NationStates Jolt Archive

From JohnKerry.com

Making President Bush's judicial nominations immune to a Senate filibuster is the next step in the GOP's arrogant, out-of-control grab for power. If Senator Frist, the Senate Majority Leader, can convince enough Republican Senators to go along, the nomination and confirmation of judges will become a tightly-controlled, one-party affair.

I know the source is downright hilarious, but this seriously disturbs me. More than anything I've seen coming out of D.C. in a long time. This goes way beyond Bush's presidency and the Republicans. This is an attack on our nations principles that will have unforseeable consequences for decades to come. Think on what this change really means for our government and our country as a whole...

So apparently we are going to live in a dictatorship soon? Oh joy...

So apparently we are going to live in a dictatorship soon? Oh joy...
And that surprises you how? The whole world is chanting that the US is turning into a theocratic dictatorship, but no, the Americans know everything better. As if this development has not happened before in history :rolleyes: It would help if especially Americans would sometimes take a look at what went wrong before and avoid the same mistakes.

I know the source is downright hilarious, but this seriously disturbs me. More than anything I've seen coming out of D.C. in a long time. This goes way beyond Bush's presidency and the Republicans. This is an attack on our nations principles that will have unforseeable consequences for decades to come. Think on what this change really means for our government and our country as a whole...

If you agree that this is a really, really stupid idea, follow the link below and sign the online petition.

www.johnkerry.com/usatoday/ (http://www.johnkerry.com/usatoday/)
I don't think soliciting signatures for a particular party's petition is an appropriate use of this forum.

I don't think soliciting signatures for a particular party's petition is an appropriate use of this forum.

I agree. Though if the link is removed I do think the issue adressed in this topic is food for debate.

I don't think soliciting signatures for a particular party's petition is an appropriate use of this forum.

Agreed, but I don't think unconstitutional filibusters of judicial nominees is an appropriate use of our senator's power either. So, we're all equal now.

I say kill the filibuster for judicial nominations. Conservative court-packing makes me happy. And being happy is good. But we can't pack the courts without killing the filibuster, at least before '06. Therefore, killing the filibuster is good.

Ein Deutscher']And that surprises you how? The whole world is chanting that the US is turning into a theocratic dictatorship, but no, the Americans know everything better. As if this development has not happened before in history :rolleyes: It would help if especially Americans would sometimes take a look at what went wrong before and avoid the same mistakes.

Nothing in the Constitution allows for a judicial filibuster, nor is there a tradition of using it. And the "whole world" can shove it, when it comes to our courts. This is an internal matter.

And the "whole world" can shove it, when it comes to our courts. This is an internal matter.

Like the oppression of his people by Saddam Hussein was an internal matter for Iraq ?

Agreed, but I don't think unconstitutional filibusters of judicial nominees is an appropriate use of our senator's power either. So, we're all equal now.
Your logic is impeccable .... :rolleyes:

Like the oppression of his people by Saddam Hussein was an internal matter for Iraq ?
Are you seriously comparing the gassing of 1000's of Kurds, the torture and killing of thousands of others, to conservative court-packing? Get a grip!

Like the oppression of his people by Saddam Hussein was an internal matter for Iraq ?

The executive speaks for the people, and sets all foreign policy. The Supreme Court has declared that all U.S. citizens must obey the treaties signed by the President, subject to ratification, and that the President alone sets foreign policy. Saddam's court system, however corrupt, wasn't the problem.

Feel free to criticize the President, I don't care. But our laws are our laws, and are for the people of this country to decide on.

Nothing in the Constitution allows for a judicial filibuster, nor is there a tradition of using it. And the "whole world" can shove it, when it comes to our courts. This is an internal matter.


You definitely don't know your shit.
Senate rules have been in place to protect America on the premise of the founding father's. That mob rule and the rule of the majority will ruin the country. Allowing for the filibuster protects the principles that our country was founded upon. That is: Not letting psychotic fundamentalism dominate our politics. They would care the same about it if it was radical progressivism as if it was christian fundamentalism.

You definitely don't know your shit.
Senate rules have been in place to protect America on the premise of the founding father's. That mob rule and the rule of the majority will ruin the country. Allowing for the filibuster protects the principles that our country was founded upon. That is: Not letting psychotic fundamentalism dominate our politics. They would care the same about it if it was radical progressivism as if it was christian fundamentalism.
The filibuster has rarely, if EVER, been used in approving judges. The constitution calls for the advice and consent of the Senate, not for a filibuster-proof vote in the Senate. The "nuclear option" is not the breaking of the filibuster rules, but the flagrant abuse of the filibuster by the Dems in this case.

