Senate idiots to pull an all nighter.

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
just remember the gop rejected something like 68 of clintons judges

Right, but they did get to actually vote on them and followed the laws and voting procedures.

CkG

THIS IS A LIE.

The fact is the majority of those 68 nominees weren't even given the respect of a committee consideration.

Well, they didn't make it out of commitee. Seems the rules were followed.

CkG

So evoking the "cloture rule" isn't following a rule?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay
CAD, the way it use to work is that if two senators didn't like the pick in his state they could put a 'hold' on the nominee.. no hearing. Then Hatch moved it to one senator could 'card' the nominee... no hearing. Now Hatch held hearing anyhow by eliminating the method of 'carding' (as I understand it). This filibuster seems the only way to block a nominee from going to the floor.
What these folks are doing on the floor of the senate now is insanity. Jabber, Jabber, Hatch is sharp and if you saw the Thomas hearing you saw an effort to destroy the lady who said Thomas was not fit to be a Supreme.
We need a Democratic Senate and a Republican President and House or visa versa but, the senate must be of the opposite party of the Executive.

Well if you feel that what "these folks" are doing now is "insanity" - then you'd also agree that using a filibuster (threat) which takes a super-majority to break - is prohibiting the Senate from doing their Constitutional duty to vote on these nominees. Yeah...talk about "insanity"

CkG

The insanity is the actual need to hold this filibuster. Why not just say we will then go on to the other business. Let the President send four new ones up.. Estrada dropped out.. What really makes not much sense is they passed on the guy who was the House counsel in the Clinton issue.. can't remember his name but they let him go to the DC Circuit.. He is really good but I'll bet Clinton had heart burn..
Chertoff.. that is his name.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Not in this case. The President is trying to ramrod the nominees through. This action is the only thing available.. they let all but four pass so far.. Not bad really. All this is because they have really right leaning ideology. But, they do seem to act reasonable regarding 'making new law' (the four being blocked) with some exceptions.. I think.

The 60 vote cloture is senate rules... good for the gander too. If the gander ever loses the senate.. the Dem's are pretty weak coming into '04. They may even lose two more seats.. it is possible.

So, using a parlimentary loophole to block judge appointees is OK? Well, someday when the shoe is on the other foot...we'll see how much you people whine. I'm sure I won't be around here though since it'll be years before the Senate is controlled by the Dems again

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay
CAD, the way it use to work is that if two senators didn't like the pick in his state they could put a 'hold' on the nominee.. no hearing. Then Hatch moved it to one senator could 'card' the nominee... no hearing. Now Hatch held hearing anyhow by eliminating the method of 'carding' (as I understand it). This filibuster seems the only way to block a nominee from going to the floor.
What these folks are doing on the floor of the senate now is insanity. Jabber, Jabber, Hatch is sharp and if you saw the Thomas hearing you saw an effort to destroy the lady who said Thomas was not fit to be a Supreme.
We need a Democratic Senate and a Republican President and House or visa versa but, the senate must be of the opposite party of the Executive.

Well if you feel that what "these folks" are doing now is "insanity" - then you'd also agree that using a filibuster (threat) which takes a super-majority to break - is prohibiting the Senate from doing their Constitutional duty to vote on these nominees. Yeah...talk about "insanity"

CkG

So is this fulfilling their Constitutional duty?

While the Republicans do not expect any of the judges to be confirmed during the marathon session, they say they are prepared to take advantage of any lapses by the Democrats, such as dozing off, wandering away or not simply paying attention and thus allowing the Republicans to call for confirmation by "unanimous consent." That means the Democrats will have to stay on their toes, keeping somebody in the Senate chamber -- and alert -- at all times.

Yep - live by the sword - die by the sword

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
So evoking the "cloture rule" isn't following a rule?

Do you actually know what that is? And what rules pertain to it? Or are you just spouting what your heard/read on the news?

Come on - explain it.

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Not in this case. The President is trying to ramrod the nominees through. This action is the only thing available.. they let all but four pass so far.. Not bad really. All this is because they have really right leaning ideology. But, they do seem to act reasonable regarding 'making new law' (the four being blocked) with some exceptions.. I think.

The 60 vote cloture is senate rules... good for the gander too. If the gander ever loses the senate.. the Dem's are pretty weak coming into '04. They may even lose two more seats.. it is possible.

So, using a parlimentary loophole to block judge appointees is OK? Well, someday when the shoe is on the other foot...we'll see how much you people whine. I'm sure I won't be around here though since it'll be years before the Senate is controlled by the Dems again

CkG

Well.. in the Constitution it does explicitly state when more than a majority is needed for various issues ... filibuster is not there and neither is cloture rules to end it but, the senate makes its own rules (per the constitution) It may not be constitutional to block a nominee this way not with standing the right to make its own rules. I say this because now that I think of it, every condition requiring more than a simple majority is articulated... hmmm.

edit to add 'to end it'

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
So evoking the "cloture rule" isn't following a rule?

Do you actually know what that is? And what rules pertain to it? Or are you just spouting what your heard/read on the news?

Come on - explain it.

CkG

I don't have the time to explain it. Its clear you have lost this debate. Pack up while the defeat is fresh and leave with some dignity...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
So evoking the "cloture rule" isn't following a rule?

Do you actually know what that is? And what rules pertain to it? Or are you just spouting what your heard/read on the news?

Come on - explain it.

CkG

I don't have the time to explain it. Its clear you have lost this debate. Pack up while the defeat is fresh and leave with some dignity...

Buahahaha!!! Not hardly. You don't have time? or you don't know. Come on Monsta - back it up!

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Cad, if these judicial nominees were really qualified, the senate republicans would have enough support to break the filibuster. Otherwise, it's the only tool the minority has at its disposal.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Not in this case. The President is trying to ramrod the nominees through. This action is the only thing available.. they let all but four pass so far.. Not bad really. All this is because they have really right leaning ideology. But, they do seem to act reasonable regarding 'making new law' (the four being blocked) with some exceptions.. I think.

The 60 vote cloture is senate rules... good for the gander too. If the gander ever loses the senate.. the Dem's are pretty weak coming into '04. They may even lose two more seats.. it is possible.

So, using a parlimentary loophole to block judge appointees is OK? Well, someday when the shoe is on the other foot...we'll see how much you people whine. I'm sure I won't be around here though since it'll be years before the Senate is controlled by the Dems again

CkG

Well.. in the Constitution it does explicitly state when more than a majority is needed for various issues ... filibuster is not there and neither is cloture rules to end it but, the senate makes its own rules (per the constitution) It may not be constitutional to block a nominee this way not with standing the right to make its own rules. I say this because now that I think of it, every condition requiring more than a simple majority is articulated... hmmm.

edit to add 'to end it'

right so since these judges are supposed to be up for a vote - there needs to be a vote using a simple majority since there is no super-majority tag attached to judicial nominees. The precident this sets is that a minority could effectively filibuster anything it doesn't want...thus forcing a supermajority.

CkG

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
So evoking the "cloture rule" isn't following a rule?

Do you actually know what that is? And what rules pertain to it? Or are you just spouting what your heard/read on the news?

Come on - explain it.

CkG

I don't have the time to explain it. Its clear you have lost this debate. Pack up while the defeat is fresh and leave with some dignity...

Buahahaha!!! Not hardly. You don't have time? or you don't know. Come on Monsta - back it up!

CkG

I'm glad you got a laugh out of that. I really should be doing something else but here goes my summary:

The Senate has always had a rule of "unlimited debate", since they pride themselves on being the greatest deliberative body in history (or something assinine like that). So this would be abused by a minority party to stall action in the Senate chambers and effectively block votes. This is known as filibustering. In 1917, the cloture rule was established which stated that a supermajority (60 votes) could end a filibuster and allow the Senate proceedings to continue.

So maybe I should have asked rhetorically if the "unlimited debate rule" was a rule?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Cad, if these judicial nominees were really qualified, the senate republicans would have enough support to break the filibuster. Otherwise, it's the only tool the minority has at its disposal.

Deal,
That's the problem, they are well qualified and blessed by the ABA with their highest evaluation. They lean right... said from the bench really right things except one who did in a speech..

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Cad, if these judicial nominees were really qualified, the senate republicans would have enough support to break the filibuster. Otherwise, it's the only tool the minority has at its disposal.

Deal,
That's the problem, they are well qualified

I fixed it for you.

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Not in this case. The President is trying to ramrod the nominees through. This action is the only thing available.. they let all but four pass so far.. Not bad really. All this is because they have really right leaning ideology. But, they do seem to act reasonable regarding 'making new law' (the four being blocked) with some exceptions.. I think.

The 60 vote cloture is senate rules... good for the gander too. If the gander ever loses the senate.. the Dem's are pretty weak coming into '04. They may even lose two more seats.. it is possible.

So, using a parlimentary loophole to block judge appointees is OK? Well, someday when the shoe is on the other foot...we'll see how much you people whine. I'm sure I won't be around here though since it'll be years before the Senate is controlled by the Dems again

CkG

Well.. in the Constitution it does explicitly state when more than a majority is needed for various issues ... filibuster is not there and neither is cloture rules to end it but, the senate makes its own rules (per the constitution) It may not be constitutional to block a nominee this way not with standing the right to make its own rules. I say this because now that I think of it, every condition requiring more than a simple majority is articulated... hmmm.

edit to add 'to end it'

right so since these judges are supposed to be up for a vote - there needs to be a vote using a simple majority since there is no super-majority tag attached to judicial nominees. The precident this sets is that a minority could effectively filibuster anything it doesn't want...thus forcing a supermajority.

CkG

Yeah.. but Madison called the Senate the 'cooling off place' or some such thing.. but, on most issues we are so polarized I think this nutty filibuster is going to be the way more often.. as long as it is legislative I've no problem but, in the 'special' issues, treaties, trials of impeached folks, all advise and consent etc. I do... cuz.. as I said .. this is special and all the other special issues have the type of majority needed... this is suppose to be simply majority.. I think it is unconstitutional the more I think about it but, it is late at night..

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
I'm glad you got a laugh out of that. I really should be doing something else but here goes my summary:

The Senate has always had a rule of "unlimited debate", since they pride themselves on being the greatest deliberative body in history (or something assinine like that). So this would be abused by a minority party to stall action in the Senate chambers and effectively block votes. This is known as filibustering. In 1917, the cloture rule was established which stated that a supermajority (60 votes) could end a filibuster and allow the Senate proceedings to continue.

So maybe I should have asked rhetorically if the "unlimited debate rule" was a rule?

So tell me again why a filibuster(which forces a super-majority) should be used to block judicial nominees(which only require a simple majority)? Isn't that abuse by a minority to stall action and block votes?

CkG

 

[0roo0roo]

so more then 1/3 of clintons judges were unqualified?


and here we're only talking about 4. sounds more and more like they are trying to draw attention away from all the americans dying in iraq

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
so more then 1/3 of clintons judges were unqualified?

Don't think I made that claim

CkG

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
I'm glad you got a laugh out of that. I really should be doing something else but here goes my summary:

The Senate has always had a rule of "unlimited debate", since they pride themselves on being the greatest deliberative body in history (or something assinine like that). So this would be abused by a minority party to stall action in the Senate chambers and effectively block votes. This is known as filibustering. In 1917, the cloture rule was established which stated that a supermajority (60 votes) could end a filibuster and allow the Senate proceedings to continue.

So maybe I should have asked rhetorically if the "unlimited debate rule" was a rule?

So tell me again why a filibuster(which forces a super-majority) should be used to block judicial nominees(which only require a simple majority)? Isn't that abuse by a minority to stall action and block votes?

CkG

The filibuster is used as a tool by the minority to block these judges from being confirmed. In the 90's, the Republican-run Judiciary Committee used the tool of denying committee consideration to block Clinton's nominees. I don't consider the decision of the few Republican Senators in that committee to be an abuse and I don't consider this use of a filibuster to be an abuse.

 

[LunarRay]

CAD,
After some thought I think their debate tactic is legitimate (constitutional) because technically it is a debate.
During Clinton's trial the Chief Justice made an off hand comment to one of the senators.. something like the senate can do as it pleases. Debate is Debate. But, then a distinction without a difference... Oh well.. let them make it a unanimous vote to cloture.

 

[LunarRay]

waaaaaaaaaaaa double post... I don't have anything that important to say that needs being said twice..

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
I'm glad you got a laugh out of that. I really should be doing something else but here goes my summary:

The Senate has always had a rule of "unlimited debate", since they pride themselves on being the greatest deliberative body in history (or something assinine like that). So this would be abused by a minority party to stall action in the Senate chambers and effectively block votes. This is known as filibustering. In 1917, the cloture rule was established which stated that a supermajority (60 votes) could end a filibuster and allow the Senate proceedings to continue.

So maybe I should have asked rhetorically if the "unlimited debate rule" was a rule?

So tell me again why a filibuster(which forces a super-majority) should be used to block judicial nominees(which only require a simple majority)? Isn't that abuse by a minority to stall action and block votes?

CkG

The filibuster is used as a tool by the minority to block these judges from being confirmed. In the 90's, the Republican-run Judiciary Committee used the tool of denying committee consideration to Clinton's nominees. I don't consider the decision of the few Republican Senators in that committee to be an abuse and I don't consider this use of a filibuster to be an abuse.

"there comes a time when tradition has to meet the realities of the modern age. The minority's rights must be protected. The majority should not be able to run roughshod over them, but neither should a vexatious minority be able to thwart the will of the majority and not even permit legislation to come up for a meaningful vote.''
Identify this quote.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Cad, if these judicial nominees were really qualified, the senate republicans would have enough support to break the filibuster. Otherwise, it's the only tool the minority has at its disposal.

Deal,
That's the problem, they are well qualified and blessed by the ABA with their highest evaluation. They lean right... said from the bench really right things except one who did in a speech..

I guess I should qualify what I mean by "qualified" - I should have said: If these nominees were appropriate for their appointments and not conservative-activists, republicans would have the support needed to break any potential filibuster. There's a reason the democratic minority have singled out these 4 for potential filibuster, while letting the vast majority of Bush's other nominees proceed.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Cad, if these judicial nominees were really qualified, the senate republicans would have enough support to break the filibuster. Otherwise, it's the only tool the minority has at its disposal.

Deal,
That's the problem, they are well qualified and blessed by the ABA with their highest evaluation. They lean right... said from the bench really right things except one who did in a speech..

I guess I should qualify what I mean by "qualified" - I should have said: If these nominees were appropriate for their appointments and not conservative-activists, republicans would have the support needed to break any potential filibuster. There's a reason the democratic minority have singled out these 4 for potential filibuster, while letting the vast majority of Bush's other nominees proceed.

Well the Dem's did pass 168 as you say. I think these are all Circuit Court nominees and a breath away from the Supremes..
Majority leader moved the debate to the floor to spite the Dem's and Dashell is spiting Frist.. And soon they'll take their ball home and no one can play.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
I'm glad you got a laugh out of that. I really should be doing something else but here goes my summary:

The Senate has always had a rule of "unlimited debate", since they pride themselves on being the greatest deliberative body in history (or something assinine like that). So this would be abused by a minority party to stall action in the Senate chambers and effectively block votes. This is known as filibustering. In 1917, the cloture rule was established which stated that a supermajority (60 votes) could end a filibuster and allow the Senate proceedings to continue.

So maybe I should have asked rhetorically if the "unlimited debate rule" was a rule?

So tell me again why a filibuster(which forces a super-majority) should be used to block judicial nominees(which only require a simple majority)? Isn't that abuse by a minority to stall action and block votes?

CkG

The filibuster is used as a tool by the minority to block these judges from being confirmed. In the 90's, the Republican-run Judiciary Committee used the tool of denying committee consideration to Clinton's nominees. I don't consider the decision of the few Republican Senators in that committee to be an abuse and I don't consider this use of a filibuster to be an abuse.

"there comes a time when tradition has to meet the realities of the modern age. The minority's rights must be protected. The majority should not be able to run roughshod over them, but neither should a vexatious minority be able to thwart the will of the majority and not even permit legislation to come up for a meaningful vote.''
Identify this quote.

CkG

Tom Harkin, the outstanding Senator from Iowa.

What's your point? I never made that statement. Take up your problem with him at his next steak dinner...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Cad, if these judicial nominees were really qualified, the senate republicans would have enough support to break the filibuster. Otherwise, it's the only tool the minority has at its disposal.

Deal,
That's the problem, they are well qualified and blessed by the ABA with their highest evaluation. They lean right... said from the bench really right things except one who did in a speech..

I guess I should qualify what I mean by "qualified" - I should have said: If these nominees were appropriate for their appointments and not conservative-activists, republicans would have the support needed to break any potential filibuster. There's a reason the democratic minority have singled out these 4 for potential filibuster, while letting the vast majority of Bush's other nominees proceed.

Well the Dem's did pass 168 as you say. I think these are all Circuit Court nominees and a breath away from the Supremes..
Majority leader moved the debate to the floor to spite the Dem's and Dashell is spiting Frist.. And soon they'll take their ball home and no one can play.

Yes these are all Circuit Court nominees. The other nominees that were allowed through are mostly for lesser court appointments.

CkG