umbrella the left has used to enact a whole bunch of garbage, and call it law in this country. But the Constitution says nothing about it. Now, some people say, "Well, it's implied, Rush. I mean look at some of the amendments, illegal search and seizure. It's implied." Yeah, but it's not an umbrella under which they throw a bunch of garbage into and say it's constitutional. So Bork was, he was just being intellectually honest and they Borked him, and ever since -- it's like Watergate explains why Democrats now try to win via scandal as opposed to at the ballot box. It's like Abu Ghraib is an offshoot of Watergate. They try to get Bush that way, and all these judges in the filibusters are an offshoot of Bork because they succeeded there and this stuff has got to be shut down once and for all, because that's a precedent the Democrats are still living off, and it's got to be nuked.

Complain all you want, but the fact is the minority still needs a way to make its voice heard. If the majority can simply just pass everything it wants, with no opposition, this country is in trouble. That goes for both sides. I don't want democrats passing any crazy law they want anymore than I would want republicans to.

Think about how you will feel when your party eventually becomes the minority again, do you want the political opposition to simply ignore everything you say and do what they want anyway? No you want them to respond to your charges, and filibustering is a way to make them do just that.


Threatening to filibuster every nominee is not right, and goes against the people of this great nation. I never said the minority should be silenced, in fact I think the opposite should be. They should be heard by everyone to prove how kooky they are.

Quit the partisan hackery and look at the facts of the matter.

The Democrats confirmed every judicial nominee Bush made except 10 - and now he's brought them back. 204 were confirmed, and he just HAS to get the 10 most ideologically extreme in the courts? This isn't obstructionism on the part of the Democrats; it seems to me that when 95.3% of the nominees Bush made were confirmed and he just has to get that extra 4.7% in there, it's arrogance on his part, not obstructionism for the Democrats - they've already done their part.

You are correct in saying that the Democrats haven't proposed an alternative, yet the lack of an alternative does not mean one should support what one considers a bad thing.

Finally, lowering the standards for Filibuster is a matter of hubris. Filibuster protects the minority from the majority; it has saved the Republicans and has been a weapon for them against a Democratic majority in Congress or a Democrat in the Presidency. Now it's a bad thing when the Democrats are using it? Should power only be in the hands of the minority when the Republicans are that minority? No.

Here is a little something on how the Democrats are truely a sorry party. Standing in the way of nominations, do you remember the Thomas hearings? They all but lynched him for something that was proven false. Dems can't win at the polls, so they try to win through scandal.
One might be tempted to say exactly the same thing about the Whitewater investigation and the Clinton impeachment, neither of which actually resulted in anything substantive, when push came to shove. Whitewater ended up with no charges pressed and the impeachment proceedings ended in similar amounts of nothing...

...which doesn't mean I don't think the Democratic Party doesn't need a good, solid revamping.

As to the filibustering of candidates, I don't believe either party had filibustered a judicial nominee in the history of the United States until W was elected. I might be wrong on that, but I don't think I am.

I'm glad the Democrats want to do this. The Republicans do need some Democratic blood, anyhow.

I say, let the Dims go forward with it...we might actually get some work done with the Senate in gridlock, and the public will see clearly just who has no ideas.

I'd venture a guess, but on Jan 2007, the majority could be 61-39 for the GOP.

Complain all you want, but the fact is the minority still needs a way to make its voice heard. If the majority can simply just pass everything it wants, with no opposition, this country is in trouble. That goes for both sides. I don't want democrats passing any crazy law they want anymore than I would want republicans to.

Think about how you will feel when your party eventually becomes the minority again, do you want the political opposition to simply ignore everything you say and do what they want anyway? No you want them to respond to your charges, and filibustering is a way to make them do just that.

the Republicans can't even pass those changes without a vote of 67 ... Which would mean democrats would have to vote for it... threatening to shut down the government is obsenly overboard and its going to do massive political damage to them. So now every time a party is put in the minority (from its own fault no less) they are going to abuse what little power they have to voice their opposition.. even so far to shut down the government if they can't work with the system in place ?

Is this the state of our government now ??