Senate idiots to pull an all nighter.

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Tripleshot
Republicans stopped Senate business for 39 straight hours to complain that Democrats are standing up to Bush on his right-wing judicial nominees. Here are the facts:

>The Senate has confirmed 168 of President Bush's judicial nominees.
>Democrats have filibustered just four of Bush's nominees because they hold extremist, ultraconservative views far outside the mainstream.
>Republicans blocked 63 of President Clinton's nominees to the federal bench.
>Republicans refused to give many of Clinton's nominees hearings at all, and even blocked some of them with anonymous holds from a single Republican Senator.
>The federal judiciary has fewer vacancies now than any time for the past 20 years.

This Republican publicity stunt is about one thing: packing the court with ultraconservative ideologues who will reverse decades of progress on civil rights, worker's rights, reproductive rights, environmental protections, and much more.

"Republican leaders dropped plans to try to force a vote on a rules change proposed by Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) to bar the use of filibusters to block a [judicial] nominee indefinitely. Asked why the Senate would not try to change the rule, GOP Conference Chairman Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) cited 'uncertainty' over votes, noting that some Republicans are reluctant to give up a weapon they might want to use someday against liberal nominees proposed by a Democratic president."


This is a cut and paste from an email I recieved.
I think you needed to know that, although for most it would be obvious.

Did you eat that drivel right up? or are you making fun of it? If you'd have read this thread you'd know that the premise of that email is BS.

Oh, and since when is actions of past people an excuse for current action? DealMonkey? Bowfinger? anyone? I thought 2 wrongs don't make a right. I thought trying to excuse the current because of the past wasn't valid.

Anyone can make excuses about the judges - but it doesn't change the fact that they are very qualified judges and should be allowed to be voted on. Using a loophole to obstuct the majority by changing the rules of the vote goes against the Constitutional process of judicial appointments.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
The reason is that a filibuster was meant for more debate on issues - that is not what it is currently being used for..except last night(but that wasn't really a filibuster anyway). The ONLY reason it's being used is to force a supermajority vote on these judges(not to extend debate) which is NOT how judges are supposed to be approved. It's a loophole that is being abused to bypass the Constitutional proceedure of judicial confirmations. Like I said - this sets a dangerous precident because it's now being used to block things that are supposed to only take a simple majority to pass. There are a few reasons for a supermajority to be needed - confirming judges is not one of them. To use the filibuster to do so - is wrong. The filibuster can be a good thing and I would support it...but this supermajority for cloture is asinine because it allows tyrany of the minority. You can sit there and spout off about "shoving" thing down people's throats but that's only because you sit on the minority side - and so it just feels like shoving. The fact of the matter is - that these nominees passed commitee and now require a majority floor vote. Got that? A MAJORITY - which is what they have. Not a super-majority - a majority. 51 votes. If it's "ramming down their throat" when a simple majority passes something(lets just say 51-xx) then why weren't the procedures set up to always require a super-majority? Why not always use it to get your way?
Read what I've said about this - I've stated what a filibuster is for. Extending the debate is it's intent - NOT to be used to effectivly change the voting procedures and requirements.

CkG

So Cad, you only care that the dems are using a "loophole" (i.e. the filibuster) to get their way? It's purely a technical issue and not the end result that the dems are blocking conservative judges whereas during Clinton's terms, republicans did effectively the same thing only in committee? End result is the same - is it not?

Further, if you're so bent out of shape about loopholes being exploited, why didn't I hear you pissing and moaning about the TX repubs redistricting their way to more seats in Congress? What about CA repubs using an obscure recall law to recall a recently elected governor and essentially force a revote when they couldn't win a normal election? I don't know Cad, you aren't coming across as very consistant on these issues.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
The reason is that a filibuster was meant for more debate on issues - that is not what it is currently being used for..except last night(but that wasn't really a filibuster anyway). The ONLY reason it's being used is to force a supermajority vote on these judges(not to extend debate) which is NOT how judges are supposed to be approved. It's a loophole that is being abused to bypass the Constitutional procedure of judicial confirmations. Like I said - this sets a dangerous precedent because it's now being used to block things that are supposed to only take a simple majority to pass. There are a few reasons for a supermajority to be needed - confirming judges is not one of them. To use the filibuster to do so - is wrong. The filibuster can be a good thing and I would support it...but this supermajority for cloture is asinine because it allows tyranny of the minority. You can sit there and spout off about "shoving" thing down people's throats but that's only because you sit on the minority side - and so it just feels like shoving. The fact of the matter is - that these nominees passed committee and now require a majority floor vote. Got that? A MAJORITY - which is what they have. Not a super-majority - a majority. 51 votes. If it's "ramming down their throat" when a simple majority passes something(lets just say 51-xx) then why weren't the procedures set up to always require a super-majority? Why not always use it to get your way?
Read what I've said about this - I've stated what a filibuster is for. Extending the debate is it's intent - NOT to be used to effectively change the voting procedures and requirements.

