NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't know if the filibuster has ever actually be used (and I don't feel like looking it up), but the founding fathers wrote that in for what seems to me to be a very obvious reason.

Basically...the situation we have now...

There's some sort of hot-button issue, and one political party has a clear majority and instead of considering what is best for the entire nation (or even the majority of the nation), they are considering what is best for members of their party. So what did the founding fathers do, they wrote in a defense against this sort of situation. And now those people with that majority want to disallow the filibuster?

Look, just because the Republicans won a majority of the votes in the Presidential elections and have a clear majority of senators sitting in the senate, does not inherently mean that America is even made up of a majority of conservatives. Not even half of America votes...

So while I will agree that it is childish of the Democrats to try filibustering absolutely everything that is even slightly conservative, I don't think it would hurt the conservatives too much to at least try working with the democrats, and more importantly, I think the thought of striking the ability to filibuster is downright scary...

I think the nuclear option will show the greator hypocracy of the Republican party. I belive they were the first to use it and in fact called it a filibuster.

LBJ tried to nominate a person and it stalled and died. The leader of the Republicans said "we filibustered the nomination."

The Demos haven't done this everytime. In fact the shrub has had close to 200 people nominated. It's just the extreame rights that have been filibustered.

The nuclear option (or constitution option to some) would have only ended filibusters for judicial appointments. Each house of Congress is given the right in the constitution to make its rules. As is outlined in Article I, Section 5.

Regardless, I still think removing the filibuster is not a good idea, as far as trying to strike some sort of balance.

Regardless, I still think removing the filibuster is not a good idea, as far as trying to strike some sort of balance.

I don’t have a strong opinion on the issue. If it is struck down though, it will be struck down soon, during the confirming of the new Supreme Court Justice.

Consider this. Politicians are highly partisan people. You say you don't have a strong opinion on this issue, and I suppose that's fine, but chew on this. Politicians don't get elected for the issues that don't have strong opinions on. They get elected for the issues they DO have strong opinions on. That pretty much gaurantees that every politician has plenty of strong opinions on plenty of key issues. That pretty much means that some issues that you may not care a whole lot about, so long as it's just left alone, will be decided by very, very adamant politicians.

Now, consider an issue you have a very strong opinion on. It doesn't have to be a specific one. Now imagine a congress with a majority of members who DISAGREE with you on that issue (and very strongly), yet it's only a moderate majority. And the fact of the matter is, that majority may or may not represent the feelings of the nation as a whole, but keep in mind, these politicans have strong opinions about it.

Now, the only thing that prevents these politicians with very strong opinions from railroading every bit of legislation they see fit through is the filibuster option (considering they control both houses and the white house) (and possibly soon, the supreme court as well)...

Now that I've detailed that for you...would you really like to see that filibuster option disappear? What happens when the tables turn and there is a slim majority of liberals in control of all 3 arms of government?

Basically, I'd like to see the conservatives hold back some. And why? First, because balance is good. And second, because if they hold back none at all, then when the balance does shift and liberals are voted back in (it always goes back and forth) then the liberals are going to strike back harder and quicker, and we'll be in a continueing state of animosity...

Well do be concerned. I once wrote to Friest over my concerns on the focus of issues. He wrote back saying that up/down vote was one of his major priorites.

Now that I've detailed that for you...would you really like to see that filibuster option disappear?

I see both good and bad things about it. None of the pros or cons really override the other side in my mind.

The Religious Right wants no balance: They are heading for Doomsday and longing for the destruction of our planet. As long as the American Electorate gives in to the Religious Right the whole world is in trouble.

...

This thread isn't meant to start a flame war, despite the post that Quiltlifter just made.

Like all checks in the American system, this is open to abuse. I agree that it's removal would be a bad thing, and would likely result in backlash against the Republicans, both for policy rammed through and for getting rid of fillibuster.

The filibuster has been a Senate practice since at least 1806. The cloture rule that allowed ending of filibusters with 60 votes didn't even exist until 1917.

Both parties have used the filibuster on important issues. It is part of the system that moderates government.

Why must the Republicans change a 200 year old rule?

Because they can't always get their way in everything?

Pathetic.

the filibuster tactic is anti-democracy.

Democracy is about taking a vote...and letting the people decide.

every big national issue...whenever controversial or complicated should be submitted to a referendum...let the people decide.

not the senators...not the judges.

and if a vote count is close and full of crap like in Florida...I say take it again.

If the Iranians can afford to take a second round...so can we.

the filibuster tactic is anti-democracy.

Democracy is about taking a vote...and letting the people decide.

every big national issue...whenever controversial or complicated should be submitted to a referendum...let the people decide.

not the senators...not the judges.

and if a vote count is close and full of crap like in Florida...I say take it again.

If the Iranians can afford to take a second round...so can we.

Sorry, but the Constitution is anti-democracy. On purpose.

The filibuster has been a Senate practice since at least 1806. The cloture rule that allowed ending of filibusters with 60 votes didn't even exist until 1917.

Both parties have used the filibuster on important issues. It is part of the system that moderates government.

Why must the Republicans change a 200 year old rule?

Because they can't always get their way in everything?

Pathetic.
If I recall correctly, the Dems used the filibuster to stop and delay a bunch of acts that would have given full rights to black Americans, culminating with the Civil Rights Act that was finally passed in 1964. Also, the deciding block of votes to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act came from the Republican Party. Finally, the leader of the Dems filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was none other that Al Gore, Senior.

As for the "filibuster" of Abe Fortas (the Supreme Court Justice candidate that Lyndon B Johnson almost nominated...Abe Fortas was never formally nominated. Fortas had a lot of skeletons in his closet, and the GOP minority of the time informed LBJ that they would not vote for Fortas if his name came up.

The fact of the matter is, filibustering judicial nominees is a new phenomenon, initiated by the Dems, who perfected the filibuster during the Civil Rights fight of the 20th century.

Sorry, but the Constitution is anti-democracy. On purpose.

Yep. We’re a republic for good reason.

Sorry, but the Constitution is anti-democracy. On purpose.
Of course! The United States is NOT a democracy. The United States is a representative Republic, and it was made so on purpose.

Sorry, but the Constitution is anti-democracy. On purpose.dont be sorry for me...be sorry for you.
I expend most of my time overseas...im less subject to that anti-democracy

Democracy gives power to the people...
Filibuster...or any other tricks...gives power to the senators and Judges.

To the above... Yes, filibustering judicial nominees is a new practice...but nominating obviously partisan judicial nominees is pretty new too...

the filibuster tactic is anti-democracy.

Democracy is about taking a vote...and letting the people decide.

every big national issue...whenever controversial or complicated should be submitted to a referendum...let the people decide.

not the senators...not the judges.

and if a vote count is close and full of crap like in Florida...I say take it again.

If the Iranians can afford to take a second round...so can we.

Well, despite the fact that America is a Representative Democracy...or a Republic....and not a Direct Democracy...

If the entire general public were to be voting on these issues that the Democrats are trying to filibuster, there would be no place for the filibuster, but like I explained above, government is made up of people with very strong opinions, and even if 51% of ALL AMERICANS agreed with the viewpoints of the Republican party, do you really think it is in Americans best interest for all three branches to be controlled by the Republican party, including the congress which can't even depend on swing Republicans or the filibuster, because of the majority the Republicans hold?

... if 51% of ALL AMERICANS agreed with the viewpoints of the Republican party.

I would say yes...Democracy is about accepting the president decisions.
but ...I,m not going to accept anything that Bush says...he was not elected by the people...he was elected by the republican Judges.

FloridaGate is a disgrace to Democracy...how can we pretend to export out democracy to places like Iran?...their election was way more clean.