You definitely don't know your shit.
Senate rules have been in place to protect America on the premise of the founding father's. That mob rule and the rule of the majority will ruin the country. Allowing for the filibuster protects the principles that our country was founded upon. That is: Not letting psychotic fundamentalism dominate our politics. They would care the same about it if it was radical progressivism as if it was christian fundamentalism.

I'm talking about judicial nominations.

Are you seriously comparing the gassing of 1000's of Kurds, the torture and killing of thousands of others, to conservative court-packing? Get a grip!

I worry about the self proclaimed "leader/policeman of the free world" having a decent and well balanced court system with no basis in religion, yes. Especially if it considers it appropiate to interfere in the justice systems of other countries (even though in the case of Iraq my gut says this was the right thing to do) but would tell the rest of the world its own system is "internal affairs".

Are you seriously comparing the gassing of 1000's of Kurds, the torture and killing of thousands of others, to conservative court-packing? Get a grip!
You weren't bothered by it when it happened. Why you keep bringing it up now?

I'm talking about judicial nominations.
Try not to use too much logic with the lefties. It makes them very uncomfortable. :p

Saddam killing Kurds is like the US killing Iraqis. He was at war with them, unless your a real man, you don't let your enemies live.

Its like the Union beating down on the Confederate states.


The Fillibuster is kind of a lame tactic. It would be fair if they got rid of it, if and only if, they replaced it with a different method of preventing domination by one party of the Executive, Legislative, AND Judicial branches simultaneously. No matter what the party is, across the board domination is unfair and leads to denying power to minority party groups.

I worry about the self proclaimed "leader/policeman of the free world" having a decent and well balanced court system with no basis in religion, yes. Especially if it considers it appropiate to interfere in the justice systems of other countries (even though in the case of Iraq my gut says this was the right thing to do) but would tell the rest of the world its own system is "internal affairs".

Our judiciary has no basis for interfering in other nations' business, making war, censuring the President for making war, dealing with diplomats, or anything remotely related to Iraq, Afghanistan or any future war. Your beef is with the Executive, and if you think we have a theocratic court, some evidence would be super.

You weren't bothered by it when it happened. Why you keep bringing it up now?
If you would read the thread, you would see that I did not bring it up. I responded to what I believe to be a ridiculous comparison.

The people of the nation need to understand that when they elect a senate they elect a senate. It would seem that since the republicans have a 55 to 4(5) hold on the senate the Democrats should maybe not push the filibuster as much as they are on this particular issue. It makes sense that the party in control gets to pick the seats for the judiciary because they are the party in control. I say this because the democrats are using the filibuster to excess in this case. I am not a supporter of Mr. Bush, but I do know he has a constitutional duty to fill the judiciary and the democrats are not allowing it. The Dems and Bush need to get together to develop a compromise ideally. If the people elected to the courts don't share the common value of the people then the people must wise up and elect a new senate.

As far as supreme court justices are concerned (which will soon become an issue) I would expect the democrats to fight hard using the fillibuster. The majority of the people agree with abortion so it would seem that the judicial nominees should agree with the people on this issue. If the Bush and the senate is able to overturn roe v wade this may damage the republicans in the long run because the libertarian wing of the republican party agrees with abortion and so does a sizable majority of the people.

Changing the rules of the senate is not the answer. Many republicans remember the time when they were in the minority and someday they shall return and they shall no doubt face the same problem as the democrats. Some senators (I forget their names) are not sure about the rule change and if 5 senators defect on this issue it cannot pass.

The republicans should also be warned about the rules change because the democrats may use this as a 2006 election issue. The republicans used the term "abuse of power" to help with the government in 1994 and the dems can make the same cry.

And that is my 2 cents on this hot issue

Selgin - I considered the fact that I am, indeed, hoping to get people to sign the petition...but unless a moderator sees fit to remove the link (a possibilty I will have no objections about) then I myself will not remove it.

...I do not believe the petition to be for a particular party however. I might be in favor of removing the fillibuster rule, but it must be replaced or revised somehow.

That I never heard of this effort by Republican congressmen until recieving an e-mail fowarded from a friend, leads me to believe that they are trying to force this through without looking at long-term consequences.

Those who might say that they want a conservative packed judicial system might want to rethink their support of such an idea. It's unlikely, but what if in 40 years, liberals dominate every branch of government just as conservatives do today? Would conservative people here like liberal judges to be able to be confirmed uncontested?

