NationStates Jolt Archive

I as a non cable person have been watching cspan WAY too much :headbang: And i have noticed the debate over whether filibusters should exist in the senate.

In my opinion, the people against filibusters (neocons :mad: ) are %^&*ing crazy. They cant just change the rules so they can form a holy dictatorship pout of our beautiful republic. Any1 agree or disagree?

There's nothing in the rulebook that says they can't change the rules.

Yes, but i find it appauling that they would devestate our legislature. The filibuster is the tool of the minority against a bewildering majority.

Yes, but i find it appauling that they would devestate our legislature. The filibuster is the tool of the minority against a bewildering majority.

..so in effect, you are saying that the minority's opinion is more important than the majority's?

Not that there shouldn't be checks and balances, even between the min/majority lines, but if it seems a rule is being abused (IMO, it is), then whyever not change the rule? Or rather - redefine it.

No worries, let them take it away. Then, when the Democrat are in the majority again, we can watch them beg to have it back. Silly Republicans. They seem to always have the idea that once they get in power they'll always have that power.

If there were 67 Republican Senators, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

I think what the Democrats are afraid of is the huge backlog of appointee slots.

The backlog accumulated under Clinton (blame the Republicans), and more under Bush (although the Democrats cleared most of them), but the backlog is still there.

If the Republicans do this now, the deck is stacked for years to come.

Of course, that's technically judicial activism, which is what they also complain about.

I did not say that the majority's rule was unimportant, but this is a republic designed to ensure the voice and rghts of both the minority and the majority. Without the filibuster the legislative branch would lose their check over the instatement of judges. I'm not saying that the majority is not important, but the voice of the minority cannot be denied.

Also, i stand for every minority of the senate at any time, dem or republican. Keruvalia has a good point too. If the republicans remove the filibuster, it might not come back to them when the dems are in majority.

If the majority was 67 Senators or more, there is no filibuster at all. Even under the current rules.

Is it just me or are people actually missing the point here? They don't want to totally get rid of it. They want to get rid of it for Judicial Nominees. They are attempting to overturn the rules regarding filibusters on Judicial Nominations. That is what this is all about.

I did not say that the majority's rule was unimportant, but this is a republic designed to ensure the voice and rghts of both the minority and the majority. Without the filibuster the legislative branch would lose their check over the instatement of judges. I'm not saying that the majority is not important, but the voice of the minority cannot be denied.

Also, i stand for every minority of the senate at any time, dem or republican. Keruvalia has a good point too. If the republicans remove the filibuster, it might not come back to them when the dems are in majority.

That's a fine view to have, and certainly some form of empowerment for a minority is called for - since by definition, a simple "majority vote" means the minority will never be heard.

My point is that the "filibuster" course is officially being misused now - the intent upon its introduction was to allow complete debate over the candidates -but it's been what.. 2 years or more for some of these blocked nominations.

It needs to be taken care of ASAP, and that shouldn't involve "shelving" it until the problem (as it were) goes away.

Address the issues, figure out why in the world these people wouldn't be qualified, and then move on.

Filibusters...hm....well....get rid of them after the hearings for justices are over. ;)

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

And these people are qualified to be federal judges.

My point is that the "filibuster" course is officially being misused now - the intent upon its introduction was to allow complete debate over the candidates...
As it's been "misused" in the past. It's funny how the people who profited from it now want to prevent those who are ideologically opposed from doing the same thing. They believe that they should be "more free." No doubt because of their moral superiority. How simple it is to invite tyranny into a democracy, no? And for such a good cause, the expedience of some.

If this goes through, once the Democrats regain power, I wonder if we'll see them revisit FDR's solution to judicial activism.

Clearly, having Senators directly elected was a great mistake.

Its essentially voting the US senate out of a republic and into a direct democracy...they will be ruled by tyranny of the majority. If this passes its not the Democrats that suffer, its literally a MAD situation. Everyone loses. The state itself is weakened and put in danger.

I cannot even begin to describe how against this proposed change I am. Its beyond all comprehension that someone would willingly destory their own nation for the sake of temporary power.

This change in rules might prove to be the doom of our nation's ideals. It ruins the process of law and defiles the ideals of our forefathers. The very founders of our nation would protest this change.

No worries, let them take it away. Then, when the Democrat are in the majority again, we can watch them beg to have it back. Silly Republicans. They seem to always have the idea that once they get in power they'll always have that power.

That's laughable. There are plenty of quotes from Democrats being brought out from just a few years ago talking about wrong filibusters are. Silly Democrats. They were NO different just a few years back. Only the Republicans weren't quite as abusive in the use of filibusters, so it was less of an issue.

As I see it, filibusters are wrong no matter what. All they do is prevent progress. This country is run by the will of the majority. If a party has the majority, they have a right to enact the laws and approve the judges they see as appropriate. If these turn out to be the wrong decisions, the populace gets to replace their representatives when their term is up.

Is it just me or are people actually missing the point here? They don't want to totally get rid of it. They want to get rid of it for Judicial Nominees. They are attempting to overturn the rules regarding filibusters on Judicial Nominations. That is what this is all about.

Because they are short-sighted and are only worrying about their short-sighted judges.

And, both Democrats and Republicans use (or abuse; however you view it) the filibuster. If both parties use it, it must be good (or bad :confused: )

One thing that really infuriates me is giving the majority whatever they wish and ignoring the voiceo of the minority. There is no proportion in it, one party has authority no questions asked. Democracy is basically tyranny by majority.

There's nothing in the rulebook that says they can't change the rules.
Yes there is. You can change them at the start, but not in the middle of things.

If a party has the majority, they have a right to enact the laws and approve the judges they see as appropriate.

Not when it's a lifetime appointment, they sure don't. If Tom Delay and his cronies can throw in any judge they want, then we are all screwed. You included, pal.

Kiss your precious Constitution goob-bye.

That's laughable. There are plenty of quotes from Democrats being brought out from just a few years ago talking about wrong filibusters are. Silly Democrats. They were NO different just a few years back. Only the Republicans weren't quite as abusive in the use of filibusters, so it was less of an issue.

As I see it, filibusters are wrong no matter what. All they do is prevent progress. This country is run by the will of the majority. If a party has the majority, they have a right to enact the laws and approve the judges they see as appropriate. If these turn out to be the wrong decisions, the populace gets to replace their representatives when their term is up.

It IS NOT run by the will of the majority at the expense of the minority. THe fillibuster must stay. Need I remind you this isnt a true democracy?

That's laughable. There are plenty of quotes from Democrats being brought out from just a few years ago talking about wrong filibusters are. Silly Democrats. They were NO different just a few years back. Only the Republicans weren't quite as abusive in the use of filibusters, so it was less of an issue.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAAAAaaa *cough*

Strom Thurmand
Republican Minority Leader
Holds record for longest filibuster ever.
25 hours!
On a Civil Rights Bill!

Not to mention the fact that 400+ of clinton's judicial nominee's got filibustered by republicans before they gained the majority.

And on top of that, a Fillibuster is so draining to do, that a person would only do it on a bill they felt very, very strongly about.
You literally have to stand and talk for hours, until the motion dies.

please tell me your joking.


As I see it, filibusters are wrong no matter what. All they do is prevent progress. This country is run by the will of the majority. If a party has the majority, they have a right to enact the laws and approve the judges they see as appropriate. If these turn out to be the wrong decisions, the populace gets to replace their representatives when their term is up.
The Majority wants to hang you. Do they get their way?
Should a 51 person majority have absolute rule over a 49 person minority?
Should three men be able to rape your sister because they have three votes to you and your sister's two?
We cannot have absolute democracy, because absolute democracy is tyranny by whichever group happens to have greater numbers.
if 4 people want something one way and 5 want it another, then there should be a compromise.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for lunch.

Thank God that in our present system, the sheep can fillibuster, till the vote lapses.

If you oppose the fillibuster, under any grounds, you're either:

A: a tyrant

-or-

B: an idiot.

What I love is the neo-cons who are screaming for the end to the filibuster are using the simple majority ideal. This is great, if you want to turn the Congress into a British style parlament where whichever party gains the majority then gets to do whatever it wants. Not that I look down on that particular system, I just enjoy the flip flop as said neo-cons are also the ones who start screaming anytime the US Government looks outside its own borders for ideas (Take the recent Supreme Court ruling on minor death penalty with Justice Kennedy citing international standards and then go look at Rep. DeLay's responce).

I also find it comic that in order to change the rules, the GOP is going to have to change the rules about changing the rules, which technically needs a supermajority.

In any case, the Senate was born of the Great Compromise during the Constitutional Convention for the express purpose of protecting the minority. That's why our upper house has only two senators from each state instead of a number based upon population. It was because the smaller states didn't have to be bullied into things by the majority of the larger states, and this was the only way they would even agree to the Constitution.

So saying that the majority HAS to rule and the minority has no place here is against the very makeup of the Senate in the first place.

Besides, the only reason Sen. Frist is showing such zeal over this is the stars in his eyes of Frist in 2008 and the need to woo the more socially conservative side of his base. The reason Sen. Reid can withstand it is he is thinking of 2006, and knows he has 6 years to play in before we in Nevada get to elect him again.