In Florida...a full televised recount should have been allowed...no secrets...no smoke screens...

...and if the result was still not clear enough...Bush and Gore should have called for a second round in Florida.

I would say yes...Democracy is about accepting the president decisions.
but ...I,m not going to accept anything that Bush says...he was not elected by the people...he was elected by the republican Judges.

FloridaGate is a disgrace to Democracy...how can we pretend to export out democracy to places like Iran?...their election was way more clean.

In Florida...a full televised recount should have been allowed...no secrets...no smoke screens...

...and if the result was still not clear enough...Bush and Gore should have called for a second round in Florida.
When the entire nation is ruled by decisions that only 51% of the nation (and no more) agree with, there is secession...

When the entire nation is ruled by decisions that only 51% of the nation (and no more) agree with, there is succession...When the entire nation is ruled by decisions that only 51% of the nation...I call it Democracy...

what do you mean succession?...not like in the royal system...i hope.

Immediately after posting that I realized that that's not how you spell secession.

Oh boy, here we go...off-topic.
I would say yes...Democracy is about accepting the president decisions.
but ...I,m not going to accept anything that Bush says...he was not elected by the people...he was elected by the republican Judges.You mean, the 7-2 decision to order a stop the illegal vote counts that were tasked to find votes for Gore and somehow guess what the people who were dumb enough to either misunderstand ballots or not ensure they were marked correctly, were trying to do when they marked their ballots ("hanging" chads?? "pregnant" chads??) If I recall correctly, there are NOT 7 "Republican" justices.

FloridaGate is a disgrace to Democracy...how can we pretend to export out democracy to places like Iran?...their election was way more clean.Do you mean to tell us you really believe that?? An election where only the "official" candidates were allowed to run, and where participation was compulsory, really "more clean" than even 2000's fiasco in 4 Democrat-controlled counties in Florida? What are you smoking?

In Florida...a full televised recount should have been allowed...no secrets...no smoke screens...

...and if the result was still not clear enough...Bush and Gore should have called for a second round in Florida.The result wsa clear, Bush WON. Under every possible scenario the media could imagine, using VALID votes (and even many that were clearly invalid, and even after the overseas military votes were illegally discounted,) Bush won every recount.

Contrast this with Wisconsin, 2004 vs Ohio, 2004. In Wisconsin, widespread allegations of Democrat fraud, and Kerry won by less than 12,000 votes, within the margin of error, and the GOP did not call for recount after recount. In Ohio, with only minimal allegations of irregularities (again, in Democrat controlled counties,) Bush won by more than 120,000, and yet the Democrats called for every recount they could, trying to manufacture more votes for Kerry.

Now that I have cleared this up, back to the topic.

Hey, thanks for letting that die like I did. If you want to discuss news from 4 years ago, open a new thread.

dont be sorry for me...be sorry for you.
I expend most of my time overseas...im less subject to that anti-democracy

Democracy gives power to the people...
Filibuster...or any other tricks...gives power to the senators and Judges.
The filibuster gives minorities in Congress a power they did not receive in the ballot box...get it clear.

What gives the liberals their way is an activist judiciary that pretends to have the power (which it doesn't get from the Constitution,) to write and enact law. This, and no other reason, is why the Democrats are so desperate to deny and delay judicial appointments by Bush.

When the entire nation is ruled by decisions that only 51% of the nation (and no more) agree with, there is secession...
It's called "Majority Rule"...look it up.

Honestly, I'd like to see a non-partisan fill that last seat...and a non-partisan fill every vacancy that ever opens up in the supreme court from here on out...and Bush has a wonderful chance to set the precedent...(and a non-partisan or a centrist wouldn't get filibustered)

dp

It's called "Majority Rule"...look it up.
And the majority should have a square enough head on their shoulders to rule in the best interest of the entire nation...not the majority.

After all, if you want to play the Majority Rule card, that's fine...because minorities in this country certainly don't deserve anything, do they?

Now that I have cleared this up, back to the topic.You cant even clear your desktop...how can you ever hope to clear this one :confused:

Honestly, I'd like to see a non-partisan fill that last seat...and a non-partisan fill every vacancy that ever opens up in the supreme court from here on out...and Bush has a wonderful chance to set the precedent...(and a non-partisan or a centrist wouldn't get filibustered)
Do you honestly think that is going to happen?

For the sake of the Constitution, a strict constructionist (i.e. one who reads the Constitution at its face value, and not by trying to guess what the Founding Fathers would have it say nowadays,) is what's needed. Unfortunately, none are to be found in the Left.

(i.e. one who reads the Constitution at its face value, and not by trying to guess what the Founding Fathers would have it say nowadays,)
Because absolutely nothing has changed in the past 229 years.

You cant even clear your desktop...how can you ever hope to clear this one :confused:
That one takes the prize for Biggest Non Sequitur of the Day.

Do you mean to tell us you really believe that?? I would have guessed that my opinion on the subject was crystal clear.

Because absolutely nothing has changed in the past 229 years.
The Constitution is NOT a "living, breathing" document, regardless of what the Left would have you think, and that's the beauty of it. The US Constitution is written so well, it can be relevant, as written, without having to add someone's interpretation, 229 years after the Republic was born. There are no "hidden meanings", or "penumbrae," or anything like that! There is no "separation of church and state" written in it! There certainly is no "right to an abortion" or a "right to privacy" for that matter in it!

Take the time to read it at face value, without trying to inject your opinion, and you will see what a wonderful instrument it is.

By the way, can we keep in mind that the subject of this discussion is about filibuster and the nuclear option, and while anything having to do with American government is sort of on topic...let's not spread the topic too far...

...and there's not really much place to bring too much partisanship into this discussion...

...so don't.

The technique of fillisbustering has been used countless times by American politiicians throughout the nation's history.

If the "nuclear option" were to be utilized, America would go from being a democratic republic to being a true democracy. In a true democracy, whichever political party has the majority as far as elected offices go, holds all the cards, and whatever they decide is what will happen. True democracies SUCK.

I'm not meaning to stereotype Republicans, but there are some seriously screwed up Republican politicians in Congress right now( ie Tom DeLay and Bill Frist) I think this is an attempt by Republican reps to take full and utter control of this country so that they can pass controversial legislation( making abortion illegal etc.)

The Constitution is NOT a "living, breathing" document, regardless of what the Left would have you think, and that's the beauty of it. The US Constitution is written so well, it can be relevant, as written, without having to add someone's interpretation, 229 years after the Republic was born. There are no "hidden meanings", or "penumbrae," or anything like that! There is no "separation of church and state" written in it! There certainly is no "right to an abortion" or a "right to privacy" for that matter in it!

Take the time to read it at face value, without trying to inject your opinion, and you will see what a wonderful instrument it is.
You're prepared to live in a theocratic state and give up your right to privacy? (And I can tell you care nothing about abortion rights..)

But please, I'm going to have to ask you to stop making your broad generalisations...

By the way, can we keep in mind that the subject of this discussion is about filibuster and the nuclear option, and while anything having to do with American government is sort of on topic...let's not spread the topic too far...

...and there's not really much place to bring too much partisanship into this discussion...

...so don't.
Just bringing sanity back into the forum, my young Padawan. Clearing up the lingering doubts about 2000, which fester in the minds of libs.