I simply think that this is an issue that is not being thought through by congressional leadership, nor the few people who actually know about it. The long-term consequences are simply unpredictable.

Ein Deutscher']And that surprises you how? The whole world is chanting that the US is turning into a theocratic dictatorship, but no, the Americans know everything better. As if this development has not happened before in history :rolleyes: It would help if especially Americans would sometimes take a look at what went wrong before and avoid the same mistakes.
The entire country just needs to sit down and read some freaking Machiavelli. :headbang:

As a player:

Amusingly enough, the Constitution calls for "advise and consent", not an up/down vote. Technically, the Senate could probably send the President a letter of approval with 51 signatures on it to satisfy that particular hurdle. It would be rather shady, but I wouldn't find it any more odious than the Dems filibustering Bush's nominees or the Reps killing Clinton's in committee.


As a Mod:

As for the link, well... that's a stumper. I think this has potential for too much abuse, however. The last thing we need is some Karl Rove and/or Howard Dean flunky joining NationStates to pimp various petitions. Link removed, no warning necessary.

It is illegal to filabuster judicial nominiees now, the dems are just doing it anyway

Did anyone actually watch the filibuster? I watched an hour or two and most if not all of the speakers I saw were Democrats but only one or two of them actually talked about the judges. I agree that the filibuster is necessary but they need to reform it and only allow relevant discussion to take place, and not allowing people to talk about minimum wage when the issue is judges or reading from their cook books on any issue.

Ein Deutscher']And that surprises you how? The whole world is chanting that the US is turning into a theocratic dictatorship, but no, the Americans know everything better. As if this development has not happened before in history :rolleyes: It would help if especially Americans would sometimes take a look at what went wrong before and avoid the same mistakes.

Well, the whole of a chair in front of a PC in Eastern Germany, anyway. :D

Did anyone actually watch the filibuster? I watched an hour or two and most if not all of the speakers I saw were Democrats but only one or two of them actually talked about the judges. I agree that the filibuster is necessary but they need to reform it and only allow relevant discussion to take place, and not allowing people to talk about minimum wage when the issue is judges or reading from their cook books on any issue.

The filibuster has noting to do with the relevance of the topic at hand. No one listens to the filibuster. The filibuster is part of parliamentary procedure that is designed to delay a vote. If the senator who is filibustering can delay a vote long enough then the opposition may decide to listen to one's demands or it can force enough senators to get bored and leave so there are no longer enough votes to pass the bill. The threat of a filibuster can also force the parties to deal with each other instead of just treating the minority party like they don't exist.

What the filibuster has to say is not relevant to anything. The unofficial rules are: 1) a senator must speak continuously never taking a break. 2) The senator is not allowed to leave the podium, eat, drink, or use the restroom.
3) The senator is not allowed to lean or rest on the podium. 4) A filibuster can be stopped by a 60% vote. 5) A vote cannot take place until the senator is finished speaking. There more rules but I don't think anyone cares. Knowing this, all a senator has to do is continuously talk. Senators in the past have read novels, cook books, phone books, anything that has a lot of words in it will do just fine. The filibuster is designed as a way to DELAY A VOTE, it is not designed to have any relevance to the topic at hand.

FWI: Former South Carolina senator Strong Thurmond has the record for the filibuster at 24 hours when trying to delay the Civil Rights act of 1964. Think about that and read the rules of the filibuster again.

Feel free to criticize the President, I don't care. But our laws are our laws, and are for the people of this country to decide on.
Who is suggesting that foreigners should decide your laws? You nationalistic Americans are so paranoid, you think that anything less than shoving your hands in your ears and singing "la la la la la" when you hear mutterings of advice from foreign sources, is an example of "ceding away our sovereignty". :rolleyes:

Indeed your Supreme Court was lambasted for this recently (I'm talking about the state killing of minors case). What is wrong with considering international standards when reviewing your laws? Indeed, wasn't the problem with Saddam Hussein the fact that he was falling far below international standards of how governments should treat their people?

It would be fair if they got rid of it, if and only if, they replaced it with a different method of preventing domination by one party of the Executive, Legislative, AND Judicial branches simultaneously. No matter what the party is, across the board domination is unfair and leads to denying power to minority party groups.
I agree. See the excellent quote from Ben Franklin in my signature. Absolute democracy may sound great if you're in the majority, but its not so great when you're in a minority without rights.

Well said, Swimmingpool.

i can't see your sig, but i know of a great jefferson quote:

"Democracy is nothing but mob rule, where 51% of the people take away all the rights of the other 49%"

that's why we have things like filibusters, so that the minority can prevent things like that.