Proud 15 minutes to be an American

[brihs2005]

As a recent grad, i have had plenty of time the past few weeks, and i have been watching the floor of the senate intently the past 8 days or so as each senator spoke their minds about the impending "nuclear option". This evening, when i saw the video of McCain and 13 other senators talk about the agreement they reached, and were genuinely appreciative of each other i was reminded about how great this country could be. Those 14 individuals represented what a representative republic should be like, a place for statesmen instead of pawns of a political party. Really, a great night to be an American.

[EC-Bills]

As a recent grad, i have had plenty of time the past few weeks, and i have been watching the floor of the senate intently the past 8 days or so as each senator spoke their minds about the impending "nuclear option".  This evening, when i saw the video of McCain and 13 other senators talk about the agreement they reached, and were genuinely appreciative of each other i was reminded about how great this country could be.  Those 14 individuals represented what a representative republic should be like, a place for statesmen instead of pawns of a political party.  Really, a great night to be an American.

343075[/snapback]

 

Yup. It's a shame we don't have more people with common sense. Instead we have a bunch of partisan wankers (Frist, Reid, etc.) that flank both sides of the isle.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Why is moderation so preferable?

 

The waters are muddied by moderation and nothing ever changes when all there is is moderation. It was "bipartisan cooperation" that brought the worst disasters upon the American economy: Social Security and Medicare. It was "bipartisan cooperation" hat brought us the disaster that is No Child Left Behind.

 

Sometimes unilateral action and radicalism aren't so bad. I mean, without radical thought, there'd be no America.

[PromoTheRobot]

Why is moderation so preferable?

 

The waters are muddied by moderation and nothing ever changes when all there is is moderation. It was "bipartisan cooperation" that brought the worst disasters upon the American economy: Social Security and Medicare. It was "bipartisan cooperation" hat brought us the disaster that is No Child Left Behind.

 

Sometimes unilateral action and radicalism aren't so bad. I mean, without radical thought, there'd be no America.

343128[/snapback]

Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, and Josef Stalin couldn't agree with you more!

 

PTR

[JimBob2232]

I for one would rather the senate be all bottled up and get nothing accomplished. Every minture they are arguing over fillibusters is one minute they are not spending my money.

 

That said...I dont understand how you can compromise on this issue.

 

Republicans say : Fillibustering judges is unconstitutional.

Democrats say : Fillibustering judges is constitutional.

 

How can you compromise on the constitutionality of filibustering judges? You cant. It is pure insanity to compromise on a very black or white issue.

 

Some see this as a victory for democrats, because they blocked some of bushs appointees. Some see it for republicans becaue they got some through. Bottom line is that this issue IS NOT over. Because democrats WILL fillibuster future judges on the "extreme circumstance" clause. Republicans WILL then fight again for the constitutional option.

 

All this really does is give the senate a clean slate to work with...but it wont fix anything. Washington wont change until we elect about 75 different senators and about 300 different representatives to washinton.

[/dev/null]

Republicans say : Fillibustering judges is unconstitutional.

Democrats say  : Fillibustering judges is constitutional.

343779[/snapback]

 

if the democrats held the white house and the senate, the case would be:

 

Republicans say : Fillibustering judges is constitutional.

Democrats say : Fillibustering judges is unconstitutional.

[JimBob2232]

if the democrats held the white house and the senate, the case would be:

 

Republicans say : Fillibustering judges is constitutional.

Democrats say : Fillibustering judges is unconstitutional.

 

Not disagreeing with you.

 

Point was though, both sides SAID they were right. They compromized on right and wrong. You cant do that. If you are right, you are right, dont compromise.

 

Also, the fact of the matter is Fillibustering judges is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. This is easy to prove, all you have to do is read it. I dont care who is saying it at the moment, it is unconstitutional and should be corrected.

[Campy]

if the democrats held the white house and the senate, the case would be:

 

Republicans say : Fillibustering judges is constitutional.

Democrats say  : Fillibustering judges is unconstitutional.

343784[/snapback]

Amen to that. This issue swings both ways, and like most issues, the "for" or "against" is based more upon major/minority and not some grand political ideology.

[Campy]

Also, the fact of the matter is Fillibustering judges is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  This is easy to prove, all you have to do is read it.  I dont care who is saying it at the moment, it is unconstitutional and should be corrected.

343790[/snapback]

I'm just curious, what makes you say fillibustering judicial nominees is unconstitutional?

[JimBob2232]

I'm just curious, what makes you say fillibustering judicial nominees is unconstitutional?

 

This was posted (by me) elsewhere on PPP:

First: The ACTUAL text of the constitution in its entirety:

 

Section II, Clause 2

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.

 

So to disect this passage a little:

 

"He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;"

 

Notice this says 2/3s Of the senators present... FOR A TREATY. This is what the text actually says.

 

Then in Regards to Nominations:

 

"He (the President) shall have Power, and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advise 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 otherwise herein 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."

