PromoTheRobot Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elcrusho Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Go Bills! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted May 23, 2005 Author Share Posted May 23, 2005 Go Bills! 342353[/snapback] I know, I know...but it's the off-season. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 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!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elcrusho Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 I know, I know...but it's the off-season. PTR 342356[/snapback] I know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pkwwjd Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch19079 Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 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"?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like A Mofo Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 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!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch19079 Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pkwwjd Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch19079 Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 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." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pkwwjd Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 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.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts