Republicans Attack Filibuster

[kmack]

Source

Bill Frist, Dick (coincidence, i think not) Cheney, The President etc are going to bypass the filibusters of dems and do whatever the hell they want to get bible toting ultra conservative judge nominations passed. US business doesnt like it, dems dont like it, lady justice doesnt like it, and I sure as hell don't like it. How do you feel?

 

[seinfeldrules]

The Dems were playing dirty, now the Republicans are striking back. An eye for an eye as the saying goes.

 

[Razor]

The Dems were playing dirty, now the Republicans are striking back. An eye for an eye as the saying goes.

So you're basically saying that the US political system is about as fair and as comical as wwf wrestling?

 

[kmack]

The Dems were playing dirty, now the Republicans are striking back. An eye for an eye as the saying goes.

how exactly were the dems playing dirty? filibusters have long been a part of the US government on BOTH sides (a republican holds the longest one strom thurmond fighting AGAINST segregation i believe), many republicans, all independents, are against this.

 

[seinfeldrules]

how exactly were the dems playing dirty? filibusters have long been a part of the US government on BOTH sides (a republican holds the longest one strom thurmond fighting AGAINST segregation i believe), many republicans, all independents, are against this.

If everyone is against it, who is voting for it? The Dems wouldnt allow any of Bush's nominations to be put out, that is playing dirty. This new bill wouldnt totally outlaw fillibusters, it would only come into effect for Judicial nominees.

So you're basically saying that the US political system is about as fair and as comical as wwf wrestling?

No, I'm saying that both parties arent acting all that reasonable.

 

[kmack]

If everyone is against it, who is voting for it? The Dems wouldnt allow any of Bush's nominations to be put out, that is playing dirty. This new bill wouldnt totally outlaw fillibusters, it would only come into effect for Judicial nominees.


No, I'm saying that both parties arent acting all that reasonable.

ultra right wing republicans (of whom there are many) the ones who feel that dems are attacking faith (ugh). ie frist.

i agree with you that neither party is acting responsibly, but i dont think this is going to help.

 

[No Limit]

The Dems wouldnt allow any of Bush's nominations to be put out, that is playing dirty. This new bill wouldnt totally outlaw fillibusters, it would only come into effect for Judicial nominees.

OH...MY...****ING...GOD!!!!

Do you guys have any desire to actually say anything truthful. 90% of Bush's judicial nominies have been confirmed. Republicans, under Clinton, blocked 4 times as many as democrats are blocking now. Many of the ones democrats are trying to block were deemed unqualified by numerous members of The American Bar Association. Give me a break. Read up on what the Republicans were doing:

http://democrats.senate.gov/~dpc/pubs/107-2-285.html

They blocked 60; I believe this time around the democrats only want to block 20. So who did you say wasn't playing fair? If you recall the democrats didn't try to change the rules simply because things weren't going 100% how they wanted them to, Republicans are trying to and this is not the first time they did this (they changed rules for the ethics committee to save Delay).

With those facts said I want you to give me one good reason the filibuster should be removed.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Well if you could back that 90% figure up I might be willing to listen.

 

[Razor]

No, I'm saying that both parties arent acting all that reasonable.

So you're basically saying they're acting like children then?

I think it is about time that someone started to take responsibility for their actions in America, as it appears that the present government isn't and if you're saying that the previous government didn't, then who will?

 

[No Limit]

Well if you could back that 90% figure up I might be willing to listen.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4575047

The president's nominees to the district court level of the federal system have not been blocked. The conflict has come at the next level, the appeals court level, which is the intermediary step between trial courts and the U.S. Supreme Court. President Bush has had 57 nominees for the U.S. Court of Appeals. Five never received hearings. Of the 52 who did, 42 have been confirmed, but 10 were blocked by Democrats' use of the filibuster to prevent a floor vote. Three of these nominees subsequently withdrew from consideration, but seven others have returned for renomination in the current Congress.

