What are you on about? We live in a representative democracy not a direct one, in case you hadn't noticed, and if my senators filibuster they will be doing what I supported when I voted for them.
What are you on about? We live in a representative democracy not a direct one, in case you hadn't noticed, and if my senators filibuster they will be doing what I supported when I voted for them.
So you support denying 55% of the population their right to representation? In principle this hardly sounds different than striking people off the voter rolls.
Utterly disingenuous and diversionary, as usual, from zendari. There are a wide variety of candidates who could easily obtain 60 votes in a confirmation scenario, as Dems have illustrated over 200 times during Bush's tenure, confirming over 95% of his judicial nominees. That's bipartisanship, whereas demanding 100% like petulant children definitely isn't...
Which is, unfortunately, one of the byproducts of wingnut fringe leadership in the Repub party...
Which is, unfortunately, one of the byproducts of wingnut fringe leadership in the Repub party...
The more extreme the conservative bias, the quicker the reaction. Let the republican party push America to the right, it will only hasten the inevitable swing back.
Most of those that were quickly confimed were for the lower counrts. Most of the appointments to the higher courts are the ones tha ones the dems wanted to stop.
If the candidate was truly on the fringe, he/she wouldn't get the votes required. What are you afraid of?
From zendari-
"If the candidate was truly on the fringe, he/she wouldn't get the votes required. What are you afraid of?"
It's called Party discipline. As it is, if the candidate weren't fringe, then they'd have no trouble getting 60 votes, either, which would indicate a strong consensus in their favor. Which is really what we need in the court system, to maintain the credibility of the ultimate arbiters of justice in our country.
Here's something I composed elsewhere, pretty much sums it up-
Quite frankly, I see it as a mark of poor character for any appointee to take the offered position if Senate rules have to be broken to put him there... If that wouldn't make one feel ... dirty, I don't know what would...
Partisanship is all fine and good, but at some point or another, it's really the duty of the Senate to arrive at true consensus, particularly wrt legacy lifetime appointments. Nor does it matter to me which party is in power wrt this issue- if any nominee can't muster 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, then they don't meet that consensus threshold, and should rightfully be rejected for the good of the country as a whole...
Somewhere here, it seems to me that the meaning of the term "Conservative" has been lost, when the "Conservative" leadership is willing to discard the rules and throw out decades of precedence just to have their own way, right now, and to saddle the country with ideologues in permanent tenure in the court system... doesn't seem very "conservative" to me, at all...
"If the candidate was truly on the fringe, he/she wouldn't get the votes required. What are you afraid of?"
It's called Party discipline. As it is, if the candidate weren't fringe, then they'd have no trouble getting 60 votes, either, which would indicate a strong consensus in their favor. Which is really what we need in the court system, to maintain the credibility of the ultimate arbiters of justice in our country.
Here's something I composed elsewhere, pretty much sums it up-
Quite frankly, I see it as a mark of poor character for any appointee to take the offered position if Senate rules have to be broken to put him there... If that wouldn't make one feel ... dirty, I don't know what would...
Partisanship is all fine and good, but at some point or another, it's really the duty of the Senate to arrive at true consensus, particularly wrt legacy lifetime appointments. Nor does it matter to me which party is in power wrt this issue- if any nominee can't muster 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, then they don't meet that consensus threshold, and should rightfully be rejected for the good of the country as a whole...
Somewhere here, it seems to me that the meaning of the term "Conservative" has been lost, when the "Conservative" leadership is willing to discard the rules and throw out decades of precedence just to have their own way, right now, and to saddle the country with ideologues in permanent tenure in the court system... doesn't seem very "conservative" to me, at all...
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,402
- 8,574
- 126
no one really cares what a lower court judge does. because a lower court judge has to follow the decisions of courts above them. and even fewer people actually care about circuit court judges, because 1 extremist there is counterbalanced by the two others that have to sit for every case, and the potential for en banc. the real enchilada is the SC.
When did this new 60 vote rule come up? It wasn't in place 10 years ago thats for sure.
Roberts is your consensus nonfringe candidate, and yet you still have the NARAL radicals opposing his nomination even before it was officially announced!
BTW, if you want to know which party blindly toes the party line, lets take a look back at theClinton impeachment trial. Hint: it wasn't the republicans.
Frist being a wimp.
More diversions, zendari? figures...
The current 3/5 filibuster rule has been in place since 1975, and, prior to that it was 2/3, dating from 1917...
It still requires 2/3 to change the rules of the Senate, which have been formulated under the constitutional mandate to do so...
http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule22.htm
Depending on which polls you believe, it seems that only a minority or a small minority of Americans want to outlaw abortion- the proposition definitely doesn't have majority support. NARAL activists are rightfully concerned about Roberts, and certainly have the right to protest. At least they don't try to block access or murder providers, unlike some of their opponents from the other side... Nor do they attempt to represent themselves as something they aren't...
The current 3/5 filibuster rule has been in place since 1975, and, prior to that it was 2/3, dating from 1917...
It still requires 2/3 to change the rules of the Senate, which have been formulated under the constitutional mandate to do so...
http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule22.htm
Depending on which polls you believe, it seems that only a minority or a small minority of Americans want to outlaw abortion- the proposition definitely doesn't have majority support. NARAL activists are rightfully concerned about Roberts, and certainly have the right to protest. At least they don't try to block access or murder providers, unlike some of their opponents from the other side... Nor do they attempt to represent themselves as something they aren't...
And before that that the filibuster did not exist at all. There is nothing in the constitution about requiring the senate to have a filibuster. Also there there are many items in senate business that a filibuster cannot be used on. ANd look at the grand history of the filibuster to see what it was used for. Its history is far from noble.
Sorry moon, I hate to inform you but we live in both. Yes we elect those who in return, supposedly have in the best interest of the electorate. However, we also enact laws/propositions locally in the form of a ballot box.
holding up/stalling != taking over the government.
so why are you so opposed to it? Filibustering is legal, is ethical, and is part of government. Get over it.
why does you're sig say
" Un-BAN Ultra-Quiet
Un-BAN Shinerburke"
a pair that were permabanned long before you registered?
if you remember, it was BUSH'S appeal to the us supreme court that stopped the florida count and overturned florida law.
or maybe allow moderates to be appointed.... you know, people who actually represent americans....
The only problem is that those that strictly interpret the constitution are not usually considered moderates.
That is BS. The President would have to pick candidates more acceptable to a broader cross-section of society.
You're dead wrong, Charrison. Prior to 1917, unanimous consent was required to end a filibuster-
"Between 1841, when the filibuster was first utilized by Sen. John C. Calhoun to protect slaveholding interests, and 1916, when Sen. Robert LaFollette used it to block legislation that would have authorized merchant ships to arm themselves against unlawful attacks by German U-boats before the United States entered World War I, unanimous consent was required to end a filibuster. During that time, there were nearly a dozen proposals to restore the "motion for the previous question" rule or a cloture rule, but Sen. LaFollette's filibuster was the last straw: In 1917, the Senate adopted the first cloture rule, providing that debate could be ended by a vote of 2/3 of the senators present and voting."
From here-
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-eastman051503.asp
Not that I agree with the sentiment of the article, in general, but the historical aspects are entirely accurate...
With few exceptions, we've functioned rather nicely having the filibuster rule in place, which actually dates from as early as 1806...
"Between 1841, when the filibuster was first utilized by Sen. John C. Calhoun to protect slaveholding interests, and 1916, when Sen. Robert LaFollette used it to block legislation that would have authorized merchant ships to arm themselves against unlawful attacks by German U-boats before the United States entered World War I, unanimous consent was required to end a filibuster. During that time, there were nearly a dozen proposals to restore the "motion for the previous question" rule or a cloture rule, but Sen. LaFollette's filibuster was the last straw: In 1917, the Senate adopted the first cloture rule, providing that debate could be ended by a vote of 2/3 of the senators present and voting."
From here-
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-eastman051503.asp
Not that I agree with the sentiment of the article, in general, but the historical aspects are entirely accurate...
With few exceptions, we've functioned rather nicely having the filibuster rule in place, which actually dates from as early as 1806...
Right Uh Huh. The SC has a profound effect on our society. They need to be vetted on all their characteristics not just one.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 393
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter