It's not a diversion. Judges, even for the Supreme Court, have been confirmed in the past with less than 60 votes. The idea that 60 votes are required for confirmation has no support in precedent.
As for abortion, the left has successfully duped the public into thinking overturning RvW outlaws abortion, when it actually hands it to the states. The majority of americans support restrictions on abortion, such as the PBA ban that the liberal courts shot down.
He should answer the same questions that the Dems answered in 1994. Nothing more.
please don't take the rest of us for fools. You know just as well as the rest of us what would happen if roe v wade were overturned.
Thanks, but we were talking about our elected representatives, the Senate, regarding Supreme Court confirmations, not how we conduct local elections.
From zendari-
"It's not a diversion. Judges, even for the Supreme Court, have been confirmed in the past with less than 60 votes. The idea that 60 votes are required for confirmation has no support in precedent."
While that's true, it's also utterly misleading. No appointment has ever been made over 40 votes that were in opposition to closing debate, either, which is really the issue at hand... Filibustering judicial nominees is nothing new. When the threat was made wrt the Fortas nomination to chief justice, Johnson withdrew it, and Frist et al attempted to filibuster the Paez nomination during the Clinton presidency, but didn't have the votes... I suspect that the threat of filibuster has tempered many presidents' choice of nominees at times in the past, too.
Hatch allowed unlimited blue-slipping during the Clinton term, a long standing Senate tradition, but promptly abolished the practice when Bush entered the Whitehouse... He also refused to even convene the judiciary committee for over six months, essentially denying many Clinton nominees that up or down vote. Those people never got into committee, let alone out of it...
Yeh, the truth hurts, particularly when there's been a tremendous amount of time and effort expended attempting to avoid it...
I certainly hope that nobody here is suggesting that a SCOTUS justice confirmed by a 51-49 vote would be good for the country, or would serve to bolster respect for the judiciary or the law- far from it. Given the way that the Senate is elected, the minority of Senators could easily represent a majority of citizens in such a scenario... Whatever happened to that "uniter, not a divider" routine, anyway?
"It's not a diversion. Judges, even for the Supreme Court, have been confirmed in the past with less than 60 votes. The idea that 60 votes are required for confirmation has no support in precedent."
While that's true, it's also utterly misleading. No appointment has ever been made over 40 votes that were in opposition to closing debate, either, which is really the issue at hand... Filibustering judicial nominees is nothing new. When the threat was made wrt the Fortas nomination to chief justice, Johnson withdrew it, and Frist et al attempted to filibuster the Paez nomination during the Clinton presidency, but didn't have the votes... I suspect that the threat of filibuster has tempered many presidents' choice of nominees at times in the past, too.
Hatch allowed unlimited blue-slipping during the Clinton term, a long standing Senate tradition, but promptly abolished the practice when Bush entered the Whitehouse... He also refused to even convene the judiciary committee for over six months, essentially denying many Clinton nominees that up or down vote. Those people never got into committee, let alone out of it...
Yeh, the truth hurts, particularly when there's been a tremendous amount of time and effort expended attempting to avoid it...
I certainly hope that nobody here is suggesting that a SCOTUS justice confirmed by a 51-49 vote would be good for the country, or would serve to bolster respect for the judiciary or the law- far from it. Given the way that the Senate is elected, the minority of Senators could easily represent a majority of citizens in such a scenario... Whatever happened to that "uniter, not a divider" routine, anyway?
judasmachine
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2002
- 8,515
- 3
- 81
what happens when another justice dies/retires/gets caught with whores/whatever and there is a dem in office and a dem dominated congress? the repubs will filibuster anything and everything they can.
I am not going to read all these posts. I think the reason we as a nation are in such poor shape is because we use a two party system. There needs to be more discussion on stuff. Also there needs to be less block voting. Perhaps I am nieve, but I thought the reason people were elected was to help their constituants back home. How can most of the republicans and most of the democrats see so many issues the same way? What happend in Washington that everything is so manufactured. Government is supposed to be a slow process. Whatever happend to individuality? Freedom of expression? Freedom of choice? I wish I was rich. I would run ads asking the American people to wake up. Something new needs to take place. Perhaps a third party or something. Campaign finance reform or public funding of candidates. There are more than two sides of an issue.
A problem I have with a couple of the opinions expressed in this thread is this; According to some of you, it's "wrong" for 51% to hold sway over the remaining 49%. According to others, to resolve this you support a filibuster. But isn't a Filibuster, 49% holding sway over the 51%?
Is that not _more_ wrong than the narrow majority holding sway over the narrow minority?
Is that not _more_ wrong than the narrow majority holding sway over the narrow minority?
Yeh, right, zendari. Thomas was confirmed only because of some unanticipated last minute vote switching, nominated only because of Republican penchant for uncle Tom tokenism, and successful at all only because of affirmative action programs, which he opposes. Compared to the towering intellect of Thurgood Marshall, whom he replaced, Thomas doesn't have the brainpower to actually dissent from his conservative white brethren, let alone come up with anything remotely insightful or original. He functions as a third vote rubberstamp in support of Scalia and Rehnquist, rarely as anything more.
Your reference to Senate tradition is also extremely disingenuous. Prior to the Bush presidency, the only known examples of judicial filibuster attempts or threats were from Republicans- Frist being the unsuccessful architect of one. It's also important to remember that the Republican majority during the Clinton years was very slim, and that Repub members had greater freedom to vote their consciences under Lott's leadership. Clinton nominees who made it out of committee were usually confirmed, despite Hatch's efforts to prevent it... You also choose to rather pointedly ignore the change in blue-slipping policy now in effect- Janice Rogers Brown's nomination would never have made it past two Democratic Senators from California, just as one example.
Basically, what you're saying is that tradition is good, when it works to your own partisan advantage, but bad when it doesn't.... That's "Conservative"?
Senate Dems had to draw the line somewhere. They've provided Bush with the most expeditious and favorable judicial confirmation process afforded to any modern president, over 95%, with each and every person confirmed obviously being conservative, good Republicans every one. In response to their cooperation, Bush nominated fringe ideologues to the highest vacancies available, which his congressional cronies attempted to ram down the throats of the Dems.
Perhaps Roberts' nomination signals a new direction, God knows the Admin has created enough of their own problems on other fronts. Given the record, unfortunately, it seems more likely that the whole deal is a Trojan Horse routine. It seems to good to be true, something that Dems have learned to expect all too often when dealing with the Bushistas...
Your reference to Senate tradition is also extremely disingenuous. Prior to the Bush presidency, the only known examples of judicial filibuster attempts or threats were from Republicans- Frist being the unsuccessful architect of one. It's also important to remember that the Republican majority during the Clinton years was very slim, and that Repub members had greater freedom to vote their consciences under Lott's leadership. Clinton nominees who made it out of committee were usually confirmed, despite Hatch's efforts to prevent it... You also choose to rather pointedly ignore the change in blue-slipping policy now in effect- Janice Rogers Brown's nomination would never have made it past two Democratic Senators from California, just as one example.
Basically, what you're saying is that tradition is good, when it works to your own partisan advantage, but bad when it doesn't.... That's "Conservative"?
Senate Dems had to draw the line somewhere. They've provided Bush with the most expeditious and favorable judicial confirmation process afforded to any modern president, over 95%, with each and every person confirmed obviously being conservative, good Republicans every one. In response to their cooperation, Bush nominated fringe ideologues to the highest vacancies available, which his congressional cronies attempted to ram down the throats of the Dems.
Perhaps Roberts' nomination signals a new direction, God knows the Admin has created enough of their own problems on other fronts. Given the record, unfortunately, it seems more likely that the whole deal is a Trojan Horse routine. It seems to good to be true, something that Dems have learned to expect all too often when dealing with the Bushistas...
Even if this is true, which I doubt, why is abortion around when the majority of the states outright disapprove of it? There is no mention of a right to abortion in the constitution.
Nice fact twisting. As ElFenix nicely put it, noname judges on lower courts aren't really important, unless you're trying to make excuses for the Democrats. The Republicans were very open with Clintons higher nominees.
BTW, Thomas voted against Rehnquist 24% of the time. But I suppose its typical for leftists to dismiss people who they think are conservative as "unintellectual". Back to what I said, the left is afraid of Democracry (when it doesn't go their way anyway) and try to change the rules in the middle of the game.
Ah yes any black man who has risen to a position is only there because of affirmative action. You fail to acknoloedge that Thomas dissents from the conservative block about as often as the liberals dissent from their block on the court.
You once again ignore the fact that the lowe courts is where the 95% numbers comes from. Most positions of power on the higher court the dems attempted to filibuster.
Well when it comes to trojan hourse, the republicans have not good luck with those. Souter, kennedy and Oconnor we all supposed to be conservative, but yet they were not. This is probably why the dems are happy. That being said, if conservative was nominated for the courts, the dems would be in a uproar because a conservative is out of the mainstream, but it is the dems who keep losing elections.
Your partisan petticoats are showing, zendari- the only rule changes proposed and/or in effect at the present are at the hands of Republicans...
Here's Thomas' bio-
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/legal_entity/106/biography
He rides in on the basis of affirmative action, then tries to shoot the horse so nobody else can use it...
You forgot to mention that his disagreements with Scalia are even rarer than those with Rehnquist... he still averages ~80% between the two, and only rarely issues an opinion subscribed to and endorsed by the majority...
And you, charrison, employ the usual right fringe type of definition wrt who's "conservative" and who's not- none of the justices you mention are liberal at all, they're just less right wing than those idolized on the fringe... none of them even approach the viewpoint of Bill Douglas, for example. The chart linked by zendari, above, shows just how far out in the weeds your assessment of Kennedy really is, for example...