The above doesn't take in to account all the nominees which have all been confirmed but just in the appeals level 80% have been confirmed (42/52).

When Clinton was in office Republicans wouldn't give a vote to 40 of his court of appeals nominees.

Also take note of

The president's nominees to the district court level of the federal system have not been blocked.

Now, I know you said you would listen but for some reason I doubt you will take off your partisan glasses on this.

 

[kmack]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4575047



The above doesn't take in to account all the nominees which have all been confirmed but just in the appeals level 80% have been confirmed (42/52).

When Clinton was in office Republicans wouldn't give a vote to 40 of his court of appeals nominees.

Now, I know you said you would listen but for some reason I doubt you will take off your partisan glasses on this.

and they didnt attack filibustering :hmph:

this all boils down to religion, and assholes who can't live without imposing their fantasy beliefs on all who disagree. They want to put in these nominees to support faith based crap. Republicans need them in their posts so they can tear down the walls between church and state, so the republicans will do anything to get them into their seats, including this outrageious breach of power.

 

[No Limit]

and they didnt attack filibustering :hmph:

this all boils down to religion, and assholes who can't live without imposing their fantasy beliefs on all who disagree. They want to put in these nominees to support faith based crap. Republicans need them in their posts so they can tear down the walls between church and state, so the republicans will do anything to get them into their seats, including this outrageious breach of power.

Well, you forget, if things are going their way the rules are all fair. If things aren't going their way simply change the rules and say the democrats are corrupt and don't play by the rules; simple as that.

seinfeldrules said he would listen if I could back the figure up, I wonder where he suddenly went to. (Finding a way to spin that on Google must be taking a long time) :dozey:

 

[seinfeldrules]

seinfeldrules said he would listen if I could back the figure up, I wonder where he suddenly went to. (Finding a way to spin that on Google must be taking a long time)

Excuse me for playing CS. I didnt know you were my mother and I had to tell you every place I go.

And on your information, it doesnt explain how badly Bush wanted those 10 nominees. They could have been more important to him then the other ones. Also, are the judges at that level the ones who can be nominated for a Supreme Court position? Again, neither side is acting responsible (as usual).

 

[seinfeldrules]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/15/republicans.filibusters.ap/

This seemed to give a fairly objective look at the situation.

 

[No Limit]

Excuse me for playing CS. I didnt know you were my mother and I had to tell you every place I go.

And on your information, it doesnt explain how badly Bush wanted those 10 nominees. They could have been more important to him then the other ones. Also, are the judges at that level the ones who can be nominated for a Supreme Court position? Again, neither side is acting responsible (as usual).

OMG!

You are the saddest partisan hack out there. So your explaination for Republicans blocking 4 times more nominations than democrats to the EXACT SAME JUDICIAL CURCUIT is that Bush's were more important (because they are more conservative)? You are kidding, right?

Again, neither side is acting responsible (as usual).

Bullshit. When the facts are against you you say that democrats are just as corrupt as you guys are. No, I pointed out this is not the case. The democrats didn't try to change the rules when they had majority and they certainly didn't block nearly as many of those nominees. So yes, Republicans are corrupt but you need to try again on democrats as your facts don't match up.

 

[No Limit]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/15/republicans.filibusters.ap/

This seemed to give a fairly objective look at the situation.

That article has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, I have no idea why you posted it. I am waiting for you to defend the filibuster after I posted the facts or I want you to admit it is wrong to remove it, after all, you did say you would listen.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Seems you left out a few points.

Under Senate rules, at least 60 votes are needed to cut off floor debate -- known as cloture. To keep a filibuster going, Democrats need just 41 senators to vote against a cloture motion.

Most of the time it's merely the Democratic threat of a filibuster that keeps GOP leaders from bringing a judicial nomination to the floor for a vote.

Democrats have blocked 10 of Bush's 52 appeals court nominations through filibuster threats, while allowing the confirmation of 34 others.

To change the rules, Frist needs a simple majority in the 100-member Senate. He can get that by mustering 50 votes and bringing in Vice President Dick Cheney as the tiebreaker in his capacity as president of the Senate under the Constitution.

The Senate has 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and one independent. But a half-dozen GOP senators either have said they oppose or have refused to support changing the rules.

Frist's plan has been dubbed the "nuclear option" because Democrats have promised to retaliate by blocking the rest of Bush's legislative agenda -- excluding spending and highway bills and national security measures.

His supporters call it the "constitutional option," saying the forefathers never intended to let a minority of the Senate block a president's choices for judgeships.

They have said they plan to keep blocking those 10 if they are brought up for confirmation again, and will block other nominees they consider to be too conservative.

 

[No Limit]

Seems you left out a few points.

What the hell are you talking about? You are grasping at straws. Address my point of the fact that you guys are trying to change the rules saying we aren't playing by the rules by blocking only 10 of the nominees when you guys blocked 40, 4 times as many.

 

[CptStern]

if you want to shut up a republican just wave this in front of his face ...that'll shut him up real quick

 

[seinfeldrules]

What the hell are you talking about? You are grasping at straws. Address my point of the fact that you guys are trying to change the rules saying we aren't playing by the rules by blocking only 10 of the nominees when you guys blocked 40, 4 times as many.

Yes, but those ten seem to be the nominations Bush wants more. The article goes on to state that Republicans dont even bother attempting to bring up many canidates because of the mere threat of a filibuster. And were Clinton's nominations blocked through filibusters?

PS Stern reported for spam. Completely off topic.

 

[No Limit]

if you want to shut up a republican just wave this in front of his face ...that'll shut him up real quick

I just find it funny how he can't give me 1 single reason (that isn't hypocrtical) to stop the filibuster; yet he supports it and will continue to support it. A typical republican in a nut shell.

 

[No Limit]

Yes, but those ten seem to be the nominations Bush wants more. The article goes on to state that Republicans dont even bother attempting to bring up many canidates because of the mere threat of a filibuster. And were Clinton's nominations blocked through filibusters?

PS Stern reported for spam. Completely off topic.

Again, you are grasping at straws. All judges do the exact same thing when they are in the exact same circuit. To say they are more important to Bush is completely idiotic as the Clinton nominees Republicans blocked were clearly the most important to Clition. I have no idea where you are trying to go with this.

No Clinton's weren't blocked through filibusters, but do you know why? Becuase Republicans wouldn't even allow confirmation hearings on them; the democrats at least allowed this. Your point is getting weaker with every partisan post you make.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Mitchell also said, "The Senate's power to confirm or reject judicial nominations balances the president's authority to nominate them," and he is right. That is why the Senate is suppose to vote on judicial nominees! Does the former Senator realize that the Senate has not been allowed to confirm or reject Bush's nominees because the Democrats are not even letting them be voted on?

The system of checks and balances involves the nomination of judges by the President and the consent of the Senate by a vote. When a minority of Senator prevent such a vote from happening that is not checks and balances, that is tyranny of the minority.

......

Becuase Republicans wouldn't even allow confirmation hearings on them; the democrats at least allowed this.

Is there any difference really? They allow the hearing, but dont let it continue. And do you support the onging filibusters that the Dems are using?

 

[kmack]

Yes, but those ten seem to be the nominations Bush wants more. The article goes on to state that Republicans dont even bother attempting to bring up many canidates because of the mere threat of a filibuster. And were Clinton's nominations blocked through filibusters?

PS Stern reported for spam. Completely off topic.

wow, you are disgusting, is there a mute feature on this, you were so blatantly destroyed by no limit, every straw you grabbed at was more ridiculous than the first and yet no limit refuted them, so now you pull this?

regardless of the type of block clinton took NO action like this to help ensure they get in.

 

[seinfeldrules]

wow, you are disgusting, is there a mute feature on this, you were so blatantly destroyed by no limit, every straw you grabbed at was more ridiculous than the first and yet no limit refuted them, so now you pull this?

Hmmm, thats a real constructive argument you have going on! So unless you want to add something, and stop trying to suck up, then I suggest you stop posting in this thread.

 

[No Limit]

......


Is there any difference really? They allow the hearing, but dont let it continue. And do you support the onging filibusters that the Dems are using?

Are you done? Everything you are posting has absolutely nothing to do with what I am saying. The republicans did the exact same thing Democrats are doing now but they did it on a MUCH larger scale. And no, there is no difference, that is exactly my point.

 

[Bodacious]

if you want to shut up a republican just wave this in front of his face ...that'll shut him up real quick

Why would republicans care about what happened primarily during the Clinton years?

 

[kmack]

Hmmm, thats a real constructive argument you have going on!

sadly enough, it is much, much more constructive than your argumentative garbage. and im reporting you for spam for that :thumbs:

 

[seinfeldrules]

Are you done? Everything you are posting has absolutely nothing to do with what I am saying. The republicans did the exact same thing Democrats are doing now but they did it on a MUCH larger scale. And no, there is no difference, that is exactly my point.

......

And do you support the onging filibusters that the Dems are using?

sadly enough, it is much, much more constructive than your argumentative garbage. and im reporting you for spam for that

See, I'm actually debating. You're just trying to stir shit up. Again, unless you want to try and act civil then leave the thread alone. Didnt one ban teach you anything? Nobody was going down these wild paths until you and stern decided to show up.

 

[No Limit]

......

Again, that has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

But, yes, obviously I do. I do not think any activist judge should be nominated, be it on the republican or democrat side especially when that judge is deemed unqualified by a number of members of the Bar Association.

And again you are grasping at straws by trying to shift the topic, I showed you how hypocritical the Republicans are and how corrupt they are by trying to change the rules when the rules aren't going their way. Anything else you try to throw at me is irrelevant so cut it out already.

 

[seinfeldrules]

But, yes, obviously I do.

Do you agree with the Republican blocking of judges during Clinton's administration? (Yes/No)

 

[No Limit]

Do you agree with the Republican blocking of judges during Clinton's administration? (Yes/No)

Ok, forget it, you are trying to go completely the other way. I was not around that time when it comes to politics and I have no clue why those judges were blocked. Frankly I won't waste my time to look it up now as that is irrelevant to what I am telling you anyway. I want you to admit you are wrong on the filibuster or I want you to refute the facts I gave you (remember this started when you said Democrats blocked ALL the nominations). So be a man and stand up for what is right, not for what your political party wants you to stand up for. I'm not going to waste my time with playing these spinning games.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Ok, forget it, you are trying to go completely the other way. I was not around that time when it comes to politics and I have no clue why those judges were blocked. Frankly I won't waste my time to look it up now as that is irrelevant to what I am telling you anyway. I want you to admit you are wrong on the filibuster or I want you to refute the facts I gave you (remember this started when you said Democrats blocked ALL the nominations). So be a man and stand up for what is right, not for what your political party wants you to stand up for.

Heh, I never said I supported the Republican blockings of nominees, and if I did then I apologize. I dont think either party should have used these methods. And I didnt expect an answer from you. People accuse me all the time of being hugely biased (I think you did), but then can never respond to questions like I posed above.

 

[No Limit]

Heh, I never said I supported the Republican blockings of nominees, and if I did then I apologize. I dont think either party should have used these methods. And I didnt expect an answer from you. People accuse me all the time of being hugely biased (I think you did), but then can never respond to questions like I posed above.

Ok so you admit Republicans are a bunch of lying, hypocritical, bastards that don't play by the rules. Cool, if you concede that I will be happy to go on and discuss the filibuster with you, though I might not get to it until monday as I will be leaving work in about 20 minutes.