 

Now, there is a common standard for interpretation: if a word or phrase is used with similar usage in the same or related documents then those words or phrases may be taken to mean the same thing.

 

In this second half of the passage the Senate is again authorized to provide both Advise and Consent; however, there is no requirement for a 2/3s majority of "the Senators present" ...

 

This is a simple case of reading the constitution. It is in black and white. I am still baffled how you can compromise over this issue.

[UConn James]

I'm just curious, what makes you say fillibustering judicial nominees is unconstitutional?

343796[/snapback]

 

This was posted (by me) elsewhere on PPP:

First: The ACTUAL text of the constitution in its entirety:

 

Section II, Clause 2

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.

 

So to disect this passage a little:

 

"He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;"

 

Notice this says 2/3s Of the senators present... FOR A TREATY.  This is what the text actually says.

 

Then in Regards to Nominations:

 

"He (the President) shall have Power, and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advise 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 otherwise herein 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."

 

Now, there is a common standard for interpretation: if a word or phrase is used with similar usage in the same or related documents then those words or phrases may be taken to mean the same thing.

 

In this second half of the passage the Senate is again authorized to provide both Advise and Consent; however, there is no requirement for a 2/3s majority of "the Senators present" ...

 

This is a simple case of reading the constitution.  It is in black and white.  I am still baffled how you can compromise over this issue.

343836[/snapback]

 

I think the point being made is that filibustering is not unconstitutional b/c the specific procedure for voting is not written in. Is it unconstitutional if they start the vote-count from Wyden to Akaka rather than Akaka to Wyden? It goes to the Senate Rules that govern the minutia of how a vote is conducted, which is not so much the Constitution. Inside of the S.R. is a provision for a filibuster.

 

Both parties have spoken out of both sides of their mouths on the rightness/wrongness of filibustering judges. In the consideration of fairness, if they want this to end once and for all, have Bush renominate all of the 65 judges that were blocked in Clinton's term and remove the filibuster on votes for judges (not that it makes it fair, b/c there's a lot more Reps in there now) and then have a vote on Bush's current 10 that are being blocked, except that the slots would be filled by those 65. That, or leave things the way they are and quicherbellyachin'.

[The Warden]

As a recent grad, i have had plenty of time the past few weeks, and i have been watching the floor of the senate intently the past 8 days or so as each senator spoke their minds about the impending "nuclear option".  This evening, when i saw the video of McCain and 13 other senators talk about the agreement they reached, and were genuinely appreciative of each other i was reminded about how great this country could be.  Those 14 individuals represented what a representative republic should be like, a place for statesmen instead of pawns of a political party.  Really, a great night to be an American.

343075[/snapback]

 

 

This is no compromise - just a delay tactic that keeps things quiet(er) until the first Supreme Court nomination is made.

 

BTW - the Republicans tossed in a winning hand - they had no need to compromise

 

McCain may be a war hero but he's no politician

 

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak23.html

[KRC]

This is no compromise - just a delay tactic that keeps things quiet(er) until the first Supreme Court nomination is made.

 

BTW - the Republicans tossed in a winning hand - they had no need to compromise

 

McCain may be a war hero but he's no politician

 

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak23.html

344308[/snapback]

 

All this compromise does is let a couple of judges go through (3 I think). The other 4 can still be filibustered. Some talking heads are saying that the Reps should put those four up for a vote first, to see if the Dems were serious about limiting the use of the filibuster or whether they were just blowing smoke. Not a bad idea for the Reps, but it could force them to use the Constitutional option.

 

In any event, this mess is making Ried and Frist look pretty weak, since the only way things got done was by members of their party breaking ranks in order to compromise. They got something done that the "leadership" was unable to accomplish.

[JimBob2232]

All this compromise does is let a couple of judges go through (3 I think). The other 4 can still be filibustered. Some talking heads are saying that the Reps should put those four up for a vote first, to see if the Dems were serious about limiting the use of the filibuster or whether they were just blowing smoke. Not a bad idea for the Reps, but it could force them to use the Constitutional option.

 

In any event, this mess is making Ried and Frist look pretty weak, since the only way things got done was by members of their party breaking ranks in order to compromise. They got something done that the "leadership" was unable to accomplish.

 

I believe that the agreement also stated that the others would NOT get an up or down vote. If the republicans put them up for a vote, I belive this would be in violation of the agreement and the democrats woudl then be right (not constitutionally...but whatever) to fillibuster. There is also some debate as to whether they would even get the 50 necessary votes to begin with.

 

I agree with frist and reid looking weak. This is because they are. Frist is blowing his presidential aspirations pretty good right now, and Reid is lucky he is in the senate until 2010, because he doesnt have a snowballs chance in Baltimore of winning an election in Nevada right now.

 

We need change in the senate. We need people who dont think they are on top of the world. Look at that press conference. Every one of them thought that they just saved the world and are the most important people on earth. We need representatives of the people in office. Not this bunch of gomers.