What I love is the neo-cons who are screaming for the end to the filibuster are using the simple majority ideal. This is great, if you want to turn the Congress into a British style parlament where whichever party gains the majority then gets to do whatever it wants. Not that I look down on that particular system, I just enjoy the flip flop as said neo-cons are also the ones who start screaming anytime the US Government looks outside its own borders for ideas (Take the recent Supreme Court ruling on minor death penalty with Justice Kennedy citing international standards and then go look at Rep. DeLay's responce).

I also find it comic that in order to change the rules, the GOP is going to have to change the rules about changing the rules, which technically needs a supermajority.

In any case, the Senate was born of the Great Compromise during the Constitutional Convention for the express purpose of protecting the minority. That's why our upper house has only two senators from each state instead of a number based upon population. It was because the smaller states didn't have to be bullied into things by the majority of the larger states, and this was the only way they would even agree to the Constitution.

So saying that the majority HAS to rule and the minority has no place here is against the very makeup of the Senate in the first place.

Besides, the only reason Sen. Frist is showing such zeal over this is the stars in his eyes of Frist in 2008 and the need to woo the more socially conservative side of his base. The reason Sen. Reid can withstand it is he is thinking of 2006, and knows he has 6 years to play in before we in Nevada get to elect him again.

We're pressuring Warner (R-VA) who is leaning towards McCain (in opposition to the Frist proposal), though not decided (He still thinks filibuster is valid for Supreme Court Nominees, so will not Support a Republican move to bar the filibuster for all judicial nominees).... People like McCain and Warner, and a few others are the only "light" left inthe GOP... Realizing how foolish their party is slowly becomming thanks to pressure from the neo-conservatives.

Filibuster is important, even amongst an issue such as appelate court nominees. It gives the minority more power to hold the tide from a maginal majority. It is in fact an integral part of our system, and we cannot do without it. Regardless whether it is a nomination before the floor, or a bill...

All, in all, looking at lack of support Frist, and the neo-cons actually have (when you remove the paleo-conservatives such as Warner and McCain), their chance of passing a rule change to end the filibusters is somewhere between null and void.

At least some vestiges of reason exist in this Republic.

I'm hopeful, even in this climate. I think this is very similar in distastefulness to FDR's bid to stack the Supreme Court. In the end, I just don't think they'll have the palate for it. If they do, we've already made a tremendous error in collective judgement by investing such power and responsibility in so few grasping and myopic people.

In a perfect world, I suppose so foolish an idea wouldn't even come up for serious discussion. But it's not a perfect world, so perhaps it's best to have an estimation of the scope of our failings.

didnt these republicans ever watch "MR SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON"??

how can they be against james stewart and for the political bosses??

its unamerican!

didnt these republicans ever watch "MR SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON"??

how can they be against james stewart and for the political bosses??

its unamerican!
I am not a Republican, but I am ashamed that I never saw that movie.

I'm hopeful, even in this climate. I think this is very similar in distastefulness to FDR's bid to stack the Supreme Court. In the end, I just don't think they'll have the palate for it. If they do, we've already made a tremendous error in collective judgement by investing such power and responsibility in so few grasping and myopic people.

In a perfect world, I suppose so foolish an idea wouldn't even come up for serious discussion. But it's not a perfect world, so perhaps it's best to have an estimation of the scope of our failings.
Here's an interesting set of statistics I saw in the Washington Post. Looks like there might be something to these charges of obstruction being made against the Democrats.

The Times looked at all presidential nominations to federal appeals courts during the first two-years of the first terms of recent presidents. The following list shows the percentages of presidential appellate court nominees who were eventually confirmed by the Senate:

Harry Truman 100%
Dwight Eisenhower 92.3%
John Kennedy 77.3%
Lyndon Johnson 96.2%
Richard Nixon 87%
Gerald Ford 81.8%
Jimmy Carter 100%
Ronald Reagan 95%
G.H.W. Bush 95.7%
Bill Clinton 86.4%
George Bush 53.1%

Here's an interesting set of statistics I saw in the Washington Post. Looks like there might be something to these charges of obstruction being made against the Democrats.

The Times looked at all presidential nominations to federal appeals courts during the first two-years of the first terms of recent presidents. The following list shows the percentages of presidential appellate court nominees who were eventually confirmed by the Senate:

I see nothing that validates the charges in that list. If anything it shows merely tremendous oposition to the present administration.

Note that Eisenhower has percentages equal to most Democrats in the list...

Where as Kennedy's is lower than most of the Republicans.

If anything it shows G.W. Bush's administration is vehemently contested compared to all other administrations on the list (which is of no surprise).

I see nothing that validates the charges in that list. If anything it shows merely tremendous oposition to the present administration.

Note that Eisenhower has percentages equal to most Democrats in the list...

Where as Kennedy's is lower than most of the Republicans.

If anything it shows G.W. Bush's administration is vehemently contested compared to all other administrations on the list (which is of no surprise).
I think that there is tremendous opposition to GWB's administration is the charge. The opposition is using unusual methods to deny the result of the 2000 elections. Or maybe invalidate them. Elections have consequences and the victors are owed their due.

I'm not going to run the numbers, but it looks to me that GWB's appointments are probably one to two standard deviations away from the mean. That's pretty substantial.

And these people are qualified to be federal judges.

Yes, because we all want our judges legislating from the bench, rendering our laws useless, and bitching that their women should be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen.

As I see it, filibusters are wrong no matter what. All they do is prevent progress. This country is run by the will of the majority. If a party has the majority, they have a right to enact the laws and approve the judges they see as appropriate. If these turn out to be the wrong decisions, the populace gets to replace their representatives when their term is up.


...but can never replace the judges that were inappropriate.

Has anyone noticed that there are 10 judges out of nearly 300 that are being contested? We're talking about less than 10% here.

Why are they being contested? Is it because they are personally anti-choice? No, that can't be it, every single judge Bush nominated held that philosophy.

Is it because they are conservative? No, that can't eb it, every single judge Bush nominated is conservative.

Could it, just possibly, be because these judges are such extremists that allowing them into higher positions would be dangerous? Could it be that these judges are the worst kind of judges - enacting their own viewpoints rather than what is in the law and consistently legislating from the bench. Me thinks that might be it.

Of course, no one has addressed an even better issue. Let's just say the Republicans do away with the filibuster and get these judges in. Most will be pushed into retirement rather quickly - being seen by all other judges as having cheated the system and been placed on the bench without going through the full process. Judges can be bitches to each other, and can push people out rather quickly.

Extremism, to me, is merely a matter of point of view. There are Democrats who evidently believe that these held-up nominees are "extremists," and it serves the Democrats to spin their reputations in that manner.

There are Republicans who believe that most of the judges on the Ninth Circuit are "extremists," and it serves the Republicans to spin the Ninth in that manner.

I think that the Democrats, having lost most of their power, are trying to hold on to what they can - since they can't win most battles, they're trying to pick their battles - and so they picked this one. It would appear, however, to be comparable to hanging on with their fingernails.

Seen the figures for Democrat vs. Republican fund raising, and the money currently in each of their coffers?

When all that a politician can resort to is calling someone "an extremist" and calling the President "a loser" you know they've run out of ideas.

Extremism, to me, is merely a matter of point of view. There are Democrats who evidently believe that these held-up nominees are "extremists," and it serves the Democrats to spin their reputations in that manner.

And yet, in the case of these judges, extremism is what an observation of their records reveals. How can the Republicans complain of "activist judges" that "legislate from the bench" and then push so hard for someone like Priscilla Owens - a woman who would completely invalidate laws if she were the only judge making the decision?

Look, I hate both parties. I think they are both full of dicks. But, at least in this case, the Dems are right.

And yet, in the case of these judges, extremism is what an observation of their records reveals. How can the Republicans complain of "activist judges" that "legislate from the bench" and then push so hard for someone like Priscilla Owens - a woman who would completely invalidate laws if she were the only judge making the decision?

Look, I hate both parties. I think they are both full of dicks. But, at least in this case, the Dems are right.

I'm all for letting both sides identify current standing judges who are "activist" and who "legislate from the bench" and then remove them permanently from office.

Probably wouldn't be too many left.

I think that people have to realize that judges ARE a political seat, and that they WILL be engaged in politics no matter what they say. That their human emotions and personal opinions WILL color their judgment on EVERY decision they make. That as each party gains power, they will appoint judges who like their ideas.

Even if Republicans replaced EVERY federal judge with their type of person it wouldn't be the end of the world. Because sooner or later, the Democrats would come into power and reverse everything.

What I find silly is this argument of "the minority defending itself against the majority". Well, I hate to tell you Dorothy, but in Oz, there's no defense against the majority if the majority ends up being 67 Senators or more. If the Republicans had 67 seats in the Senate, the Constitution would mandate NO POSSIBLE DEFENSE on the part of the minority.

So I don't take such a defense as a mandatory part of the process. It might not be fair, but we're not playing baseball.

I'm all for letting both sides identify current standing judges who are "activist" and who "legislate from the bench" and then remove them permanently from office.

Probably wouldn't be too many left.

I disagree (that there wouldn't be many left).

I think that people have to realize that judges ARE a political seat, and that they WILL be engaged in politics no matter what they say. That their human emotions and personal opinions WILL color their judgment on EVERY decision they make. That as each party gains power, they will appoint judges who like their ideas.

There is a rather large difference between having your personal emotions and opinion influence decisions and letting them completely control decisions. Those who legislate from the bench do the latter. The former is unavoidable.

What I find silly is this argument of "the minority defending itself against the majority". Well, I hate to tell you Dorothy, but in Oz, there's no defense against the majority if the majority ends up being 67 Senators or more. If the Republicans had 67 seats in the Senate, the Constitution would mandate NO POSSIBLE DEFENSE on the part of the minority.

(a) With that kind of majority, it would be pretty clear that the vast majority of people wanted that party in power.

(b) Our system was never meant to be a two-party system. In fact, it was not designed to be ruled by parties at all.

So I don't take such a defense as a mandatory part of the process. It might not be fair, but we're not playing baseball.

No, we are governing human beings. That makes it even more important that we be fair.

I bet that more than half of Federal court judges would be sacked if you let Republicans and Democrats fingerpoint and pick them off.

If only because the parties would engage in a tit-for-tat.

We're really close to 67 now. And there's nothing in the Constitution that says they can't eliminate judicial filibusters.

I do think the Republicans are making a mistake. Because if the shoe fits, it's going up their ass on the next go-round.

Makes me wonder why they think it's worth it. That's the mystery to me.

Yes, because we all want our judges legislating from the bench, rendering our laws useless, and bitching that their women should be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen.

Sounds like the liberals line of defense. Have you seen what the 9th circuit court has done? They've been legislating from the bench. Your comments are just a liberal rant.

Extremism, to me, is merely a matter of point of view. There are Democrats who evidently believe that these held-up nominees are "extremists," and it serves the Democrats to spin their reputations in that manner.

Dispite the fact that some of these have held elected offices with a very hefty percentage of the vote. Interesting isn't it?

There are Republicans who believe that most of the judges on the Ninth Circuit are "extremists," and it serves the Republicans to spin the Ninth in that manner.

Well they are the most overturned court in the land. So the label Extremist should apply.

I think that the Democrats, having lost most of their power, are trying to hold on to what they can - since they can't win most battles, they're trying to pick their battles - and so they picked this one. It would appear, however, to be comparable to hanging on with their fingernails.

I would agree 100%

Seen the figures for Democrat vs. Republican fund raising, and the money currently in each of their coffers?

I have too.

When all that a politician can resort to is calling someone "an extremist" and calling the President "a loser" you know they've run out of ideas.

LOL!!

Sounds like the liberals line of defense. Have you seen what the 9th circuit court has done? They've been legislating from the bench. Your comments are just a liberal rant.

Yes, and tomorrow, I'll be called a right-wing nutjob.

Thus is the life of a moderate.

*Sigh*

Meanwhile, if you would care to show me a case where they rendered a constitutional law useless by practice, or where they stated their personal philosophy as "conservatives should all go to hell", I'll be happy to condemn them with you.

Not that there shouldn't be checks and balances, even between the min/majority lines, but if it seems a rule is being abused (IMO, it is), then whyever not change the rule? Or rather - redefine it.
That's the point. The Republicans aren't going to wipe out the filibuster. That would be unconstitutional, as that there are specific provisions for the filibuster in the Constitution. The filibuster will still exist for legislation, like it was originally intended.

There is a LOT of spin going on about this whole thing. Acutally, there are a lot of outright lies and even more spin surrounding this issue...on both sides.

The Repubs are spinning the "every nominee must have an up or down vote" aspect to their advantage, even pointing out that all of the major Democrats that are for the unprecedented use of the filibuster were for an up or down vote when they were in the majority. But nominees are only entitled to an up or down vote if they make it out of committee. Saying that EVERY nominee should get an up or down vote, regardless, is crap.

The Dems are spinning this thing so hard that I'm surprised that their friends in the media aren't dizzy, yet. They say "we've approved 95% of Bush's nominees". That may be true, but that pertains to lower court nominees. Of appellate court nominees, they've only passed roughly 55% of his nominees, compared to roughly 70%-90% of appellate court nominees approved for ALL OTHER presidents.

Also, the "longstanding tradition of the filibuster" applies only to legislation. The legislative filibuster doesn't even need the title of "longstanding tradition" -- its laid out very specifically in the Constitution. Up until the last session, court nominees have never been filibustered. There is no "longstanding tradition" of using the filibuster in such a way. Saying there is, is an outright lie.

I'll leave my personal politics and ideas as to why everyone is fighting tooth and nail over this out of this discussion. I just wanted to clear up some of the spin...on both sides.

Yes, and tomorrow, I'll be called a right-wing nutjob.

Thus is the life of a moderate.

*Sigh*

Meanwhile, if you would care to show me a case where they rendered a constitutional law useless by practice, or where they stated their personal philosophy as "conservatives should all go to hell", I'll be happy to condemn them with you.

They call me a right-wing nutjob all the time. It depends on the individual issue for me - I'm not all one thing or another. Swimmingpool likes to think I'm a neocon for some reason.

I think that there is tremendous opposition to GWB's administration is the charge. The opposition is using unusual methods to deny the result of the 2000 elections. Or maybe invalidate them. Elections have consequences and the victors are owed their due.

I'm not going to run the numbers, but it looks to me that GWB's appointments are probably one to two standard deviations away from the mean. That's pretty substantial.

Opposition to administration has never been a valid charge against changing the rules in this Republic. Opposition has been the foundation of this republic since its very inception.

Do I think that the deviation is substantial? Yes.

Do I think that merits a change in order? No.

Why? Because, opposition is justified in this Republic.

I'm not a Democrat, but I do side with the Paleo-Conservatives, Libertarians and Democrats on this issue... Breaking the Filibuster, is not justifiable, merely because "you can't get your way"... If the Paleo-Conservatives, like McCain or Warner were on your side, it would be a non-issue in the first place. This just shows that there is opposition from ALL PARTIES on this. Regardless whether or not it is holding up "progress"... Progress has never been, and should never be, at the expense of the minority..... We're a Republic, damnit... And I want it to stay that way.

This isn't a Republican vs. Democrat issue.... This is the Neo-Conservatives vs. EVERYONE else....

I'm not a Democrat, but I do side with the Paleo-Conservatives, Libertarians and Democrats on this issue... Breaking the Filibuster, is not justifiable, merely because "you can't get your way"... If the Paleo-Conservatives, like McCain or Warner were on your side, it would be a non-issue in the first place. This just shows that there is opposition from ALL PARTIES on this. Regardless whether or not it is holding up "progress"... Progress has never been, and should never be, at the expense of the minority..... We're a Republic, damnit... And I want it to stay that way.

This isn't a Republican vs. Democrat issue.... This is the Neo-Conservatives vs. EVERYONE else....
It's quite convenient that those opposed to rules changes don't remember those times in the past where the rules have been changed to suit the majority. Like I said before, elections have consequences. Senate rules are set by the majority party and that majority is selected by the electorate. In fact, didn't the House have a filibuster some years ago? I think they did and then they decided to eliminate it.

Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if this were a real filibuster instead of just a delaying tactic. Make the members camp out in the Senate. See if they are as determined to block a vote if it causes them some real discomfort.

Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if this were a real filibuster instead of just a delaying tactic. Make the members camp out in the Senate. See if they are as determined to block a vote if it causes them some real discomfort.
That's exactly my feelings on the subject. None of this "we're invoking the filibuster" and then going home crap. If they want to filibuster, get Teddy Kennedy's fat, liquored-up ass up there and make him blather on for hours. Hell, get Byrd up there. Let's see if he can break his 14 hour record (which was set by filibustering the Civil Rights Ammendment).

It's quite convenient that those opposed to rules changes don't remember those times in the past where the rules have been changed to suit the majority. Like I said before, elections have consequences. Senate rules are set by the majority party and that majority is selected by the electorate. In fact, didn't the House have a filibuster some years ago? I think they did and then they decided to eliminate it.

Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if this were a real filibuster instead of just a delaying tactic. Make the members camp out in the Senate. See if they are as determined to block a vote if it causes them some real discomfort.

I could care less about those opposed, or what background of those using had in the past... See, I'm neither a Democrat or a Republican... so epiteths placed on the history of one part over the other have no bearing on the issue to myself.

However, I see this "delaying tactic" as a very reasonable way to handle things. I could care less about "progress"... The United States isn't based upon "progress" except in the "progress" of people's freedom. I applaud those who stand against the change (whether I agree with their overall party, or not).

I applaud Senator Warner, even when he's not totally on my side. (His official position is that he will not vote in favor of a rule change which ends the filibuster on all judicial nominees, he sees a filibuster as valid on nominees to the Supreme Court; but would for just nominees to the appelate)... The Neo-Cons, unable to compromise, will loose the rule change vote... Simply because, while the party Majority is the Reps... Not all of the Reps are on Frist's side on this issue, in its totality.

Appointments are lifetime... So this is a very important issue....

And if you wanted simple majority rule, you would not be defending a candidate who couldn't even get a simple majority of the vote to be elected....

Once again, this is a republic, and the minority should have power to pose themselves against the majority... I could care less if it was a bill, a resolution, a constitutional amendment, or an appointee...

Any real American would see the hazard of nuking the filibuster, even if for judicial appointments...

And if you wanted simple majority rule, you would not be defending a candidate who couldn't even get a simple majority of the vote to be elected....


Bush got a simple majority the last time around. Ahem.

Bush got a simple majority the last time around. Ahem.

He didn't the first time, and back then, the Reps were pounding the same arguments they are opposing now, in a different area.

Like I said, I'm neither GOP nor DNC.... Republicans and Democrats, for the most part, are flaming hypocrits, wanting to slide rules around to garner more majority support, whenever they have control.... And opposing it when they don't....

I support the DNC use of the Filibuster, because I support the idea that it conveys... I could care less what party is for or against it.... If the DNC gains control, and tries to pull the same stunt 10 years from now that the Frist wants... I'll still feel the same way, and defend Rep rights to filibuster DNC nominees.

He didn't the first time, and back then, the Reps were pounding the same arguments they are opposing now, in a different area.

He actually got a simple majority in 2000, as well. Presidents aren't elected directly, remember that.

I don't have too much more to say about filibusters. It's interesting to note that the word means "pirate", but that's about it.

It's probably already been covered in earlier posts. I know how thorough you NSers are in truly understanding what it is you are arguing. But for those of us that came in late, let me review a little about filibustering.

In Article 2, Section 2, the Framers make it clear that they understood the concept of what we now call a "supermajority" – by setting up a two-thirds majority vote to approve treaties. But when it comes to the president's power to appoint judges of the Supreme Court, only the advice and consent of the Senate is required. By applying the supermajority standard to some procedures and not to others, the Framers made their intentions quite clear.

Fast forward to today's big controversy in which President Bush's judicial appointees are being painted by the minority as right-wing extremists. It's quite a stretch to think that political ideology could be the main factor in dooming a nomination – but the Framers surely considered that. Even so, they included nothing in the Constitution that would thwart the will of the majority.

As I said a couple times before, elections have consequences. I know you're tired of hearing that, but they really do. Rules in the Senate are adopted by the majority and there is no reason to apply supermajority standards to judicial nominees. There is nothing wrong with the rules change to end the piracy of the will of the majority when it comes to judicial nominations. A bad judge will fail the test of the floor vote. Look at Abe Fortas, if you're interested in how that happens.

As an aside, I heard on the radio today that Bush's appellate nominees are being approved at a similar rate as other second term presidents. The filibuster rule change will serve one purpose. That purpose is to make it possible for him to nominate and see appointed judges for the Supreme Court.

Myrmidonisia, your point assumes that each delegate votes by carefully evaluating the suitability of each Judicial canidate.

This means the "fair up or down vote" principle only is fair if Senators are inclined to vote fairly.

How can we say that such things are fair, when party-line voting is so utterly prevelant? People vote for a sinlge letter these days. There's no such thing as a fair vote right now. Right now each Senator has to weigh the option of "betraying" party ranks, if you betray your party you are withheld support in the next election.

Look at McCain, he's been labeled a "maverick" by the Republican leadership, anyone who sides with him is withheld party support. For a politician its a death knell.

Right now the political parties are simply more powerful than induviduals. Our Senate is run by parties, not principles. Every single judge will pass if given a vote, not because they are worthy, but because they have the right letter behind their name.

So...do you support the party at the expense of the people? Or would you stand up for the people, and forsake the power that the party promises? This is a question of character and personal idealology.

Myrmidonisia, your point assumes that each delegate votes by carefully evaluating the suitability of each Judicial canidate.

This means the "fair up or down vote" principle only is fair if Senators are inclined to vote fairly.

How can we say that such things are fair, when party-line voting is so utterly prevelant? People vote for a sinlge letter these days. There's no such thing as a fair vote right now. Right now each Senator has to weigh the option of "betraying" party ranks, if you betray your party you are withheld support in the next election.

Look at McCain, he's been labeled a "maverick" by the Republican leadership, anyone who sides with him is withheld party support. For a politician its a death knell.

Right now the political parties are simply more powerful than induviduals. Our Senate is run by parties, not principles. Every single judge will pass if given a vote, not because they are worthy, but because they have the right letter behind their name.

So...do you support the party at the expense of the people? Or would you stand up for the people, and forsake the power that the party promises? This is a question of character and personal idealology.

What I claim is that ideology isn't a reason for disqualification. Certainly, disagreements over ideology wasn't protected by a supermajority vote. What makes you imply otherwise? That battle has to be fought with a simple majority. First in the committee, then on the floor. That's what the Framers intended when they omitted judicial consent and approval from the items that did require a supermajority.

History only provides a single example of a cloture vote used to delay a floor vote on a judge. That was for Abe Fortas. He was clearly an undersirable choice, but ideology didn't enter into the equation. His problems revolved around conflicting interests. Senators from both parties banded together to extend the debate. There's no doubt that Fortas would have been voted down, but Johnson withdrew the nomination before that could happen.

What I claim is that ideology isn't a reason for disqualification. Certainly, disagreements over ideology wasn't protected by a supermajority vote. What makes you imply otherwise? That battle has to be fought with a simple majority. First in the committee, then on the floor. That's what the Framers intended when they omitted judicial consent and approval from the items that did require a supermajority.

History only provides a single example of a cloture vote used to delay a floor vote on a judge. That was for Abe Fortas. He was clearly an undersirable choice, but ideology didn't enter into the equation. His problems revolved around conflicting interests. Senators from both parties banded together to extend the debate. There's no doubt that Fortas would have been voted down, but Johnson withdrew the nomination before that could happen.

Abe Fortis was already on the Supreme Court, what was filibustered was his appointment to Chief Justice.


Lord Sauron " Not that there shouldn't be checks and balances, even between the min/majority lines, but if it seems a rule is being abused (IMO, it is), then whyever not change the rule? Or rather - redefine it."

The only checks and balances are amongst the three branches of Government. Two branches are supposed to check one branch. Right now we have the legislature checking the executive, the executive checking the legislature and the Judicial checking both. But none are checking the Judicial that is in of its self unconstitutional. The check and balances are not meant to be for the parties within the senate/house no matter what the ignorant liberals want to think. Look it up in the constitution.

Angry Moles "Without the filibuster the legislative branch would lose their check over the instatement of judges."

Again there is no checking to be done within the legislative branch. The constitution states advice and consent for judicial nominations. That is it, the dems have changed the rules midstream on this.

CSW "
Yes there is. You can change them at the start, but not in the middle of things"

Do you mean changes like these in mid stream>

Fact the Filibuster wasn't even around till 1830. One Senator could go on endlessly. There was no way to stop him till 1917 when the first change; a filibuster could be ended by two-thirds of the Senate, 67 votes. In 1959 a filibuster could be ended by two-thirds of the senators present. Until then it was only two-thirds of the Senate. In 1975 the rule was changed yet again; a filibuster could be ended by 60 votes instead of 67. Or maybe the fact that if you left the floor during your filibuster it ended. Now that the rule changed from 67 to 60 you can leave go home and come back the next day. Something like those changes?

Cyrian Space "The Majority wants to hang you. Do they get their way?
Should a 51 person majority have absolute rule over a 49 person minority?
Should three men be able to rape your sister because they have three votes to you and your sister's two?
We cannot have absolute democracy, because absolute democracy is tyranny by whichever group happens to have greater numbers.
If 4 people want something one way and 5 want it another, then there should be a compromise."

So what do we do when it is 60 to 40, 75 to 25, or 98 to 2. When does the majority get to rule over the minority?

Ashmoria " didnt these republicans ever watch "MR SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON"??
how can they be against james stewart and for the political bosses??
its unamerican!"

In that movie Mr. Smith did a real honest to god filibuster. Not this crap where the senators leave for the night and then come back the next day. A little perspective on this eh

Dempublicents1 "Yes, because we all want our judges legislating from the bench, rendering our laws useless, and bitching that their women should be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen."

Kind of like the courts do now? Other than that I have to say you have a warped sense of what the courts are supposed to have power wise within the constitution. The 9th circuit court has gone against the will of the people many times. Talk about going through the whole process, the dems seem to avoid the will of the people every chance they get.

Tekania " This isn't a Republican vs. Democrat issue.... This is the Neo-Conservatives vs. EVERYONE else...."

Yet the Republicans keep gaining Senate and House seats every election. Seems to me it is EVERYONE else vs. DEMOCRATS. Those that refuse to remember the lessos of history are doomed to repeat it. Any real American would see that the job of the Senate and the House is to vote not obstruct because of ideology.

Niccolo Medici "How can we say that such things are fair, when party-line voting is so utterly prevelant? People vote for a sinlge letter these days."

You are right, just that you fail to see that the Democrats get more people voting because of that D than what they are saying. Of course more people are finally waking up and realizing that the Dems are the party of doom and gloom and they are loosing at the ballot box because of it.