 

[CptStern]

Hmmm, thats a real constructive argument you have going on! So unless you want to add something, and stop trying to suck up, then I suggest you stop posting in this thread.

post reported ..has nothing to do with the thread






nah ...even I'm not that anal

 

[No Limit]

Heh, I never said I supported the Republican blockings of nominees, and if I did then I apologize. I dont think either party should have used these methods.

So if a party has control by 2 members (remember republicans control it only by 5 members) that would mean that they only have the support of 55% of the country (not techincally but stay with me). That means that the president can appoint any judge he wants, no matter how unqualified, how activist, and how against the constitution that judge is and the minority party (a minority by only 2-4 people) can't do anything to stop it? You do understand that federal judges are appointed for life and can never be removed, right? This is why you can't leave something so important up to a single party that happens to have control those 2 years those judges were appointed. The political landscape will probably change in 06 (I'm hoping) and another party will probably have power, those judges will be there for life. BTW: Democrats tend to block only the most extreme judges; Republicans as I pointed out use this all the time and use other measures to not vote for a nominee for years.

So lets flip the tables. In 08 a democrat wins and democrats gain control of senate by 1 senator. Does that mean the president then can appoint 100 ultra liberal activist judges that are against abortion, against prayer in school, against christmas, against whatever and the Republicans have no right to stop that?

BTW, I would like you to reply to my above post and concede as I will not discuss this further until that is cleared up; I am sick of people shifting the topic in this political threads so they don't have to admit anything.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Ok so you admit Republicans are a bunch of lying, hypocritical, bastards.

So long as we agree that Democrats are a bunch of lying, hypocritical bastards.

Cool, if you concede that I will be happy to go on and discuss the filibuster with you, though I might not get to it until monday as I will be leaving work in about 20 minutes.

Forget it, I'm out too. Got a nice cruise coming up.

 

[No Limit]

So long as we agree that Democrats are a bunch of lying, hypocritical bastards.

No, you have to first show me facts to back that up. Everything I posted disproves what you just said, the Democrats didn't try to change the rules and the Democrats allowed most votes to take place and they confirmed most of the judges. The Republicans haven't.

Also you eighter agree with my claim or you don't; there is no such think as I'll agree with it only if you agree with this. That would clearly mean you don't really agree with it. So ignore my post on the filibuster until we get this cleared up, I'm sick of letting you guys slide on these things when you are clearly in the wrong and don't have any facts to show otherwise.

 

[seinfeldrules]

BTW, I would like you to reply to my above post and concede as I will not discuss this further until that is cleared up; I am sick of people shifting the topic in this political threads so they don't have to admit anything.

You never answered my question either...
However, I will admit that my assumption of all nominees being blocked was wrong.

So if a party has control by 2 members (remember republicans control it only by 5 members) that would mean that they only have the support of 55% of the country (not techincally but stay with me). That means that the president can appoint any judge he wants, no matter how unqualified, how activist, and how against the constitution that judge is and the minority party (a minority by only 2-4 people) can't do anything to stop it?

It needs a 60/40 split, not a 50/50 split. If 45% of the country disagreed they would be within the limits you defined. (55/45)

So lets flip the tables. In 08 a democrat wins and democrats gain control of senate by 1 senator. Does that mean the president then can appoint 100 ultra liberal activist judges that are against abortion, against prayer in school, against christmas, against whatever and the Republicans have no right to stop that?

Again, 60/40 split. Also, if they nominate people too extreme then their chances of being relected would be null. That is everything to a politican.

nah ...even I'm not that anal

Stern seriously, its every thread with you. Save your links for threads when they're relevant rather than using them in an attempt to incite people.

 

[seinfeldrules]

No, you have to first show me facts to back that up. Everything I posted disproves what you just said, the Democrats didn't try to change the rules and the Democrats allowed most votes to take place and they confirmed most of the judges. The Republicans haven't.

They're still picking and choosing who Bush can nominate to the Senate. I dont think that Republicans are any worse than Democrats.