If you want to save the fillibuster

[PromoTheRobot]

Sorry for getting all political on you guys, but this one is really important. This whole "nuclear option" thing has not been getting much coverage in the press. Probably because folks don't understand what it means. But it is one of the pillars of American democracy.

 

The fillibuster is the only power the minority power possesses, and is used to forge comprimise. The Republicans made great use of it when the Dems were on top. Without it, those not in the majority lose their voice completely.

 

You may say "so what? the majority should rule!" Well, the majority used to think things like slavery and racial segregation were okay too. So sometimes the voice of the minority is worth hearing.

 

If the "nuclear option" passes, then the USA becomes a one-party government, not very different from the old Soviet Union and Communist China. That's scary!

 

So if you are interested in expressing an opinion, click this link. And thanks for listening.

 

http://www.moveonpac.org/nuclear/?id=5554-...cMnAJN938kQ&t=1

 

PTR

[elcrusho]

Go Bills!

[PromoTheRobot]

Go Bills!

342353[/snapback]

I know, I know...but it's the off-season.

 

PTR

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

The sky is falling! The conservatives are going to burn the constitution! They're going to be breaking down doors soon! Run for the hills!!!

[elcrusho]

I know, I know...but it's the off-season.

 

PTR

342356[/snapback]

 

 

I know...

 

[pkwwjd]

you made it political so I'll respond ...

 

the Fillibuster was not generally intended or used to keep judicial nominees from reaching the floor of the Senate.

 

That being said, this will not fix any problems either. The problems lie in the fact that the judicial branch of the government now carries out the duties of the legislative branch, by broadening the interpretation of laws and making those interpretations law in and of themselves. It will take long and radical change to have a judiciary that reins in its own control and limits itself to enforcing the laws that Congress passes.

[ch19079]

Sorry for getting all political on you guys, but this one is really important.  This whole "nuclear option" thing has not been getting much coverage in the press.  Probably because folks don't understand what it means.  But it is one of the pillars of American democracy.

 

The fillibuster is the only power the minority power possesses, and is used to forge comprimise.  The Republicans made great use of it when the Dems were on top.  Without it, those not in the majority lose their voice completely.

 

You may say "so what?  the majority should rule!"  Well, the majority used to think things like slavery and racial segregation were okay too.  So sometimes the voice of the minority is worth hearing.

 

If the "nuclear option" passes, then the USA becomes a one-party government, not very different from the old Soviet Union and Communist China.  That's scary!

 

So if you are interested in expressing an opinion, click this link.  And thanks for listening.

 

http://www.moveonpac.org/nuclear/?id=5554-...cMnAJN938kQ&t=1

 

PTR

342352[/snapback]

 

what is the "nuclear option"??

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

what is the "nuclear option"??

342362[/snapback]

 

Basically, it allows the majority party in the Senate to vote to stop a fillibuster.

 

Personally, I'm all for it, as I think the "virtual fillibuster" nonsense they use today is crap. The "nuclear option" might very well get them away from this silly "fillibuster by saying 'I fillibuster'" option, and force them to resort to REAL fillibusters: taking the floor and holding it for as long as you can speak so that nothing else gets done. Let 'em go back to reading from the phone book again.

[Campy]

Thanks for the link.

 

I would think that all of us, regardles of political affilliation, can see the benefit of the fillibuster. If you're a Republican, think about when the tide turns and the the Dems are back in control. Do you really want all of their legislation to be passed with virtually no chance of revision or review? I'm guessing you don't. It's the same tool that the GOP invoked when the Dems controlled Congress. While it can be frustrating at times, the fillibuster is critical to our form of government if we are to remain a nation that respects our laws.

 

I know MoveOn is a liberal PAC, but in this case they just happen to be the ones fighting to preserve the fillibuster - and they just happen to be right. Please fill out the petition.

[Like A Mofo]

The sky is falling! The conservatives are going to burn the constitution! They're going to be breaking down doors soon! Run for the hills!!!

342358[/snapback]

 

 

I have my bags packed!!! This is a dictatorship!!! Im off to Canada as we speak!!

[ch19079]

Basically, it allows the majority party in the Senate to vote to stop a fillibuster.

342368[/snapback]

 

i thaught the whole point of a fillibuster is that it CANT be stoped.

 

i watched mr. smith goes to washington...

 

it doesnt make sence to remove that option, no matter which party is in the majority.

[KRC]

Sorry for getting all political on you guys, but this one is really important.  This whole "nuclear option" thing has not been getting much coverage in the press.  Probably because folks don't understand what it means.  But it is one of the pillars of American democracy.

 

The fillibuster is the only power the minority power possesses, and is used to forge comprimise.  The Republicans made great use of it when the Dems were on top.  Without it, those not in the majority lose their voice completely.

 

You may say "so what?  the majority should rule!"  Well, the majority used to think things like slavery and racial segregation were okay too.  So sometimes the voice of the minority is worth hearing.

 

If the "nuclear option" passes, then the USA becomes a one-party government, not very different from the old Soviet Union and Communist China.  That's scary!

 

So if you are interested in expressing an opinion, click this link.  And thanks for listening.

 

http://www.moveonpac.org/nuclear/?id=5554-...cMnAJN938kQ&t=1

 

PTR

342352[/snapback]

 

 

The Constitution requires only a majority vote on all judicial nominations. The Democrats are trying to force it to a super majority, which is a violation of the Constitution.

 

Nothing like typical MoveOn scare tactics to cloud the actual issue.

[Campy]

you made it political so I'll respond ...

 

the Fillibuster was not generally intended or used to keep judicial nominees from reaching the floor of the Senate.

 

That being said, this will not fix any problems either.  The problems lie in the fact that the judicial branch of the government now carries out the duties of the legislative branch, by broadening the interpretation of laws and making those interpretations law in and of themselves.  It will take long and radical change to have a judiciary that reins in its own control and limits itself to enforcing the laws that Congress passes.

342361[/snapback]

The judiciary does what the founding fathers specified in the Constitution - the same can't be said for the legislative and executive branches.

 

It's that whole "checks and balances" thingy. But hey, who needs that, eh?

[pkwwjd]

Thanks for the link. 

 

I would think that all of us, regardles of political affilliation, can see the benefit of the fillibuster.  If you're a Republican, think about when the tide turns and the the Dems are back in control.  Do you really want all of their legislation to be passed with virtually no chance of revision or review?  I'm guessing you don't.  It's the same tool that the GOP invoked when the Dems controlled Congress.  While it can be frustrating at times, the fillibuster is critical to our form of government if we are to remain a nation that respects our laws.

 

I know MoveOn is a liberal PAC, but in this case they just happen to be the ones fighting to preserve the fillibuster - and they just happen to be right.  Please fill out the petition.

342371[/snapback]

 

Again, I would agree with the Fillibuster as a parliamentarian action intended to give the minority a voice. But I would struggle to find much evidence that it was intended for or used (as often as it has in the last 5 years) for the purpose of denying a hearing before Congress on Presidential court nominees. There are a bunch of moderate Republican Senators that the Dems can utilize to vote down an inappropriate judicial nominee. A 'yes' or 'no' vote on these nominees needs to happen. Use the fillibuster to block only the most ridiculous nominees, not everyone. The Dems might just be shooting themselves in the foot by continuing to overuse the fillibuster.

[ch19079]

The Constitution requires only a majority vote on all judicial nominations. The Democrats are trying to force it to a super majority, which is a violation of the Constitution.

 

Nothing like typical MoveOn scare tactics to cloud the actual issue.

342375[/snapback]

 

then why has there been a fillibuster option all these years?

 

there are alot of things we have added to the constitution that are not called "violations of the constitution".

 

they are trying to get rid of the fillibuster option so they can do what they want to do. while you might agree or disagree about whether the topic being argued is good or bad, you cant simply delete the fillibuster option to do it.

[KRC]

then why has there been a fillibuster option all these years?

 

there are alot of things we have added to the constitution that are not called "violations of the constitution".

342384[/snapback]

 

The Senate can make rules, as long as they do not violate the Constitution. It is specified in the Constitution that a majority vote is required for judicial nominees, not a super majority. Super majorities are only for treaties.

 

In the words of Ted Kennedy, "The filibuster rule is not enshrined in the Constitution. Instead, it is a rule that was made by the Senate, and it is a rule that can be unmade by the Senate." He also said, "The Constitution is clear that only individuals acceptable to both the President and the Senate should be confirmed. The President and the Senate do not always agree. But we should resolve these disagreements by voting on these nominees – yes or no."

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

i thaught the whole point of a fillibuster is that it CANT be stoped.

 

i watched mr. smith goes to washington... 

 

it doesnt make sence to remove that option, no matter which party is in the majority.

342374[/snapback]

 

That's what the current majority party wants to change.

 

I'm willing to see it changed, because as it stands now it's a gentleman's agreement: the fillibuster as it stands today is not a fillibuster, it's the minority party saying "We fillibuster" and the majority saying "Well...okay..." A true fillibuster is when a speaker is recognized by the chair, and speaks as long as he can to hold the floor. By the code of conduct in the Senate (and virtually any organized meeting), you don't interrupt who has the floor, you let him speak until he's done then asked to be recognize. By monopolizing the floor, the fillibuster effectively blocks any other action while it goes on.

 

And unless the current majority party also wants to rewrite the rules of etiquitte that dictate whoever's speaking may do so uninterrupted (and I doubt they do, as THAT will hurt them even more than it will the minority party)...this "nuclear option" doesn't represent overturning the fillibuster itself. It removes the stupid "virtual" fillibuster that I outlined. The minority senators can still be recognized, take the floor, speak until the drop from exhaustion, and block action that way. What they're really complaining about is that the "nuclear option" might actually force them to WORK for a living by removing their ability to declare a fillibuster, then go back to their offices and kick back a few drinks.

[pkwwjd]

In the words of Ted Kennedy, "The filibuster rule is not enshrined in the Constitution. Instead, it is a rule that was made by the Senate, and it is a rule that can be unmade by the Senate." He also said, "The Constitution is clear that only individuals acceptable to both the President and the Senate should be confirmed. The President and the Senate do not always agree. But we should resolve these disagreements by voting on these nominees – yes or no."

342391[/snapback]

 

Sounds like Teddy in the day when the Dems ruled the world. He'd never say that today!

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Again, I would agree with the Fillibuster as a parliamentarian action intended to give the minority a voice. 

342382[/snapback]

 

No, the fillibuster is entirely intended to block action. Else, why would they do such meaningless crap as reading the entire phone book into the Congressional Record (which has been done in fillibusters before, when they were true fillibusters.)

[KD in CA]

What they're really complaining about is that the "nuclear option" might actually force them to WORK for a living by removing their ability to declare a fillibuster, then go back to their offices and kick back a few drinks.

 

 

Well no wonder Teddy is so outraged!

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

The Constitution requires only a majority vote on all judicial nominations. The Democrats are trying to force it to a super majority, which is a violation of the Constitution.

 

Nothing like typical MoveOn scare tactics to cloud the actual issue.

342375[/snapback]

 

DING DING DING!

 

I saw an ad directed at Specter here in PA calling him the "last line of defense" against the right that simply hopes to usurp all constitutional checks and balances.

 

It was laughable, really, to anyone that knows ANYTHING about the constitution. But the problem is most suckers out there don't and will believe this dreck.

[KRC]

Sounds like Teddy in the day when the Dems ruled the world.  He'd never say that today!

342393[/snapback]

 

You mean, he is a hypocrite. It is like a bunch of the Dems who are staunchly in favor of filibustering these nominees. They are also on record stating that judicial nominees deserve an up or down vote. They are praying on the fact that people will not actually pay attention to things they said in the past.

[Campy]

Again, I would agree with the Fillibuster as a parliamentarian action intended to give the minority a voice.  But I would struggle to find much evidence that it was intended for or used (as often as it has in the last 5 years) for the purpose of denying a hearing before Congress on Presidential court nominees.  There are a bunch of moderate Republican Senators that the Dems can utilize to vote down an inappropriate judicial nominee.  A 'yes' or 'no' vote on these nominees needs to happen.  Use the fillibuster to block only the most ridiculous nominees, not everyone.  The Dems might just be shooting themselves in the foot by continuing to overuse the fillibuster.

342382[/snapback]

Question: What do H. Alston Johnson (5th Circuit), James Duffy (9th Circuit), Kathleen McCree-Lewis (6th Circuit), Enrique Moreno (5th Circuit), James Lyons (10th Circuit), Robert Cindrich (3rd Circuit), Stephen Orlofsky (3rd Circuit), Andre Davis (4th Circuit), James Beaty (4th Circuit), and J. Rich Leonard (4th Circuit) and Allen Snyder (D.C. Circuit) all have in common?

 

Answer: They all recieved the American Bar Association's unanimous "well-qualified" rating, yet they were all denied an up or down vote by Republicans after being nominated by President Clinton.

 

Here are more Circuit Court judges who received satisfactory ABA ratings but were denied a vote: Helene White (6th Circuit), Jorge Rangel (5th Circuit), Robert Raymer (3rd Circuit), Barry Goode (9th Circuit), Christine Arguello (10th Circuit), Elizabeth Gibson (4th Circuit), Elana Kagan (D.C. Circuit), James Wynn (4th Circuit), Bonnie Campbell (8th Circuit), Kent Markus (6th Circuit), and Roger Gregory (4th Circuit).

 

In all, there were 60 (yes, 60) Clinton nominees that were blocked by Republicans. But now the GOP is claiming that denying an up or down vote is unfair? That's pretty funny - almost as funny as those who buy into that line of crap.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Sounds like Teddy in the day when the Dems ruled the world.  He'd never say that today!

342393[/snapback]

 

Back in the Clinton administration, when the Democrats controlled the Senate, there was just the sort of fillibuster by the Republicans that they're now trying to break.

 

The Democrats broke the fillibuster, by the way, when Barbara Boxer essentially blackmailed Trent Lott with blocking every single appointment he made for the rest of his term unless he lifted the fillibuster.

 

Of course, in government it's not called "blackmail", it's called "negotiation".

[ch19079]

The Senate can make rules, as long as they do not violate the Constitution. It is specified in the Constitution that a majority vote is required for judicial nominees, not a super majority. Super majorities are only for treaties.

 

In the words of Ted Kennedy, "The filibuster rule is not enshrined in the Constitution. Instead, it is a rule that was made by the Senate, and it is a rule that can be unmade by the Senate." He also said, "The Constitution is clear that only individuals acceptable to both the President and the Senate should be confirmed. The President and the Senate do not always agree. But we should resolve these disagreements by voting on these nominees – yes or no."

342391[/snapback]

 

it just sounds like the dems are using the fillibuster to keep the republicans from doing what they want to do.

 

so the republicans say ok, we will just get rid of the fillibuster option all together.

 

and its my understanding (granted its limited) the fillibuster option, overall, is on the books for a reason.

 

i dont think it matters whether the topic of argument is something as large as confirming judges or something as small as deciding where to build a monument.

 

and all these arguments about "the constitution says"... might be a valid argument, but the fillibuster has been on the books for YEARS, and its only now being argued agenst because its keeping some law makers from doing what they want to do.

 

if it was really that bad, we would have had this argumetn several years ago.

[pkwwjd]

No, the fillibuster is entirely intended to block action.  Else, why would they do such meaningless crap as reading the entire phone book into the Congressional Record (which has been done in fillibusters before, when they were true fillibusters.)

342394[/snapback]

 

So, you're saying that the fillibuster is only intended to delay action? Never meant to block? What's the purpose of an action if it only delays the vote? To rally more support for the losing side? I'm not sure I'm grasping the point, sorry.

[Campy]

They are also on record stating that judicial nominees deserve an up or down vote. They are praying on the fact that people will not actually pay attention to things they said in the past.

342399[/snapback]

They are also on record saying that the nominees don't deserve an up or down vote. I do agree that they bank on the fact that the average American won't remember what they said in the past.

 

Refresh my memory, is the "they" Republicans or Democrats?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Refresh my memory, is the "they" Republicans or Democrats?

342407[/snapback]

 

Uh...yes.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

it just sounds like the dems are using the fillibuster to keep the republicans from doing what they want to do.

 

so the republicans say ok, we will just get rid of the fillibuster option all together.

 

and its my understanding (granted its limited) the fillibuster option, overall, is on the books for a reason.

 

i dont think it matters whether the topic of argument is something as large as confirming judges or something as small as deciding where to build a monument.

342404[/snapback]

 

Why? The filibuster is just another way these career crooks keep things from getting done.

[KRC]

it just sounds like the dems are using the fillibuster to keep the republicans from doing what they want to do.

 

so the republicans say ok, we will just get rid of the fillibuster option all together.

 

and its my understanding (granted its limited) the fillibuster option, overall, is on the books for a reason.

 

i dont think it matters whether the topic of argument is something as large as confirming judges or something as small as deciding where to build a monument.

342404[/snapback]

 

The Dems are doing exactly what the Republicans did during Clinton. It wasn't right then, and it isn't right now. Again, the Senate can only make rules that do not violate the Constitution. Filibustering judicial nominees is a violation of the Constitution. They are required a majority vote, not a super majority.

 

Filibustering other topics is acceptable, just not for judicial nominees.

 

I agree with the monkey in that it should be a true filibuster, not this faux filibuster being used now. Make these people earn their salary.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

So, you're saying that the fillibuster is only intended to delay action?  Never meant to block?  What's the purpose of an action if it only delays the vote?  To rally more support for the losing side?  I'm not sure I'm grasping the point, sorry.

342405[/snapback]

 

Basically, it's a petulant little temper tantrum. The equivalent of holding their breath until they turn blue so they won't have to eat their peas. Ultimately, one side or the other caves, and they either eat their peas or have them taken away (and if they're REALLY good little boys and girls, they might even get a cookie).

 

But if all they wanted was a voice...open debate's a better choice. Even an actual fillibuster discoursing on the topic the prompts it would be a better choice. But when they monopolize the floor to read from the phone book...it's kind of tough to argue that a fillibuster is simply a means for the minority party to be heard.

[KRC]

They are also on record saying that the nominees don't deserve an up or down vote.  I do agree that they bank on the fact that the average American won't remember what they said in the past.

 

Refresh my memory, is the "they" Republicans or Democrats?

342407[/snapback]

 

"They" refers to both parties, Republicans and Democrats.

[ch19079]

Why? The filibuster is just another way these career crooks keep things from getting done.

342410[/snapback]

the problem with democracy is that not everyone agrees on everything.

democracy is slow. we accept that.

 

i do think they are carrer crooks, but would you rather have a dictatorship? everything gets done alot faster.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Basically, it's a petulant little temper tantrum.  The equivalent of holding their breath until they turn blue so they won't have to eat their peas.  Ultimately, one side or the other caves, and they either eat their peas or have them taken away (and if they're REALLY good little boys and girls, they might even get a cookie). 

 

But if all they wanted was a voice...open debate's a better choice.  Even an actual fillibuster discoursing on the topic the prompts it would be a better choice.  But when they monopolize the floor to read from the phone book...it's kind of tough to argue that a fillibuster is simply a means for the minority party to be heard.

342414[/snapback]

 

Like I said, it's just a way for these career crooks to keep from getting anything done.

[OBXBILLSFAN]

It's typical of the liberal Democrats - who have no agenda, no new ideas, and no plan to move this country forward - to try to obstruct appointment of the President's judicial nominees by breaking a 200 year tradition of a simple up or down vote.

 

Many of the candidates have represented minorities, but they are viewed as "too conservative," so the liberals move off their alleged principals of diversity and equal opportunity faster that Bill Clinton in a room of beautiful women.

 

The liberal Democrats will only support liberal minorities, just like they will only support social security reform that entails higher taxes and more government control.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Like I said, it's just a way for these career crooks to keep from getting anything done.

342420[/snapback]

 

Personally, I don't see where that's a bad thing. Given the calibre of people we have in Congress these days, I'd support just about anything that makes it harder for them to accomplish anything.

 

And you know what's scary? Anyone reading this thread can learn more about the issue in ten minutes than they would have learned in the past six weeks of watching the news...

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

It's typical of the liberal Democrats - who have no agenda, no new ideas, and no plan to move this country forward - to try to obstruct appointment of the President's judicial nominees by breaking a 200 year tradition of a simple up or down vote.

 

Many of the candidates have represented minorities, but they are viewed as "too conservative," so the liberals move off their alleged principals of diversity and equal opportunity faster that Bill Clinton in a room of beautiful women.

 

The liberal Democrats will only support liberal minorities, just like they will only support social security reform that entails higher taxes and more government control.

342421[/snapback]

 

Nice meaningless "liberals suck" rant. You have anything to say about the fillibuster rules?

[ch19079]

Filibustering other topics is acceptable, just not for judicial nominees.

342413[/snapback]

ok,

 

so does this "nuclear option" make a law that keeps the fillibuster from being used to appoint judicial nominees?

 

or to simply get rid of the fillibuster all together?

[pkwwjd]

Sad, but very true CTM -- speaking about your comment on this thread vs. the news

[KRC]

Since we are discussing the Constitution, lets look at the exact clause which applies here:

 

Section II

Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.