The political situation you reference is more the result of rightfringe candidates riding a wave of Whitehouse generated hysteria and fearmongering, along with a lot of misrepresentation of their views as more centrist than their record shows... Don't forget the "God, Guns And Gays" chant from the Texas slime machine, either...
As for Roberts, he's definitely conservative, just how much so remains to be seen.
Here's Thomas' bio-
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/legal_entity/106/biography
He rides in on the basis of affirmative action, then tries to shoot the horse so nobody else can use it...
You forgot to mention that his disagreements with Scalia are even rarer than those with Rehnquist... he still averages ~80% between the two, and only rarely issues an opinion subscribed to and endorsed by the majority...
And you, charrison, employ the usual right fringe type of definition wrt who's "conservative" and who's not- none of the justices you mention are liberal at all, they're just less right wing than those idolized on the fringe... none of them even approach the viewpoint of Bill Douglas, for example. The chart linked by zendari, above, shows just how far out in the weeds your assessment of Kennedy really is, for example...
The political situation you reference is more the result of rightfringe candidates riding a wave of Whitehouse generated hysteria and fearmongering, along with a lot of misrepresentation of their views as more centrist than their record shows... Don't forget the "God, Guns And Gays" chant from the Texas slime machine, either...
As for Roberts, he's definitely conservative, just how much so remains to be seen.
ANd my poinst still stands about there is nothing in the constitution requiring the senate to have a filibuster.
Affirmative action has served its purpose and needs to be dismanted. If affirmative action is continued there will always be a cloud over minorites that are succesfull. The left seems to have no problem painting that cloud as often as possible on those minorites that have done well in life.
They are conservative and I am not surprised they vote together. Is renquest less of a judge than scalia because they vote together at about the same rate as thomas?
Actually god guns and gays came from dean if memory serves me correctly.
From charrison-
"Actually god guns and gays came from dean if memory serves me correctly."
Hardly. He was just the first politician who used the terms in the context of southern election strategy, adding Race as well...
Republicans have been exploiting the whole deal since 1968, with their southern strategy, really just a variant of old-time Dixiecrat pontifications... with Strom Thurmond leading the way into the Republican camp... Resentment against Dems for the civil rights and antiwar movements of the 60's still determine the outcome of most elections south of the mason-dixon, whether people recognize it or not... All it takes to win is to denounce your opponent as a baby killer, a bible confiscator, a f@ggot/osama lover and a gun grabber to move ahead to electoral glory...
"Actually god guns and gays came from dean if memory serves me correctly."
Hardly. He was just the first politician who used the terms in the context of southern election strategy, adding Race as well...
Republicans have been exploiting the whole deal since 1968, with their southern strategy, really just a variant of old-time Dixiecrat pontifications... with Strom Thurmond leading the way into the Republican camp... Resentment against Dems for the civil rights and antiwar movements of the 60's still determine the outcome of most elections south of the mason-dixon, whether people recognize it or not... All it takes to win is to denounce your opponent as a baby killer, a bible confiscator, a f@ggot/osama lover and a gun grabber to move ahead to electoral glory...
And your point is? No, it's not in the Constitution, it's parliamentary procedure, nothing more, nothing less.
That is exactly that. There is nothing that requires it be there or not. There are many things that cannot be filibustered in the senate as they have been excluded from that rule.
From charrison-
"That is exactly that. There is nothing that requires it be there or not. There are many things that cannot be filibustered in the senate as they have been excluded from that rule."
Quite true. The important part to remember about those exceptions is that they were codified by following the rules of the Senate, not by breaking them... The Constitution specifically allows the Senate to make its own rules, even though it doesn't provide for their enforcement in any realistic way. The Framers apparently never considered the idea that some would be so power hungry and myopic that they'd attempt to break the rules to change the rules, an oxymoron if ever there was one...
"That is exactly that. There is nothing that requires it be there or not. There are many things that cannot be filibustered in the senate as they have been excluded from that rule."
Quite true. The important part to remember about those exceptions is that they were codified by following the rules of the Senate, not by breaking them... The Constitution specifically allows the Senate to make its own rules, even though it doesn't provide for their enforcement in any realistic way. The Framers apparently never considered the idea that some would be so power hungry and myopic that they'd attempt to break the rules to change the rules, an oxymoron if ever there was one...
And if any rules get changed it will be though the rule change process, you know what should be called the constitutional option...
Yeh, right, charrison. Check Senate rule 22, here-
http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule22.htm
""Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of."
The Senate rule change process is really quite specific... and I personally don't have a problem with the rules being changed, just so long as those same rules are followed in the process of doing so.
http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule22.htm
""Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of."
The Senate rule change process is really quite specific... and I personally don't have a problem with the rules being changed, just so long as those same rules are followed in the process of doing so.
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: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter