Senate idiots to pull an all nighter.

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
"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...

Next....

"I find it simply baffling that a senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination."



CkG

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
"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...

Next....

"I find it simply baffling that a senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination."



CkG

The spineless Senator from South Dakota.

Exposing the hypocrisy of Senate Democrats on the issue of filibusters does nothing to support your argument that the minority party doesn't have the right to filibuster.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
"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...

Next....

"I find it simply baffling that a senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination."



CkG

The spineless Senator from South Dakota.

Exposing the hypocrisy of Senate Democrats on the issue of filibusters does nothing to support your argument that the minority party doesn't have the right to filibuster.

Next...

"Senators who believe in fairness will not let a minority of the Senate deny [the nominee] his vote by the entire Senate."



CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

What is this? Jeapordy?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
What is this? Jeapordy?

Sure is

?It is our job to confirm these judges. If we don?t like them, we can vote against them.?

?It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.?

Both quotes are from people(2 different) close to Luny and DM

CkG

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Its obvious someone has far too much free time on his hands. But I don't.

So as our illustrious Vice-President, who led us into a preemptive war based on shady intelligence that has been since called a "guerrilla-type" war by the commanding General and has the CIA making statements like "We could lose this situation", said about why exactly he didn't fight in Vietnam: "I have other priorities".

Have a pleasant morning.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Its obvious someone has far too much free time on his hands. But I don't.

So as our illustrious Vice-President, who led us into a preemptive war based on shady intelligence that has been since called a "guerrilla-type" war by the commanding General and has the CIA making statements like "We could lose this situation", said about why exactly he didn't fight in Vietnam: "I have other priorities".

Have a pleasant morning.

Yeah - it seems these people I'm quoting sure had a lot of time on their hands...since they felt it neccessary to say these things

?Hispanic or non-Hispanic, African American or non-African American, woman or man, it is wrong not to have a vote on the Senate floor.?

?An up-or-down vote, that is all we ask ??



CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Awwww did everyone take their ball and go home

OK...OK...OK...I'll give you a free one

?My expectation is that we?re not going to hold up judicial nominations. ?You will not see us do what was done to us in recent years in the Senate with judicial nominations.? - Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND)



CkG

 

[Doboji]

Hey man there's nothing wrong with a fillibuster... it is a perfectly legitimate political tool for the Senate Minority. Without the fillibuster, the minority party might as well just go home, and wait for the next election, because it means they have no power or influence.

Furthermore, a fillibuster can easily be broken by 60+ majority. Which makes perfect sense... should the minority party be united in disagreeing with these nominees, we would be failing to represent the American people, to not work out a compromise.

The fact that Repuiblicans are absolutely unwilling to compromise, is disgusting. They're seeking to abuse the majority power.

The dems need to stand their ground until g-d himself ends the debate.

-Max

 

[smashp]

The fillibuster is the Only tool the Large Minority has. With the senate so polarized, as well as the nation, I think its a viable, legitimant tool to protect the Minority from the majority. Remember that The Glory of our country is the Checks and balances. The Checks and Balances that give the minority power.


With both Houses and the Executive branch controlled by One party, The only balance left if the large minority's ability to fillibuster. Let's face it. The country is rather evenly split along the partisan Fence.

With a country that is so evenly divided, Why should one group have full control. WE Have to support the limited power of the Minority.

Activist Judges that support their agenda rather than the WRITTEN LAW have no place in the Judicial System. LAW is above all. Ideology is not above the LAW. You may disagree with LAWS but as a judge you have to SUPPORT IT reguardless.

This is the problem with Far-right Fascist Bible thumper Judges as Well as lefty leaning liberal green commies.

moderation is what is needed.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Doboji
Hey man there's nothing wrong with a fillibuster... it is a perfectly legitimate political tool for the Senate Minority. Without the fillibuster, the minority party might as well just go home, and wait for the next election, because it means they have no power or influence.

Furthermore, a fillibuster can easily be broken by 60+ majority. Which makes perfect sense... should the minority party be united in disagreeing with these nominees, we would be failing to represent the American people, to not work out a compromise.

The fact that Repuiblicans are absolutely unwilling to compromise, is disgusting. They're seeking to abuse the majority power.

The dems need to stand their ground until g-d himself ends the debate.

-Max

Uhhh...how does one "compromise" on wether or not to vote on a nominee? Isn't that a yes or no question?

BTW - Judicial nominees are only required to have a simple majority vote to be confirmed. These Democrats are using the filibuster to force a super-majority vote to pass these nominees. THAT is why this is wrong. Constitutionally there are only a few things which require a super-majority vote to pass - like treaties, impeachment, and important things like that. Judicial confirmations are not part of that list.

?We Should Have Up-Or-Down Votes In The Committee And On The Floor.? - Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: smashp
The fillibuster is the Only tool the Large Minority has. With the senate so polarized, as well as the nation, I think its a viable, legitimant tool to protect the Minority from the majority. Remember that The Glory of our country is the Checks and balances. The Checks and Balances that give the minority power.


With both Houses and the Executive branch controlled by One party, The only balance left if the large minority's ability to fillibuster. Let's face it. The country is rather evenly split along the partisan Fence.

With a country that is so evenly divided, Why should one group have full control. WE Have to support the limited power of the Minority.

Activist Judges that support their agenda rather than the WRITTEN LAW have no place in the Judicial System. LAW is above all. Ideology is not above the LAW. You may disagree with LAWS but as a judge you have to SUPPORT IT reguardless.

This is the problem with Far-right Fascist Bible thumper Judges as Well as lefty leaning liberal green commies.

moderation is what is needed.

Wahhhh Wahhhh...<sniff> it's the only tool we have <sniff>

The LAW says that nominees are to have a vote once they leave commitee - this filibuster is not allowing the law to be followed. IF there is a big issue with a judge - they can be voted down during the confirmation vote.


?It Is Not ? Appropriate Not To Have Hearings On [Judicial Nominees], Not To Bring Them To The Floor And Not To Allow A Vote ?? - Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE)

CkG

 

[Morbius]

Not ONCE did Republicans ever filibuster in Congress to prevent a judicial appointment. Every one of Clinton's nominations that was promoted out of committee received a vote on the floor of Congress.

 

[smashp]

Wahhhh Wahhhh...<sniff> it's the only tool we have <sniff>

Heh Cad, Its a tool for any minority. Not Just a Democrat Minority.


YOu fail to realize that rather than being for a particular Party in politics ( Like Your good ol YABA self), I tend to feel that their should be balances of Power.


The Republican Party are the BIG Pusses in this matter. They have the ability to change senate rules at any time ( The So-called Nuke option).

They would just rather continue to whine about How its Not right For A fillibuster.


Man up. Stop being a whiney Bitch Bill Frist. Change the Rules or Quit complaining when Something is doen well Within the Legalities of the Senate Rules.


They wont Change the rules, Because they will use the Fillibuster in the Future and Dont want this ability taken away.


This isnt the First time a fillibuster has been used to block judges. MAny Many times has this been done, except usually at the End of a presidents turn when the Heap is ram roded through.

 

[Morbius]

Originally posted by: smashp

Activist Judges that support their agenda rather than the WRITTEN LAW have no place in the Judicial System. LAW is above all. Ideology is not above the LAW. You may disagree with LAWS but as a judge you have to SUPPORT IT reguardless.

Let me see . . . you do understand there is NO written law banning abortion - only a Supreme Court decision which is NOT a law. There have been many written laws banning abortion.

So what do you want these judges to follow? The actual written laws that ban abortion or the NON-LAW that okays it??

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Morbius
Not ONCE did Republicans ever filibuster in Congress to prevent a judicial appointment. Every one of Clinton's nominations that was promoted out of committee received a vote on the floor of Congress.

you didn't read the thread before posting did you.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Doboji
Hey man there's nothing wrong with a fillibuster... it is a perfectly legitimate political tool for the Senate Minority. Without the fillibuster, the minority party might as well just go home, and wait for the next election, because it means they have no power or influence.

Furthermore, a fillibuster can easily be broken by 60+ majority. Which makes perfect sense... should the minority party be united in disagreeing with these nominees, we would be failing to represent the American people, to not work out a compromise.

The fact that Repuiblicans are absolutely unwilling to compromise, is disgusting. They're seeking to abuse the majority power.

The dems need to stand their ground until g-d himself ends the debate.

-Max

Uhhh...how does one "compromise" on wether or not to vote on a nominee? Isn't that a yes or no question?

BTW - Judicial nominees are only required to have a simple majority vote to be confirmed. These Democrats are using the filibuster to force a super-majority vote to pass these nominees. THAT is why this is wrong. Constitutionally there are only a few things which require a super-majority vote to pass - like treaties, impeachment, and important things like that. Judicial confirmations are not part of that list.

?We Should Have Up-Or-Down Votes In The Committee And On The Floor.? - Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)

CkG

Are you being purposely OBTUSE? If the nominees in question went up for a yes or no vote, it would surely end in a YES. I mean, duh, the republicans ARE the majority. They WANT conservative-activist judges who will pound the bible as he (or she) pounds their gavel.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Morbius
Not ONCE did Republicans ever filibuster in Congress to prevent a judicial appointment. Every one of Clinton's nominations that was promoted out of committee received a vote on the floor of Congress.

There has never been a filibuster to prevent a vote on Judicial nominees, to my knowledge. There was a different procedure used to block nominated folks from getting to even have a hearing. Hatch changed all that so that the senators of the nominee's state have little or no say in the matter.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Uhhh...how does one "compromise" on wether or not to vote on a nominee? Isn't that a yes or no question?

They can find a nominee who isn't a religious fanatic and a bigot.

 

[LunarRay]

Hehehehehe
CADDY, This can be your version of the Supreme Thwart... (well.. maybe just the Circuit Thwart)

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Awwww did everyone take their ball and go home

OK...OK...OK...I'll give you a free one

?My expectation is that we?re not going to hold up judicial nominations. ?You will not see us do what was done to us in recent years in the Senate with judicial nominations.? - Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND)



CkG

I'm glad to see you gave it up after this one.

All politicians, regardless of party, make statements they wish they could take back.

Hilarious case in point.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Are you being purposely OBTUSE? If the nominees in question went up for a yes or no vote, it would surely end in a YES. I mean, duh, the republicans ARE the majority. They WANT conservative-activist judges who will pound the bible as he (or she) pounds their gavel.

Are you and they purposely being hypocritical? Should there not be a yes/no vote once that nomination passes commitee scrutiny and is forwarded to the floor for a vote?

That is not being obtuse - that is following procedure

?We should have up-or-down votes in the committee and on the floor.? -Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Morbius
Not ONCE did Republicans ever filibuster in Congress to prevent a judicial appointment. Every one of Clinton's nominations that was promoted out of committee received a vote on the floor of Congress.

There has never been a filibuster to prevent a vote on Judicial nominees, to my knowledge. There was a different procedure used to block nominated folks from getting to even have a hearing. Hatch changed all that so that the senators of the nominee's state have little or no say in the matter.

Exactly...so the argument of "they did it first" (or under Clinton) is BS

?Now, every Senator can vote against any nominee. ? But it is the responsibility of the U.S. Senate to at least bring them to a vote.? -Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Are you being purposely OBTUSE? If the nominees in question went up for a yes or no vote, it would surely end in a YES. I mean, duh, the republicans ARE the majority. They WANT conservative-activist judges who will pound the bible as he (or she) pounds their gavel.

Are you and they purposely being hypocritical? Should there not be a yes/no vote once that nomination passes commitee scrutiny and is forwarded to the floor for a vote?

That is not being obtuse - that is following procedure

?We should have up-or-down votes in the committee and on the floor.? -Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)

CkG

Hypocritical? How? I've never said that either party shouldn't use the filibuster. Like I said, it's virtually the only leverage the minority has. You're like a broken robot Cad, repeating "Up or down vote... Beep! Up or down vote ... Beep!"

Someone whomp that RoboCad on the head and reboot him!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Uhhh...how does one "compromise" on wether or not to vote on a nominee? Isn't that a yes or no question?

They can find a nominee who isn't a religious fanatic and a bigot.

yeah I guess that's why the other nominees have been allowed through - the only reason theses judges are being blocked is because the Dems don't want the Circuit Court judges to become balanced - they want to keep it liberal...since it is just a step below the USSC.

?These nominees, who have to put their lives on hold waiting for us to act, deserve an ?up or down? vote.? -Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI)

CkG