The point of democracy is not simply that 'the people decide.' Democracy is based on the idea that the individual knows what is best for the individual, and that if given the opportunity to express themselves, whatever option comes out with the largest amount of support from individual citizens is the one that is actually best for the people as a whole. You can blather on about whether people support the status quo, or whether people support this judge or that judge, but the truth of the matter is that a much larger majority than voted for the Republicans currently in the Congress and White House, made clear their approval/disapproval of whether the filibuster should have been put in place. When the Congress created filibuster rules quite a long time ago, the people's approval of this policy wass shown by the fact that there was no massive public outrage prompting the reversal of the policy decision. The use of the filibuster, for any reason at all, is purely an exercise of a right given by the greatest majority of the American people.

The filibuster has been used regularly since its creation. According to historians of Congressional Politics, Strom Thurmond (when he was alive) engaged in a filibuster that was long enough that he even had to have his aides bring him a bottle to urinate in while standing at the podium on the Senate Floor. The filibuster has been used in both floor debates and in every kind of committee the House and Senate have to offer. The use of it to stop judicial appointments is not particularly new. Republicans filibustered outrageously under Carter and Clinton, and Democrats filibustered just as outrageously under Reagan, Bush, and G. W. Bush. To suggest that it is a new phenomenon, started by the Democrats to thwart Republicans is misleading and blatantly false.

According to Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce Oppenheimer, who wrote a major textbook on the workings of the United States Congress ("Congress Reconsidered"), between 1993 and 1998 (during the Clinton era), "about half of all major legislation was subject to filibusters or threatened filibusters, many times the rate that was typical of previous decades. Many bills on a wide range of subjects - taxes, health care, labor relations, lobbying, and campaign reform, to name a few - were killed by filibuster. For many more, concessions to the minority were required to overcome or avoid a filibuster." This filibustering rampage was orchastrated by Republicans, so for them now to feel that decisions made by a legislative body should be quickly brought to an up or down vote (whether the decision is on a judge or a bill seems quite immaterial) is at best a radical shift away from the era of Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America," and at worst, an example of the "If I can't be quarterback, I'm taking my football and going home" mentality. Total and utter hypocrisy.

You mean, the 7-2 decision to order a stop the illegal vote counts ..

The result wsa clear, Bush WON...
...Bush won every recount...in evry possible scenario
If Bush won every possible recount...why in-Freakiing-Hell did the Republican Judges need to block the vote counts?

In all honesty, if the White House was controlled by the Democrats, the supreme court up for grabs, and the congress controlled by the Republicans (or flip flop which party controls what), I might not mind the nuclear option so much...

But the fact of the matter is, the nuclear option would give the party that currently holds a very slim majority WAY too much power...

Any strict constitutionalist should be very wary of the elimination of the checks and balances (which is what would happen if the nuclear option were used and the supreme court vacancy filled with an extreme conservative).

If I recall correctly, the Dems used the filibuster to stop and delay a bunch of acts that would have given full rights to black Americans, culminating with the Civil Rights Act that was finally passed in 1964. Also, the deciding block of votes to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act came from the Republican Party. Finally, the leader of the Dems filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was none other that Al Gore, Senior.

This section of your post is irrelevant to the topic and clearly intended to flame the Democrats as being a bunch of racists.

When the entire nation is ruled by decisions that only 51% of the nation...I call it Democracy...

I call it tyranny by majority.

Just bringing sanity back into the forum, my young Padawan. Clearing up the lingering doubts about 2000, which fester in the minds of libs.
Sanity? You could've just dropped that. He didn't need to mention it in the first place...but that happened four years ago, and no one cares any more...and I'd really appreciate it if you quit using words that have close to the same meaning as racial slurs.

By the way, can we keep in mind that the subject of this discussion is about filibuster and the nuclear option...
Do you deny the fact that Filibister debate is about US democracy?

The Democrats are trying to prevent the Repubs to add yet another Biased Judge.

You're prepared to live in a theocratic state and give up your right to privacy? (And I can tell you care nothing about abortion rights..)Where exactly have I said that a LITERAL reading of the Constitution would bring about a theocracy? Who wants that, other than Islamo-fascists in Iran and other assorted nuthouses?

Where have I said I want to give up a right to privacy? I said there is NOTHING in the Constitution that says you have a right to privacy. That makes sense when you think about it, because you DON'T have a right to kill someone in the privacy of your own home, do you? Do you have a right to sell drugs from your home? Nope! Your right to privacy goes only so far, and therefore the Founding Fathers saw it fit not to include that in the Constitution. Like I said, READ the document before you tell us how it works.

But please, I'm going to have to ask you to stop making your broad generalisations...Show me one I have made...just one.

No, but that does not open this thread for absolutely anything that has to do with US Democracy that you feel like discussing.

After all, wouldn't a thread about the tastiness of beef have plenty to do with food, and cows, so it could be assumed that we could discuss want fertilizer we use, since cows food is grass?

Ninth Article of Amendment to the United States Constitution

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

If Bush won every possible recount...why in-Freakiing-Hell did the Republican Judges need to block the vote counts?
Because the Florida Supreme Court (a Democrat majority) saw it fit to grant recount requests that re-wrote the Florida Election Law on-the-fly. And again, it wasn't just the "Republican" justices...the decision was 7-2 to stop all the recounts.

Now, BACK to topic, please.

the Left

And you've done it like that more than once in this thread alone, and it needs to stop.

Because the Florida Supreme Court (a Democrat majority) saw it fit to grant recount requests that re-wrote the Florida Election Law on-the-fly. And again, it wasn't just the "Republican" justices...the decision was 7-2 to stop all the recounts.

Now, BACK to topic, please.
"No, you can't have the last word. I am going to get the last word. And this is it.

Now, back to topic."

No, but that does not open this thread for absolutely anything that has to do with US Democracy that you feel like discussing.the current system of nominating Republican Judges has brought us FloridaGate...and its why the Dems are using anti-democracy tactics.

its a shame...its a disgrace...for US Democracy.

This section of your post is irrelevant to the topic and clearly intended to flame the Democrats as being a bunch of racists.Can you deny that it was Democrats that used the filibuster to deny blacks in the US their civil rights? Can you?

"No, you can't have the last word. I am going to get the last word. And this is it.

Now, back to topic."
whatever...

*goes to feed the Pets*

...Ill be back :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5:

And you've done it like that more than once in this thread alone, and it needs to stop.
Can you deny what I say? Because if you can't disprove what I am saying, then it seems like you're simply suppressing my freedom to set things right.

There are no "hidden meanings", or "penumbrae," or anything like that! There is no "separation of church and state" written in it! There certainly is no "right to an abortion" or a "right to privacy" for that matter in it!

Take the time to read it at face value, without trying to inject your opinion, and you will see what a wonderful instrument it is.
Funny how you try too appear objective, yet constantly go directly for the very controversial abortion issue, which is what all this crap is really about.

Don't think we don't remember you as the radical right-wing Republican apologist that you are.

Can you deny that it was Democrats that used the filibuster to deny blacks in the US their civil rights? Can you?
Can you deny that your argument adds nothing to the discussion here? Can you?


(the answer is no)

He didn't need to mention it in the first place...but that happened four years ago, and no one cares any more...Exactly. No one cares anymore, and yet the Left continues to drag the topic out, when every proof exists that they're in the wrong.
and I'd really appreciate it if you quit using words that have close to the same meaning as racial slurs.Exactly what is "close to the meaning of a racial slur"?? Calling the Left by its name? Calling Liberals what they are?

Can you deny what I say? Because if you can't disprove what I am saying, then it seems like you're simply suppressing my freedom to set things right.
I'm not even going to try denying what you say because you're not much better than any good ole present-day racists who looks at people with slightly different political views as being "those people" who are the cause of absolutely everything wrong with the nation today...clearly.

Seriously, I'm not going to take any of your arguments seriously until you grow up and stop blaming "the left" for everything. What party did what doesn't even need to be a part of this discussion...

Because the Florida Supreme Court (a Democrat majority) saw it fit to grant recount requests that re-wrote the Florida Election Law on-the-fly. And again, it wasn't just the "Republican" justices...the decision was 7-2 to stop all the recounts.

Incorrect. Only 5 justices voted to stop all of the recounts. Two additional justices believed that the ongoing recount was unconstitutional, but sought an alternative recount that would be constitutional.

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore#The_decision)

Your previous statement that all recounts showed that Bush won is also incorrect. For more information, I refer you to Wikipedia's excellent chart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_2000#The_Florida_Ballot_Project_recounts) on this matter.

Seriously Panhandlia,

Yes, the Democrats did use the Filibuster to block Civil Rights legislation. You are right. However, if you'd care to examine a left-right spectrum and the relative positions of dominant parties over time, you'd quickly notice that the Democratic Party of the 1960's was the Conservative party, and the Republicans were the liberal party. Over time, the parties have moved in where they are related to social issues. Whether the Republicans or Democrats have filibustered certain issues is pretty ridiculous, frankly.

A good analogy for your deprecation of the Democratic party for filibustering Civil Rights legislation would be a deprecation of the Christian religion for the Crusades. I doubt most people would find that criticism of Christianity to be valid, since the issue of judging someone's (or something's) worth is whether they would do the bad act now, rather than whether a previous incarnation of the party/religion did something bad a long time ago.

Funny how you try too appear objective, yet constantly go directly for the very controversial abortion issue, which is what all this crap is really about.Funny, I find that I am being completely objective here. I could have used any of many other completely radical Supreme Court decisions that have absolutely no basis on the Constitution...shall we mention the completely opposed decisions on the Ten Commandments? How about the decision that completely strips away property rights?

Don't think we don't remember you as the radical right-wing Republican apologist that you are.Radical? Meh. Seeing the way recent elections have gone, I would say I am more in the fabled mainstream than you could ever hope to be.

Seriously Panhandlia,

Yes, the Democrats did use the Filibuster to block Civil Rights legislation. You are right.Thank you...anything after this point is simply muddying up the waters...

Funny, I find that I am being completely objective here.

Complete objectiveness would've left partisanship out of this thread, as I don't even see how it has anything to do with what is supposed to be the core discussion of this thread, that being: the filibuster, the nuclear option, and the usefulness (or lackthereof) of the filibuster in America's political system.

What do all these mistakes that "the Left" has made (and the obviously flawless Right has not made) have anything to do with the ethical appropriateness of the filibuster?

Thank you...anything after this point is simply muddying up the waters...
Congratulations for proving a point that has nothing to do with this thread. Now, please leave your partisanship behind and try having a diplomatic discussion about the filibuster, or please leave the thread.

I'm not even going to try denying what you say because...because you can't. Facts are facts, no matter how much you deny them.
...you're not much better than any good ole present-day racists who looks at people with slightly different political views as being "those people" who are the cause of absolutely everything wrong with the nation today...clearly.That one is funny, because you have clearly done what you accuse me of. Nevermind that you're using the classic liberal tactic of accusing those you disagree with of racism (or being close to racist.)

Seriously, I'm not going to take any of your arguments seriously until you grow up and stop blaming "the left" for everything. What party did what doesn't even need to be a part of this discussion...Am I to understand that you refuse to acknowledge that the current state of affairs in the USA can be traced directly to the Leftist ascension of the last 50 years? That's pathetic.

For the record, I would be in favor of a constitutional amendment to require a 3/5 supermajority, combined with limitations on extended debate, for the confirmation of a federal judge. Since members of the federal judiciary receive a lifetime appointment, I really don't why it should be necessary to appoint a person so controversial that they cannot even get 60 votes in favor of them.

Since such a constitutional amendment is unlikely to pass in the current climate, I'm fully supportive of the right to filibuster. Although it can be used for good or for ill, so can most legislative tools - just because Congress approved a constitutional amendment that would have forbidden Congressional slavery restrictions doesn't mean Congress shouldn't be able to approve constitutional amendments.

Unblogged has the right of it. The use of the filibuster is an issue of political theory, not one of accusation of the left or right as Panhandlia would have us believe by his actions.

One of the curiosities of Panhandlia's remarks is his over-reliance on the idea of a literal reading of the Constitution. Analytical Philosophy (an entire branch started by linguistics researchers in the 19th Century) made it abundandtly clear that the idea of literal readings of anything is an absurdity. All words are simply utterances. They are nonsensical mouthings that point to concepts in our minds. However, the concept in my mind that the word 'justice' points to may not be the same as the concept in your mind when you read the very word. Reading a document over two centuries old and demanding a literal reading is fruitless. We have no possible knowledge of what the document means until we bring meaning to it with our concepts.

The filibuster is an issue of political theory. It was created pursuant to a valid grant of power to the Congress (to create its own rules) under the Constitution of the United States. Since the people have acceded to the creation of the filibuster, it's use can never be abusive until the people, expressed through a larger majority than originally created the filibuster, choose to do away with it.

Complete objectiveness would've left partisanship out of this thread, as I don't even see how it has anything to do with what is supposed to be the core discussion of this thread, that being: the filibuster, the nuclear option, and the usefulness (or lackthereof) of the filibuster in America's political system.

What do all these mistakes that "the Left" has made (and the obviously flawless Right has not made) have anything to do with the ethical appropriateness of the filibuster?
It has EVERYTHING to do with the discussion! The filibuster is a valid tool when it's used to stop legislation that's Constitutionally-flawed. The filibuster is completely uncalled-for during the nomination process, or for Constitutionally-sound legislation. Take a look at what side of the aisle is using the filibuster in a completely uncalled-for manner! Why is this simple point so hard for you?

Again, Panhandlia has the wrong argument. For more than 200 years, it has been the Supreme Court who has had the power to deal with laws which are abhorrant to the Constitution. The filibuster was not created to deal with that problem because when the filibuster was first created, the problem already had a solution. This solution was not an anethema to the Founding Fathers, who were still living and very much involved in politics at the time of Marbury v. Madison, and has been a satisfactory solution ever since.

For the record, I would be in favor of a constitutional amendment to require a 3/5 supermajority, combined with limitations on extended debate, for the confirmation of a federal judge. Since members of the federal judiciary receive a lifetime appointment, I really don't why it should be necessary to appoint a person so controversial that they cannot even get 60 votes in favor of them.The only time I would support a 3/5 supermajority is for tax increases. In every other aspect of Congress, a simple majority ought to be sufficient. If one side can not muster 51 votes for a bill or a nomination, then it ought to go down...parliamentary rules.

Since such a constitutional amendment is unlikely to pass in the current climate, I'm fully supportive of the right to filibuster. Although it can be used for good or for ill, so can most legislative tools - just because Congress approved a constitutional amendment that would have forbidden Congressional slavery restrictions doesn't mean Congress shouldn't be able to approve constitutional amendments.Use of the filibuster to deny a sitting president his choice for any position in the government that he has the right (and obligation) to fill is absolutely horrid. In fact, in this case we aren't even talking about an actual filibuster fight, just the threat of one. I actually wish they would go ahead with the filibuster...put them all on C-Span and show the Nation how silly they can get, reading the phone book and other things like that. Force them to keep 40+ Dems in the Senate floor at all times.

**I'll be ignoring all off topics posts from this point foward, as they do NOTHING but distract from the real issue at hand. Interestingly enough, that's exactly how politicians have been winning elections, and not how they've been solving America's problems.**

Goobergunchia, that's actually a good idea. I mean, I don't really want to see an extremely partisan justice (regardless of which side of the spectrum he or she is on), but I think what would be just is as bad is a hole on the bench...and I think that if a Justice can win 60 votes, that would be enough.

As for the comment made by Panhandlia as to who is doing all of the abusive filibustering, I refer him to the excellent text written by Congressional Scholar Lawrence C. Dodd mentioned in post 41. I even quoted the appropriate language for him there.

Again, Panhandlia has the wrong argument. For more than 200 years, it has been the Supreme Court who has had the power to deal with laws which are abhorrant to the Constitution. The filibuster was not created to deal with that problem because when the filibuster was first created, the problem already had a solution. This solution was not an anethema to the Founding Fathers, who were still living and very much involved in politics at the time of Marbury v. Madison, and has been a satisfactory solution ever since.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about? For the last 50 years, an activist Supreme Court has been actively finding things in the Constitution that were never written in it. Because of this, the Left has seen it vital to ensure that the Court has a leftist orientation, to make sure the Supreme Court writes laws that would NEVER pass Congress.

I don't understand why the "who" of this even matters...

I may be coming off as a raging communist, but believe me, if the Democrats tried the nuclear option on the Republicans, I'd have the same opinion.

If I recall correctly, the Dems used the filibuster to stop and delay a bunch of acts that would have given full rights to black Americans, culminating with the Civil Rights Act that was finally passed in 1964. Also, the deciding block of votes to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act came from the Republican Party. Finally, the leader of the Dems filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was none other that Al Gore, Senior.

Semi-true.

Of course, you give President Johnson and Majority Leader Herbert Humphrey no credit at all. :rolleyes: The majority of votes to pass the Civil Rights Act came from Democrats. But because of the Dixiecrats, the support of Republicans was critical. Both southern Democrats and southern Republicans voted against the Act.

One of the leaders of the fight against the Act was Barry Goldwater, who became the Republican nominee for President with this as a major campaign issue. Some of the major Dixiecrats became Republicans.

But some were, and remained, important Democrats.

As for the "filibuster" of Abe Fortas (the Supreme Court Justice candidate that Lyndon B Johnson almost nominated...Abe Fortas was never formally nominated. Fortas had a lot of skeletons in his closet, and the GOP minority of the time informed LBJ that they would not vote for Fortas if his name came up.

Simply wrong. Clicky (http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Filibuster_Derails_Supreme_Court_Appointment.htm).

The fact of the matter is, filibustering judicial nominees is a new phenomenon, initiated by the Dems, who perfected the filibuster during the Civil Rights fight of the 20th century.

Complete falsification.

I don't understand why the "who" of this even matters...

I may be coming off as a raging communist, but believe me, if the Democrats tried the nuclear option on the Republicans, I'd have the same opinion.
And you would be right to have the opinion. The argument has nothing to do with the filibuster, per se, as horrid as some folks may find it. The whole argument has to do with the appropriateness of using the filibuster to deny a sitting President his choice of appointees when the minority doesn't have enough votes to actually defeat the nomination.

You want to know what this whole problem comes back to?

Politicial parties.

Washington had it right. Political parties are downfall of democracy because they get rid of the balance of power between the people that the Founding Fathers created and return it to a level where a few people have most of the power, especially in our current two party system. It's psuedo-totalitarian.

And you would be right to have it. The point has nothing to do with the filibuster, per se. The whole argument has to do with the appropriateness of using the filibuster to deny a sitting President his choice of appointees when the minority doesn't have enough votes to actually defeat the nomination.
That's why slavery worked...because the minority didn't have enough power to overthrow the majority.

You want to know what this whole problem comes back to?

Politicial parties.

Washington had it right. Political parties are downfall of democracy because they get rid of the balance of power between the people that the Founding Fathers created and return it to a level where a few people have most of the power, especially in our current two party system. It's psuedo-totalitarian.
You are absolutely right.

Panhandlia, I have three degrees from excellent institutions. One in philosophy, one in linguistics, and another in political theory. I'm currently studying law with a full-ride scholarship. Specialization in Constitutional Law and History. Yes. I know what I'm talking about. It's clear that you don't. Explain to me what an activist judge is, and I'll refer to you a definition of "Common Law." Common Law is the law which underlies all Legislatively made law, and is created by Judges. Legislatures use words like "Substantial" when they make laws. But, what, pray tell does the term Substantial mean? 50%? 55%? 80%? 100%? Judges must define these things when legislatures do not. Criminal Statutes will use words like 'intend,' but what does intend mean? Do I intend a wrong act when I do not wish it to come about, but do an act I know will likely bring the bad result? Your black and white view of law is not found in the Constitution, in the practice of Law as inherited from the English Common Law system, or in the American system at any time since our inception.

Filibustering is a valid exercise of authority vested in the Congress by Article I of the Constitution, and has been used extensively by both the left and the right since it's creation pursuant to that grant of authority.

The Constitution is NOT a "living, breathing" document, regardless of what the Left would have you think, and that's the beauty of it. The US Constitution is written so well, it can be relevant, as written, without having to add someone's interpretation, 229 years after the Republic was born. There are no "hidden meanings", or "penumbrae," or anything like that! There is no "separation of church and state" written in it! There certainly is no "right to an abortion" or a "right to privacy" for that matter in it!

Take the time to read it at face value, without trying to inject your opinion, and you will see what a wonderful instrument it is.

LOL.

I guess the Founding Fathers themselves were clueless about the meaning of the document and the necessity for interpretation.

Glad you cleared that up.

BTW, you do realize that not a single member of the Court agrees with your view.

And there is such a thing as the 14th Amendment -- it rather changed (aka amended) the Constitution.

..because the minority didn't have enough power to overthrow the majority.when the the Minority has his way over the majority...its called Bolivian Democracy...or southAfrican Democracy (before Mandela)...

Iraq used to be like that too...the Sunnys imposed their will on the Shia.

Do you have any idea what you're talking about? For the last 50 years, an activist Supreme Court has been actively finding things in the Constitution that were never written in it. Because of this, the Left has seen it vital to ensure that the Court has a leftist orientation, to make sure the Supreme Court writes laws that would NEVER pass Congress.
Ever heard of the Ninth Amendment? It was quoted for you a few pages back. Yet you ignored it and continued to spout the same, incorrect nonsense. Why is that?

The Constitution is NOT a "living, breathing" document, regardless of what the Left would have you think, and that's the beauty of it. The US Constitution is written so well, it can be relevant, as written, without having to add someone's interpretation, 229 years after the Republic was born. There are no "hidden meanings", or "penumbrae," or anything like that! There is no "separation of church and state" written in it! There certainly is no "right to an abortion" or a "right to privacy" for that matter in it!

Take the time to read it at face value, without trying to inject your opinion, and you will see what a wonderful instrument it is.

On the same note, you have no:

Right to Representation in Trials
Desegration of Schools and Public Utilities
To be Protected at your Workplace
Abolotion of Slavery(Originally actually endorses it)
Miranda Rights
Copyright laws
etc
etc
etc

The Founding Fathers made the Constitution flexible because they understood times change. It is not a rigid document, because it was not made to be. They understood meanings change with time, that social change is inevitable, and that the world is not static. The Founding Fathers knew this.

You have many rights that the Constitution does not specifically mention, but implies. Whether you want them or not.

It's not good for either to have power over the other...

I'm talking about achieving balance, and the filibuster is the only way the minority can achieve balance when they don't even have the White House.

The only time I would support a 3/5 supermajority is for tax increases. In every other aspect of Congress, a simple majority ought to be sufficient. If one side can not muster 51 votes for a bill or a nomination, then it ought to go down...parliamentary rules.

There is currently a constitutional requirement that a 2/3 vote is required to adopt a treaty and a constitutional amendment, for the record. But that's moderately off-topic.

Use of the filibuster to deny a sitting president his choice for any position in the government that he has the right (and obligation) to fill is absolutely horrid.

My disagreement is that I don't consider judicial posts to be the choice of the President. I'd agree with you on executive posts, which only last for the duration of the presidency. However, judicial posts are for their lifetime, and as such I believe that there needs to be an added check on executive power on this question, as there is no way to remove a sitting justice short of impeachment. To put it another way, a judicial post is not the position of the current Presidential Administration - it's a position that must uphold the rights of all of the American people.

Incidentally, the House of Representatives is an example of a body that requires a simple majority vote to do everything. As a result, standard legislative practice in the House looks somewhat like this:

The House Rules committee (9-4 Republican majority) reports a rule for consideration of the bill. The "rule" sets the time of debate and what amendments can be offered. This can range from an "open rule", which allows all legal amendments, to a "closed rule", which bans amendments.
The House adopts the rule. Generally speaking, it'll be close to a party-line vote if it's a more restrictive rule, but a more unanimous vote if it's not restrictive.
The House considers the bill under the provisions of the rule.
The House votes (following debate) on all permitted amendments.
The House considers and votes on a "Motion to Recommit", which is one amendment that is guaranteed to the Democrats even if it was not permitted by the rule.
The House votes on final passage of the bill.

The end result is that the Republican leadership in the House has almost total control of anything that happens in the House, even if there might be a majority in favor of another approach.

And you would be right to have the opinion. The argument has nothing to do with the filibuster, per se, as horrid as some folks may find it. The whole argument has to do with the appropriateness of using the filibuster to deny a sitting President his choice of appointees when the minority doesn't have enough votes to actually defeat the nomination.

Under the Constitution, the President has no right or power to put anyone on the Court without the consent of the Senate.

Under the Constitution, the Senate sets its own internal rules.

Under the Senate rules since 1806, the filibuster has been proper.

When did it become inappropriate? When Republicans got a majority?

Ever heard of the Ninth Amendment? It was quoted for you a few pages back. Yet you ignored it and continued to spout the same, incorrect nonsense. Why is that?

And that quite specifically says that although certain rights are not found in the US Constitution, that the people still have them. Of course, the block-head(That is, he is blocking it from enterring his head) forgets this. Oh well. Not everyone actually reads the Constitution.

Panhandlia, I have three degrees from excellent institutions. One in philosophy, one in linguistics, and another in political theory. I'm currently studying law with a full-ride scholarship. Specialization in Constitutional Law and History.Congratulations. I guess my Master's degree is trumped...meh. Yes. I know what I'm talking about. It's clear that you don't.I don't know...let's read on what you have to say... Explain to me what an activist judge is, and I'll refer to you a definition of "Common Law." Common Law is the law which underlies all Legislatively made law, and is created by Judges.Stop right there. That part I have bolded, defines the activist judge. The job of WRITING law, according to the Constitution, resides in Congress. Justices are not elected officials, which makes them unaccountable. That's what defines tyranny, the lack of accountability.
Legislatures use words like "Substantial" when they make laws. But, what, pray tell does the term Substantial mean? 50%? 55%? 80%? 100%?This is irrelevant, IMHO.Judges must define these things when legislatures do not. Criminal Statutes will use words like 'intend,' but what does intend mean? Do I intend a wrong act when I do not wish it to come about, but do an act I know will likely bring the bad result? Your black and white view of law is not found in the Constitution, in the practice of Law as inherited from the English Common Law system, or in the American system at any time since our inception.So, you mean to tell us that the Law is simply what an unelected person (or group of persons) tell us it is? Again, that smells awfully close to totalitarianism to me...a tyranny of 9 unelected lawyers.

Filibustering is a valid exercise of authority vested in the Congress by Article I of the Constitution, and has been used extensively by both the left and the right since it's creation pursuant to that grant of authority.Filibustering is valid, I don't deny that. Filibustering in order to deny a sitting President (elected by a majority of the Electors,) his choice of appointees, is simply wrong, as it turns the Republic into a tyranny of the minority.

The President does not have any 'right' to have his appointments confirmed, whether they are judicial or executive. The president, according to the United States Constitution (as interpreted by the Supreme Court since Marbury v. Madison in the founding days of the Republic) has the power only to nominate people to fill these positions. The president does NOT have the power to fill them himself. That power was given to the Senate, exclusively. It is the job of the Senate to investigate and confirm as it chooses, under what rules it chooses, and to confirm or deny who it chooses in any time frame it wishes. The only check on this is the check which Constitutional Scholars call the Political Option. If people disagree with how the Senate conducts business they may go to the ballot box and voice their disapproval.

Activist Judges are something made up by people who don't seem to understand the political system. Judge-made law (the common law system) does exist. It is NOT trumped by legislatively created law, though. Panhandlia is right there. When a law uses words which are not defined, the judges must define them when a case arises which demands that they do so.

If the legislature wishes to have 'substantial' mean 80%, they must tell the judiciary that is their intent. If they wish 'intent' to NOT include anything other than purposeful acts, there too must they make their wish known, otherwise surrender to the judiciary their power to define.

However, if a legislature disagrees with any rule at common law, they can simply pass another law overruling it. That most common law rulings are not overruled signifies the acquiesence of the legislature, and thus, their approval.

Common Law is gap-filler law. Thus, there is no tyranny.

Can you deny that it was Democrats that used the filibuster to deny blacks in the US their civil rights? Can you?
The partisan hack is given away by his delusion that everyone else is also a partisan hack.

Of course it was the Democrats. It doesn't matter a damn because it's irrelevant to this discussion.

Funny, I find that I am being completely objective here.
Too late, you've already betrayed your extreme agenda.

Radical? Meh. Seeing the way recent elections have gone, I would say I am more in the fabled mainstream than you could ever hope to be.
If you think that everyone who votes Republican is a nutjob like you you're wrong. Believe it or not, most people don't view your party as perfect, and most people don't view the left as pure evil.

Nevermind that you're using the classic liberal tactic of accusing those you disagree with of racism (or being close to racist.)

You were the first poster to bring accusations of racism into this thread.

The only time I would support a 3/5 supermajority is for tax increases.
Why? This sounds like a good idea. Why not also apply it to judicial nominations? Because it doesn't suit your party right now?

Congratulations. I guess my Master's degree is trumped...meh.

Time to challenge credentials. It is far easier to proclaim these things than to prove it.

So...

Where did you get your Master's from? What was your Thesis on? Give us an excerpt, if you could. What was your Professor's name?

Pardon the questions, but I'm quite skeptically to radical claims, and I find it hard to think that someone with a Master's degree in anything would waste his time debating on an online forum with a rather large non-American populace that is not specifically designed to debate politics, but for a game.

Sorry, it dumbfounds me a bit.

You are absolutely right.
I don't think you really believe this. You are the person constantly ranting about how the evil Left are destroying America with their reign of terror. You're the one wo links to www.conservativetruth.org articles. You're a hack.

Time to challenge credentials. It is far easier to proclaim these things than to prove it.

Pardon the questions, but I'm quite skeptically to radical claims, and I find it hard to think that someone with a Master's degree in anything would waste his time debating on an online forum with a rather large non-American populace that is not specifically designed to debate politics, but for a game.

Sorry, it dumbfounds me a bit.
Well, Cat-Tribe does it!

Time to challenge credentials. It is far easier to proclaim these things than to prove it.

So...

Where did you get your Master's from? What was your Thesis on? Give us an excerpt, if you could. What was your Professor's name?

Pardon the questions, but I'm quite skeptically to radical claims, and I find it hard to think that someone with a Master's degree in anything would waste his time debating on an online forum with a rather large non-American populace that is not specifically designed to debate politics, but for a game.

Sorry, it dumbfounds me a bit.
To be far, we must ask the same thing of Arazyal.

My credentials? Uh, I lost my scholarship after one year at the University of Arkansas...and next year I'll be starting the Journalism program...

Arguments are won or lost based on the quality of the arguments presented for the proposition you try to prove. Where Panhandlia got his degrees from, who were his professors names, or even what his degree is in is pretty irrelevant, so long as nobody is trying to impugn his character by saying he doesn't know what he's talking about.

I would guess that, like me, Panhandlia debates political issues on a forum designed for a game with a largely non-American audience for the same reason I do. He's a politcs wonk (even if I think he's seriously misguided). Aristotle said that "Man is a Political Animal," and said that it was politics that made us different from the beasts. Enjoying a lively discussion concerning politics on a public forum doesn't really seem that suspect to me.

Where exactly have I said that a LITERAL reading of the Constitution would bring about a theocracy? Who wants that, other than Islamo-fascists in Iran and other assorted nuthouses?

Where have I said I want to give up a right to privacy? I said there is NOTHING in the Constitution that says you have a right to privacy. That makes sense when you think about it, because you DON'T have a right to kill someone in the privacy of your own home, do you? Do you have a right to sell drugs from your home? Nope! Your right to privacy goes only so far, and therefore the Founding Fathers saw it fit not to include that in the Constitution. Like I said, READ the document before you tell us how it works.

Show me one I have made...just one.

The right to privacy comes from the 14th Amendment guarantee of substantive liberty -- and is supported by the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 9th Amendments.

Your insistence on "explicit" Constitutional rights is inconsistent with: (a) the original Bill of Rights (i.e., the 9th Amendment), (b) the intentions of the Founding Fathers (e.g., the motives behind the 9th Amendment), (c) the 14th Amendment, (d) the intentions of the drafters of the 14th Amendment, and (e) well over 100 years of Supreme Court decisions.

Here a quote from the Supreme Court written by Chief Justice Rehnquist and joined by Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas (emphasis added):

The Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair process, and the "liberty" it protects includes more than the absence of physical restraint. Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992) (Due Process Clause "protects individual liberty against `certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them' ") (quoting Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986)). The Clause also provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301 -302 (1993); Casey, 505 U.S., at 851 . In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the "liberty" specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the rights to marry, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); to have children, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); to direct the education and upbringing of one's children, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); to marital privacy, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); to use contraception, ibid; Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); to bodily integrity, Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), and to abortion, Casey, supra. We have also assumed, and strongly suggested, that the Due Process Clause protects the traditional right to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment. Cruzan, 497 U.S., at 278 -279.

-- Washington v. Glucksberg (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/96-110.html), 521 U.S.702 (1997).

Second, here are just a few examples of Constitutional rights that are not "spelled out" in the Constitution but that are taken for granted by US citizens:

the right to vote, subject only to reasonable restrictions to prevent fraud
the right to cast a ballot in equal weight to those of other citizens
the right to a presumption of innocence and to demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt before being convicted of a crime
the right to travel within the United States
the right to marry or not to marry
the right to make one's own choice about having children
the right to have children at all
the right to direct the education of one's children as long as one meets certain minimum standards set by the state (i.e., to be able to send children to private schools or to teach them at home)
the right to custody of one's children
the right to choose and follow a profession
the right to run for public office
right to bodily integrity


Do you really wish to insist that none of these are protected by the Constitution?

To follow up on my post about my credentials...

That's why I don't ask people about their credentials and when they post their credentials anyway, I just say "meh." Because I've done a fairly decent job of holding my own in this conversation, DESPITE trading my scholarship in for more hours of sleep...

Well, Cat-Tribe does it!

But, but .... I'm insane! My doctor will certify it for you!

To follow up on my post about my credentials...

That's why I don't ask people about their credentials and when they post their credentials anyway, I just say "meh." Because I've done a fairly decent job of holding my own in this conversation, DESPITE trading my scholarship in for more hours of sleep...

Unblogged, you don't have anything to prove to this site. There is no way to prove their claims so don't worry about what they think.

Excellent, Cat-Tribe. You've got a good argument. An explicit reading of the Constitution (though I and Analytic Philosohpy maintain no such thing exists) does not grant us rights which we all take for granted. These are the basic rights which fall under the realm of "Substantive Due Process," an invention of Constitutional Interpretation started in the early 20th Century with the Slaughterhouse Cases from Louisiana (or maybe it was Arkansas... I forget).

These 'rights' are either 1) found in the English Common Law system, which the Founders and the Court agreed was not supposed to be supplanted by the Constitution, 2) are considered so basic to a system of well-ordered liberty as to be found in the 14th Amendment's due process clause, or 3) so basic that the Framers did not feel it necessary to include them since no democratic system would ever try to violate them.

Congratulations. I guess my Master's degree is trumped...meh.

Purely out of curiousity, what is your Master's degree in?

I don't know...let's read on what you have to say... Stop right there. That part I have bolded, defines the activist judge. The job of WRITING law, according to the Constitution, resides in Congress. Justices are not elected officials, which makes them unaccountable. That's what defines tyranny, the lack of accountability.
This is irrelevant, IMHO.So, you mean to tell us that the Law is simply what an unelected person (or group of persons) tell us it is? Again, that smells awfully close to totalitarianism to me...a tyranny of 9 unelected lawyers.

Filibustering is valid, I don't deny that. Filibustering in order to deny a sitting President (elected by a majority of the Electors,) his choice of appointees, is simply wrong, as it turns the Republic into a tyranny of the minority.

Sheesh, what is your problem is with Marbury v. Madison (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/5/137.html ), 5 US 137 (1803). Go find the graves of Chief Justice Marshall and the rest of that unanimous Supreme Court of Founders and argue with them.

Filibustering is valid, I don't deny that. Filibustering in order to deny a sitting President (elected by a majority of the Electors,) his choice of appointees, is simply wrong, as it turns the Republic into a tyranny of the minority.

My my how noble of you. Oh wait your party is in control so now it's bad? :rolleyes:

I'm guessing Cat-Tribe must have legal training too. He's using proper citation for cases, which is unusual to see in posts.

I'm guessing Cat-Tribe must have legal training too. He's using proper citation for cases, which is unusual to see in posts.

Not that I claim any credibility or authority from it whatsoever -- but I am an attorney. I've been practicing since 1998.

The real point is that the President does not have the job of filling offices which require nominations (like Cabinet members or judges). The president merely has the power of nomination. One of the system of checks and balances installed by the Founders was that the Senate and the Senate alone had the power to examine the nominees and choose to confirm or disconfirm them. (U.S. Const. Art. II, s2) (The Advice and Consent clause). The President has no right under our system to have who he wants in the positions he wants them in. Particularly not judges, since that would give the Executive too much power to simply reward his cronies and flunkies. A solid reason for having checks and balances is to prevent the crony-system (sometimes called the spoils system).

To follow up on my post about my credentials...

That's why I don't ask people about their credentials and when they post their credentials anyway, I just say "meh." Because I've done a fairly decent job of holding my own in this conversation, DESPITE trading my scholarship in for more hours of sleep...

The reason I brought that up is because of the fact that he challeneged someone elses credentials with his credentials, when he was on the failing side of the debate. He pulled the "I have a higher degree than you, thus I'm more learned" card. Personally, credentials are meaningless, it's about how you debate. Ignoring certain evidence which goes against what you want, and exalting only that which helps you is not good debating.

I really didn't care about credentials, just that fact that he pulled the "Holier than thou" card. Also, Arazyal shouldn't have done it either.

Touche, Cat-Tribe. Touche. You may not seek to claim authority from your JD, and experience, but you make a mistake when you don't do that. We don't trust nobel-winning physicists on issues of physics because they have won nobel prizes, but it is a strong indication that they know what they are talking about. We may demand proof of their conclusions, certainly, and should demand such proof. But the fact that they have achieved such distinction ought to engender in others not so trained, that on issues of fact, they may be taken at their word. Issues of ideology are another matter.

The reason I brought that up is because of the fact that he challeneged someone elses credentials with his credentials, when he was on the failing side of the debate. He pulled the "I have a higher degree than you, thus I'm more learned" card. Personally, credentials are meaningless, it's about how you debate. Ignoring certain evidence which goes against what you want, and exalting only that which helps you is not good debating.

I really didn't care about credentials, just that fact that he pulled the "Holier than thou" card. Also, Arazyal shouldn't have done it either.
Hmm, according to CNN there is such a thing as a "credentialed blogger"

Anyway, in my opinion, credentials are best mentioned when speaking for themselves.

I'm going to have to disagree, Seangolia. Credentials are important. When you go to the doctor, and he diagnoses you with an illness, you may (but should) ask what his reasons are for his conclusions. If he can't give you reasons, you should find a better doctor. But the fact that he has a degree from an accredited institution on his wall, and a certificate to practice medicine from the State in which he practices should be at least an indication that he isn't a total quack. Same thing when discussing anything where there are people trained in the field present.

Touche, Cat-Tribe. Touche. You may not seek to claim authority from your JD, and experience, but you make a mistake when you don't do that. We don't trust nobel-winning physicists on issues of physics because they have won nobel prizes, but it is a strong indication that they know what they are talking about. We may demand proof of their conclusions, certainly, and should demand such proof. But the fact that they have achieved such distinction ought to engender in others not so trained, that on issues of fact, they may be taken at their word. Issues of ideology are another matter.

We should drift too far from the thread, but one cannot confirm or deny credentials very well (if at all) on these forums. I could claim to be Chief Justice Rehnquist. Other than the unlikelihood, you have no proof I am not. I cannot prove that I am a lawyer any more than I could prove I have the Chief Justice.

So, no, one should not use one's credentials as a basis for authority in these forums.

Moroever, it is rather tacky and unnecessary to do so in real life. We aren't doing Nobel physics. If you can't support your arguments and persuade without making an appeal to yourself as an authority, then you have no authority to which to appeal.

To follow up on my post about my credentials...

That's why I don't ask people about their credentials and when they post their credentials anyway, I just say "meh." Because I've done a fairly decent job of holding my own in this conversation, DESPITE trading my scholarship in for more hours of sleep...

You've proven your credentials quite well in the posts I've seen in these forums. :)

You make intelligent arguments. That is the only worthy credential here. :cool:

(Although being funny is a good alternative.) ;)

I'm going to have to disagree, Seangolia. Credentials are important. When you go to the doctor, and he diagnoses you with an illness, you may (but should) ask what his reasons are for his conclusions. If he can't give you reasons, you should find a better doctor. But the fact that he has a degree from an accredited institution on his wall, and a certificate to practice medicine from the State in which he practices should be at least an indication that he isn't a total quack. Same thing when discussing anything where there are people trained in the field present.

And how long does it take to become a doctor? Never mind the fact there are a great number of quacks in practice. Look at the malpractice costs.

A degree only goes so far. More then one friend got their PhD(assorted sciences) and had the hard lesson of seeing people not care.

I have worked with a couple people that held PhD's and they were worthless.

All a degree shows is that you completed a course of study, it doesn't guarantee you will be great or are better then everybody else.

Like the Senator who was on CNN RECENTLY and claimed there was a tie between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein and when the journalist criticized that, mentioning facts that the general public already knows and asked him to back up his statement he said "Unfortunately, I have access to information the public is not allowed to have."


Anyway...back on topic...except there isn't anyone around that can really come up with a good argument against filibuster without being extremely partisan about it..and partisanship has nothing to do with this discussion (maybe that's why the thread keeps losing focus...people don't have any talking points if the discussion isn't about political parties).

Credentials cannot be confirmed or denied well on a thread. Cat-Tribe is right, there, of course. But it seems abundantly clear that Cat-Tribe is a lawyer, or at least has had training in the legal field from his arguments. He cites cases. He uses proper Blue-Book citation forms for his quotes from cases. Yet, Cat-Tribe makes a curious conundrum appear. He cites cases (the authority of the Supreme Court) for his conclusions, but to cite authority is not to quote the arguments the Supreme Court found persuasive. Simply citing the Court is another reliance on Authority, the useful shorthand for the arguments that I mentioned earlier in the context of a doctor. If anyone so cared, they could go to the library or use Westlaw (or Lexis) to look up the cases to find the arguments.

I have to say, I don't feel as if I (or Panhandlia) hung our hats on our credentials as educated individuals for our conclusions. We've made arguments, and traded criticisms of those arguments fairly.

Credentials cannot be confirmed or denied well on a thread. Cat-Tribe is right, there, of course. But it seems abundantly clear that Cat-Tribe is a lawyer, or at least has had training in the legal field from his arguments. He cites cases. He uses proper Blue-Book citation forms for his quotes from cases. Yet, Cat-Tribe makes a curious conundrum appear. He cites cases (the authority of the Supreme Court) for his conclusions, but to cite authority is not to quote the arguments the Supreme Court found persuasive. Simply citing the Court is another reliance on Authority, the useful shorthand for the arguments that I mentioned earlier in the context of a doctor. If anyone so cared, they could go to the library or use Westlaw (or Lexis) to look up the cases to find the arguments.

I have to say, I don't feel as if I (or Panhandlia) hung our hats on our credentials as educated individuals for our conclusions. We've made arguments, and traded criticisms of those arguments fairly.

**After these messages, we'll be right back**

The authority of the Supreme Court is verifiable. The purpose of citations is so you can look up and verify the authority. Moreoever, you might note that I linked the cases. (The underlined name is a link to the case in Findlaw.)

When I rely on the Court's reasoning or explanation, I quote the Court. I have demonstrated both the quoting and not quoting use of the Court as authority.

Again, I could be a law student, a paralegal, or any number of people with Blue Book knowledge. But you are right that the content of arguments may provide additional clues to credibility or knowledge.

But you are right that the content of arguments may provide additional clues to credibility or knowledge.

That was what I was personally referring to. In real life, it is quite easy to verify credentials. The real world is public, and one cannot make a claim such as "I have a Master's Degree" and expect that this statement will be looked into.

However, the internet is anonymous, which creates a greater need for substance. Anybody can claim anything on the internet, and nobody will be any the wiser. Thus, your arguments play a very large role in providing clues as to whether or not you really are what you say you are, as you just said.

I think we have know filibustered the filibuster thread. :eek: :D

Myabe Pnhandlia is an evil genius. ;) :D

Yes, the filibuster thread has just been filibustered, proving the effectiveness of the filibuster...

I just had an interesting thought.

What if the anti-filibuster actions taken are in turn filibustered?

And so the filibustering of the filibuster thread continues with a filibuster question.

As a side note, where did the word "Filibuster" come from?

"Buccaneers were known in England as filibusters. From the Dutch for vrybuiter (freebooter) translated into French as flibustier. It is now used as a political term meaning to delay or obstruct the passage of legislation (as opposed to sailing vessels) by non-stop speech making"