 

I think the point being made is that filibustering is not unconstitutional b/c the specific procedure for voting is not written in. Is it unconstitutional if they start the vote-count from Wyden to Akaka rather than Akaka to Wyden? It goes to the Senate Rules that govern the minutia of how a vote is conducted, which is not so much the Constitution. Inside of the S.R. is a provision for a filibuster.

 

IT IS WRITTEN IN! Read the constitution (or my post)! It is there! It specifically states that the senate must advise and consent by way of 2/3 vote for treaties. It then says the senate must advise and consent (with no mention of a 2/3 vote) for judges. Therefore judges need only a majority of votes, or else it would also say 2/3 is required.

 

The senate MUST abide by the constitutional requirements it is founded upon. Show me where the constitution says ANYTHING about going in alphabetical order.

 

I am not completely against the fillibuster. But when the constitution specifically calls out for a majority vote, it cannot be ignored.

[Chilly]

Great great job by the Senators that reached the agreement!

 

This is exaclty what the country needed. Good job.

[JimBob2232]

Great great job by the Senators that reached the agreement!

 

This is exaclty what the country needed. Good job. smile.gif

 

Yeah...if it does anything.

 

About the only thing this agreement does is ensure 3 judges get a vote. After that, the democrats are still free to filibuster any nomination if they deem the circumstance "extreme". For the record, the senate JUST TODAY voted not to close debate on Bolton. This is effectively a filibuster. They will do this again and again until frist pulls his trump card and brings back up the nuclear option. This is not over yet by any means.

[Chilly]

Yeah...if it does anything.

 

About the only thing this agreement does is ensure 3 judges get a vote.  After that, the democrats are still free to filibuster any nomination if they deem the circumstance "extreme".  For the record, the senate JUST TODAY voted not to close debate on Bolton.  This is effectively a filibuster.  They will do this again and again until frist pulls his trump card and brings back up the nuclear option.  This is not over yet by any means.

346110[/snapback]

 

Yeah, I agree there should be an astrick attached to it just like the Dallas Stars Stanley Cup (lol), but seriously, it was a good day for America preventing the majority party from destroying the fillibuster (I say majority party cause if the Dems were in power they woulda done the same thing).

 

Now for tougher Fillibuster rules!

[Campy]

This is not over yet by any means.

346110[/snapback]

Not with tactics like this...

 

According to today's Congress Daily:

"Senate Majority Leader Frist will file for cloture on President Bush’s nomination of William Myers to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later this week, according to sources on and off Capitol Hill, wasting no time in testing the resolve of 14 Republican and Democratic senators who forced at least a temporary halt to the battle over Democratic filibusters of President Bush’s judicial picks."

[JimBob2232]

Not with tactics like this...

 

According to today's Congress Daily:

"Senate Majority Leader Frist will file for cloture on President Bush’s nomination of William Myers to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later this week, according to sources on and off Capitol Hill, wasting no time in testing the resolve of 14 Republican and Democratic senators who forced at least a temporary halt to the battle over Democratic filibusters of President Bush’s judicial picks."

 

What tactics are you referring to campy?

[Campy]

What tactics are you referring to campy?

346132[/snapback]

Sorry for not being clearer. What I meant was that the compromise may not be lasting very long because on Friday, Frist plans on calling for an end to debate and an immediate vote (which is referred to as cloture) on one of the two nominees (William Myers) whose name was supposed to be withdrawn by the GOP (the other is Henry Saad).

[JimBob2232]

Sorry for not being clearer. What I meant was that the compromise may not be lasting very long because on Friday, Frist plans on calling for an end to debate and an immediate vote (which is referred to as cloture) on one of the two nominees (William Myers) whose name was supposed to be withdrawn by the GOP (the other is Henry Saad).

 

Not true. This is a good case for reading the source documents and not relying on what the media or politicans or anyone else says. They agreed not to make a commitment to vote for or against cloture for Myers and Saad.

 

This does not mean they cannot put them up for a cloture vote.

 

The interesting thing will be to see what these 14 do. They are within the bounds of the agreement to filibuster these judges. Though doing so may not be considered an "extraordinary circumstance". I expect these 2 to be filibustered. Though I wouldnt be suprised if 2 or 3 of the democratic signees vote for cloture due to the agreement. They probably wouldnt be confirmed even if they went up for a vote.

 

Here is the full text of the agreement.

 

We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and Democratic Leader Reid. This memorandum confirms an understanding among the signatories, based upon mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future judicial nominations in the 109th Congress.

 

This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the Senate’s Judiciary Committee.

 

We have agreed to the following:

 

Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations

 

A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit).

 

B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit).

 

Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations

 

A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.

 

B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.

 

We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word “Advice” speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President’s power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.

 

Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.

 

We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I see the Senate is back to filibustering in the case of Bolton. Way to get things done, you arseholes!