Feeling the love

[Genx87]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/19/filibuster.fight/index.html

Looks like at least 5 of 7 fundamentalist christians will be making it to the bench after all.

 

[dahunan]

History always repeats itself [sic]because we humans are too dumb to remember -- let the Crusades Begin

 

[RightIsWrong]

I'm kinda sad. The NO would have fried Frist and probably a good bit of the Repugs that voted for it in the midterms. It also would have been a good time when that pendulum swings back and the Dems are back in control to hear the right whine about how unfair it is that they have no recoursive action to counter what the majority party is wanting to do.

 

[MAW1082]

Originally posted by: dahunan
History always repeats itself [sic]because we humans are too dumb to remember -- let the Crusades Begin

Sorry too late

 

[shrumpage]

Didn't expect this, honestly thought the filibuster would continue, with the republican's unable to gather enough votes for the "nuclear option."
Interesting compromise.

 

[1EZduzit]

It seems a stupid compromise. What/who defines "extraordinary circumstances"?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/19/filibuster.fight/index.html

Looks like at least 5 of 7 fundamentalist christians will be making it to the bench after all.

Fundamentalist christians? Where?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Both sides thought there could be a chance of losing face.

The problem is that the minority essesiantly defines "extreme crcumstances"that are needed for a filibuster.

Therefore this same situation can happen again and again whenever a minority does not like (for what ever reason) what the majority is proposing.

Justified or pure political spite; it will make no difference.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: Genx87
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/19/filibuster.fight/index.html

Looks like at least 5 of 7 fundamentalist christians will be making it to the bench after all.

The Republicans need to pull the trigger and get all 7 highly qualified AMERICANS make it to the bench. I'm sorry, but being against abortion, or anti-gay married does not make you an extremist.. it makes you a person with an opinion who had make a choice.

If you don't like the process, change the constitution.. don't make up rules to get around it.

 

[conjur]

Hey, Crimson.

Care to point out where in the Constitution that the filibuster is banned? Or, at least show in the Constitution where an up-or-down vote is required.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: conjur
Hey, Crimson.

Care to point out where in the Constitution that the filibuster is banned? Or, at least show in the Constitution where an up-or-down vote is required.

The situation is in the Senate rules; nothing to do with the constitution itself.

The Dems are using the filibuster to prevent the opportunity for an up/down vote.

They (Dems) feel that their objections can not stand on their own merit, therefore they must create a political crisis to get their way.

Similar to a young child throwing a temper tantrum when at the store when they can not have the toy that they saw.

 

[conjur]

Then perhaps they should have prevented these pro-lobbyist, pro-corporation, anti-civil rights judges from coming out of committee like the Republicans did to Clinton's nominees.

Let them filibuster to their hearts content. There's only one reason why these judges were brought back up, pressure from the radical clerics in cahoots with the likes of Dobson.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: conjur
Hey, Crimson.

Care to point out where in the Constitution that the filibuster is banned? Or, at least show in the Constitution where an up-or-down vote is required.

The situation is in the Senate rules; nothing to do with the constitution itself.

The Dems are using the filibuster to prevent the opportunity for an up/down vote.

They (Dems) feel that their objections can not stand on their own merit, therefore they must create a political crisis to get their way.

Similar to a young child throwing a temper tantrum when at the store when they can not have the toy that they saw.

Interesting. You think it's wrong for a group that still holds 44 seats to fight to defend their right to be heard? I might agree with you if the senate was made up of people who listen to arguments and agree (or not) based on the merits of those arguments. But we all know that isn't the case, on either side of the aisle. So in order to ensure valid arguments are dismissed because they come from the wrong party, options like this must be used.

And, your analogy aside, the Democrats aren't "young children", they are a group of people who represent a very large portion of Americans. And I think it's wrong too cut them out of the process simply because the Republicans are a bunch of tools. Yes, the process calls for an up/down vote. But I don't think it was designed for a Senate where the majority is only interested in the party line. The Democrats have a right to protect their interests, or is democracy nothing more than mob rule?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Crimson

If you don't like the process, change the constitution.. don't make up rules to get around it.[/quote]

But, but, but, that is the Neocon mantra.