CkG

So Cad, you only care that the dems are using a "loophole" (i.e. the filibuster) to get their way? It's purely a technical issue and not the end result that the dems are blocking conservative judges whereas during Clinton's terms, republicans did effectively the same thing only in committee? End result is the same - is it not?

Further, if you're so bent out of shape about loopholes being exploited, why didn't I hear you pissing and moaning about the TX repubs redistricting their way to more seats in Congress? What about CA repubs using an obscure recall law to recall a recently elected governor and essentially force a revote when they couldn't win a normal election? I don't know Cad, you aren't coming across as very consistant on these issues.

Yes the end result is similar but one followed the guidelines and one isn't. To force a supermajority to confirm judges is wrong. Both in Cali and Texas the guidelines were followed...except in Texas when the Dems flew the coop and held things up. But yes I'm being quite consistent overall - they all followed the guidelines and laws pertaining to the issue. In this case the Democrats are trying to make an end run around those rules and guidelines already established by using the threat of a filibuster to force a supermajority vote -when one isn't necessary to confirm judges(Constitutionally)

Now again - this isn't about me - it's about the issue. But since you tried to insinuate some inconsistency - where is yours? Are you not trying to excuse this current action by pointing to what you perceive happened in the past? Do you not want them to follow the judicial appointee guidelines? Do you understand the precedent this sets by using this to force a super-majority on votes that really only are supposed to be a simple majority? What you fail to understand though is that when Clinton's judges didn't get confirmed it was because they didn't get out of the committee(who has the power to send the judges to the floor by a majority vote) or they got voted down on the floor. The Republicans DID NOT filibuster the floor vote - because once those nominees get out of committee they are supposed to receive a confirmation vote. So no - it's not the "same" although the end result is the same. One followed Judicial appointee guidelines and rules and one now is trying to bypass those guidelines.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
The reason is that a filibuster was meant for more debate on issues - that is not what it is currently being used for..except last night(but that wasn't really a filibuster anyway). The ONLY reason it's being used is to force a supermajority vote on these judges(not to extend debate) which is NOT how judges are supposed to be approved. It's a loophole that is being abused to bypass the Constitutional procedure of judicial confirmations. Like I said - this sets a dangerous precedent because it's now being used to block things that are supposed to only take a simple majority to pass. There are a few reasons for a supermajority to be needed - confirming judges is not one of them. To use the filibuster to do so - is wrong. The filibuster can be a good thing and I would support it...but this supermajority for cloture is asinine because it allows tyranny of the minority. You can sit there and spout off about "shoving" thing down people's throats but that's only because you sit on the minority side - and so it just feels like shoving. The fact of the matter is - that these nominees passed committee and now require a majority floor vote. Got that? A MAJORITY - which is what they have. Not a super-majority - a majority. 51 votes. If it's "ramming down their throat" when a simple majority passes something(lets just say 51-xx) then why weren't the procedures set up to always require a super-majority? Why not always use it to get your way?
Read what I've said about this - I've stated what a filibuster is for. Extending the debate is it's intent - NOT to be used to effectively change the voting procedures and requirements.

CkG

So Cad, you only care that the dems are using a "loophole" (i.e. the filibuster) to get their way? It's purely a technical issue and not the end result that the dems are blocking conservative judges whereas during Clinton's terms, republicans did effectively the same thing only in committee? End result is the same - is it not?

Further, if you're so bent out of shape about loopholes being exploited, why didn't I hear you pissing and moaning about the TX repubs redistricting their way to more seats in Congress? What about CA repubs using an obscure recall law to recall a recently elected governor and essentially force a revote when they couldn't win a normal election? I don't know Cad, you aren't coming across as very consistant on these issues.

Yes the end result is similar but one followed the guidelines and one isn't. To force a supermajority to confirm judges is wrong. Both in Cali and Texas the guidelines were followed...except in Texas when the Dems flew the coop and held things up. But yes I'm being quite consistent overall - they all followed the guidelines and laws pertaining to the issue. In this case the Democrats are trying to make an end run around those rules and guidelines already established by using the threat of a filibuster to force a supermajority vote -when one isn't necessary to confirm judges(Constitutionally)

Now again - this isn't about me - it's about the issue. But since you tried to insinuate some inconsistency - where is yours? Are you not trying to excuse this current action by pointing to what you perceive happened in the past? Do you not want them to follow the judicial appointee guidelines? Do you understand the precedent this sets by using this to force a super-majority on votes that really only are supposed to be a simple majority? What you fail to understand though is that when Clinton's judges didn't get confirmed it was because they didn't get out of the committee(who has the power to send the judges to the floor by a majority vote) or they got voted down on the floor. The Republicans DID NOT filibuster the floor vote - because once those nominees get out of committee they are supposed to receive a confirmation vote. So no - it's not the "same" although the end result is the same. One followed Judicial appointee guidelines and rules and one now is trying to bypass those guidelines.

CkG

Cad, the Republicans didn't filibuster Clinton's nominees, because they didn't have to. They controlled the Senate Judicial Committee. I wonder what would have happened if they didn't though? With a filibuster as their only option to stop liberal activist judges - what would they have done? Hmmmm, I wonder (strokes chin as TV goes out of focus) ... Further, I can't believe you're getting worked up about the filibuster in the first place. A long-standing tradition in the Senate, since oh, the 1850s ... You act like the democrats invented it or something.

A loophole is a loophole. Politics isn't always fair. I had to suck it up during the CA re-election debacle, so can you!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Cad, the Republicans didn't filibuster Clinton's nominees, because they didn't have to. They controlled the Senate Judicial Committee. I wonder what would have happened if they didn't though? With a filibuster as their only option to stop liberal activist judges - what would they have done? Hmmmm, I wonder (strokes chin as TV goes out of focus) ... Further, I can't believe you're getting worked up about the filibuster in the first place. A long-standing tradition in the Senate, since oh, the 1850s ... You act like the democrats invented it or something.

A loophole is a loophole. Politics isn't always fair. I had to suck it up during the CA re-election debacle, so can you!

Right and if they were actually filibustering - I wouldn't be as pissed, because they'd be using it to "further" debate. But this stop and go BS is getting ridiculous. In a filibuster you have to hold the floor - once you lose it -things can proceed. A cloture vote can also break the filibuster causing you to loose the floor. What these Democrats are doing is to threaten a filibuster...well I say - make them actually do it. I don't have a problem with the filibuster but using it just to force supermajority votes goes against established judicial nomination guidelines. It also sets a dangerous precedent as now it'll be used by the minority to stop the will of the majority. Aren't you one who keeps talking about "Democracy" and majority rules?

Now I understand you Lefties don't like these judges - that is fine, but to obstruct a majority vote on the floor is wrong and you know it...and so do the Democrats who are doing it. Heck some of them have stated such

?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.? Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) 5/14/97

?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.? Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) 10/28/99

?It is our job to confirm these judges. If we don?t like them, we can vote against them.? Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) 9/16/99

?[The filibuster process] is used ? as blackmail for one Senator to get his or her way on something that they could not rightfully win through the normal processes.? Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) 1/4/95

?It is true that some Senators have voiced concerns about these nominations. But that should not prevent a roll call vote which gives every Senator the opportunity to vote ?yes? or ?no.? ... Parties with cases, waiting to be heard by the federal courts deserve a decision by the Senate.? Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) 9/21/99

?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) 9/21/99

?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) 10/22/97

?I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported ?? Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) 6/18/98

?Earlier this year ? I noted how improper it would be to filibuster a judicial nomination.? Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) 10/14/98

?We should have up-or-down votes in the committee and on the floor.? Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) 6/9/01

I wonder why these people changed their mind?

Oh, and I have had to sit by and watch this circus - but it doesn't change the fact that it's premise is wrong. The recall is part of California law just like these judicial nominee voting guidelines are part of the law. These judges deserve to be voted on - if they are "THAT" bad then don't you think that they wouldn't have made it out of committee or even pass a floorvote? The committee is charged with making sure the judges meet the qualifications and send them out for a vote. This vote needs to take place - to not have the vote by forcing a majority vote goes against the constitutional process of judicial appointments.

CkG

 

[markuskidd]

Well, if the Republicans go ahead and try to do the vote, then the filibuster can begin. It's up to them to make you feel better, CAD.

to not have the vote by forcing a majority vote goes against the constitutional process of judicial appointments.

then ANY use of the filibuster is going against the constitutional process of whatever they're filibustering... lol

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: markuskidd
Well, if the Republicans go ahead and try to do the vote, then the filibuster can begin. It's up to them to make you feel better, CAD.

Like I've stated - it isn't about me. It's about the integrity of the system and the use of the cloture vote(because of a threat) to force a supermajority on things that only require a simple majority. There are only a few legislative things that constitutionally require a supermajority to pass, judicial confirmations is NOT one of them.

CkG

Edit for your edit:
"then ANY use of the filibuster is going against the constitutional process of whatever they're filibustering... lol"

No, the filibuster is to force more debate - that is NOT what the Democrats are using it for. They are using the threat to force Republicans to call for cloture of this imaginary filibuster and debate.
But yes - you hit on the problem that this sort of thing causes. A MINORITY can use the threat of filibuster to change the rules - that is where the problem lies. What is to stop the minority from always forcing a super-majority? It is a despicable practice and these Democrats know it.

 

[DealMonkey]

Cad, without the filibuster, or even the threat of filibuster, how can the minority keep from getting steamrolled by the majority in the Senate? I don't think the minority has any other option. You know perfectly well that if these nominees reach the floor for an up-down vote, that the republicans will approve their nomination. You DO know that, don't you?

If you can point to some other tool that the minority can use to defend themselves against the majority, I'd be more inclined to consider your points...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Cad, without the filibuster, or even the threat of filibuster, how can the minority keep from getting steamrolled by the majority in the Senate? I don't think the minority has any other option. You know perfectly well that if these nominees reach the floor for an up-down vote, that the republicans will approve their nomination. You DO know that, don't you?

If you can point to some other tool that the minority can use to defend themselves against the majority, I'd be more inclined to consider your points...

Is the senate not based on majority rule? There is no "protecting" that is neccessary because the majority has always had it's way on things that require a majority. I seem to be hearing quite a bit of whining about "protection" from the majority... Well, the system is set up that way and the legislative voting rules regarding majority/supermajority are quite clear on which votes require a supermajority.

Everyone gets a vote - that is their protection. The "minority" needs to adjust their thinking if they ever hope to be considered in the majority. They all get one vote - it's the way things work.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Cad, I don't think the filibuster is going away. No matter how much you whine about it. It's a long Senate tradition. More importantly, however, I personally believe that our governmental system was setup to protect the minority from the majority. Look closely at our laws and our governmental system of checks and balances. I don't want a tyranny of the majority any more than I want one of the minority. I think it's a balance thing. A balance that acts as a built-in protection from extremism by either party.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Cad, I don't think the filibuster is going away. No matter how much you whine about it. It's a long Senate tradition. More importantly, however, I personally believe that our governmental system was setup to protect the minority from the majority. Look closely at our laws and our governmental system of checks and balances. I don't want a tyranny of the majority any more than I want one of the minority. I think it's a balance thing. A balance that acts as a built-in protection from extremism by either party.

Yes - there was "balance" involved. That's why the Senate exists. 2 people from all states - this protects smaller states from Bigger states controlling everything. But again, in this case -they all get a vote. I don't think the filibuster should go away(and I wasn't whining about it) but I also don't think it should be allowed to hijack the majority either. Cloture should be a simple majority and those who wish to filibuster...must actually filibuster(debate)- not just threaten to force a vote. If there are things that need to be discussed - that's fine but to force a supermajority vote where a simple majority vote is called for - it's tyranny of the minority. Just be prepared for the backlash this will cause.

This is a gross injustice and these Senators know it - they've said such themselves.

Painting the filibuster as the only "saving" tool is misguided. It wasn't to prevent a vote - it was meant to further debate. If you filibuster you should have to actually follow through with the filibuster and if you loose the floor, whether via cloture or failing to debate further, then things can proceed. This idea that the only way to break a filibuster is cloture is assinine. This tactic will come back to haunt the Democrats - mark my words People see through this BS and won't stand for it.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

I guess desperate times call for desperate measures. I suppose you could say that's the position the dems find themselves in. Not only in the Senate either....

 

[LunarRay]

The Constitution gives both houses of Congress the right to make their own rules. However, if their rules violate the Constitution they must be amended to conform. For instance; If the Senate created a rule to require 4/5 or 80 + 1 votes to approve a treaty it would violate the Constitution regarding the super majority actually articulated for such an approval. This is Cutler's basic position that he argued to congress regarding filibuster. The Senate argues that requiring 60 + 1 to move the question does not do that when the Constitution deems 50 + 1 all that is necessary. Keeping a simple majority question from being put to the body by filibuster for the purpose of keeping the question from being asked and requiring 60 +1 to cloture the filibuster is applying a super majority status to a question. There may be a distinction but no difference. The USSC has held in many cases that a distinction with out a difference is not a difference. In Brown v B of E they held 'Equal' but 'Separate' was not equal because of the results of the 'separate'. So it would seem to me that result is the important issue. Separate and apart as the filibuster may be from the vote on the question, if the means to arrive there (the result) demands a greater vote requirement there is no difference between the vote on the question and the vote on the cloture.

Edit: some argue that the minority need this right. Madison said the minority are the states and the states are equal in the senate. Two per state. Madison held the majority should rule except as is provided in the Constitution. There are no rights to the minority beyond the super majority indicated. If the senate wishes to make rules to insure minority rights... fine.. but, to move the question is a majority prerogative. To debate for infinity at some point becomes a rule that equalizes the senate.. to a 3/5 body potentially on all questions.