The Not-So-Secret History of Filibusters

[jjzelinski]

The reason people are freaking about this rewriting of the senate rules, is A.) it's technically illegal since you need a 60 vote majority in the senate just to change the rules and B.) if they go "nucular", there's literally nothing to hold back the right wing from become utterly totalitarian; in essence the end of bipartisanship (at least until the mid-term elections.) That means no more checks and balances, the far right wing agenda will be universally facilitated in our government in all three branches. Part of the reason bipartisanship was designed in the first was to keep ideological extremism at bay through intrinsic compromise; if this goes through there will be no more compromise.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Seems to focus a lot on Sen. Daschle (now no longer in the Senate and, arguably, one of the biggest tools the Senate's ever seen) and Sen. Leahy. I never said the Democrats didn't complain about the filibustering during Clinton's presidency. There's hypocrisy on both sides. But, now that the shoe's on the other foot you're crying foul?


Give me a break.

It focused on dashole because he was coming up on re-election in 2004.(check the date of the link)
Guess what - he lost. You know part of the reason he lost? That's right - because he was fake filibustering Judicial nominees. You'd think the other democrats would learn from that devastating loss, but also they haven't. Bodes well for 2006, no?

CsG

If they aren't going to stand up for what they believe and just roll over and play dead, what's the point of having them there? If Daschle lost because he stood up to Bush, as you claim, then it's better than him winning because he didn't. I would be more worried about ideologues like Santorum in 2006.

The problem is that they didn't stand up for what they believe as evidenced in the link I provided. Either that or he was lying...

CsG

Well, they are standing up against Bush's nominees now. If you are so convinced it's going to cost them seats in 2006, shouldn't you be happy? Or maybe you aren't so convinced...

No they aren't. They are playing the same fake filibuster game that dashole played. If the democrats were standing up against his nominees they'd have a laundry list of "atrocities" these nominees have committed. So far they can't seem to find a pencil, let alone a pad of paper to write these atrocities down on...

As requested earlier: "Please present a case against each of the fake filibustered nominees."

<-still not holding breath

CsG

That's good. Breathing is fundamental.
Like I mentioned, I won't be participating in your double negative game.
If you want me to believe that 100% of Bush nominees should be approved for lifetime appointments, and that none out of hundreds should be blocked, I am not buying it either.

I didn't say the democrats had to vote for them, but if they are going to bypass tradition because they claim they are "extreme" then they better have a laundry list of atrocities committed by these people.

conjur, no there has been nothing except a little on the woman from texas and that has been severely blown out of proportion(not to mention extremely hilarious that Gonzales's statements are being twisted to be used against her).

CsG

If the Republicans were exercising their responsibilities and not just rubberstamping whatever the administration sends them, and the Democrats would not need to resort to filibusters.
Show me in the Constitution that one has a right to be an appeals court judge for a lifetime unless he or she has committed atrocities.

<- Not holding my breath.

wtf? The Constitution clearly lays out the proceedure for judicial nominations. A simple majority is needed to confirm them regardless of atrocities. So why are the Democrats not allowing the Constitutionally mandated vote?

CsG

So do you confirm that the Republican party standard for someone to be appointed to a lifetime position as a judge is that they not commit any atrocities?
As far as Constitution laying out the procedure for judicial nominations, it does not lay out a limit on the amount of time that can be spent debating and considering these nominees. That is left to Senate rules.

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

nope. try again. The constitution clearly states that judicial nominees are confirmed with a simple majority - not a simple majority unless a filibuster is in place.

Where does it "say" that? The truth is that the Constitution does not guarantee a simple "majority" or whatever false information you are insinuating. The Consitution only guarantees that the Senate can vote on a nomination, and the Senate can determine its own rules for voting.

Article II Section 2

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Article I Section 5

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Senators have the right, under the rules of the Senate, to filibuster any measure before the body. For example, Repubs tried to "fake filibuster" (as you'd call it) the Paez nomination and failed- but I'm sure you already knew that, making your assertion transparently dishonest.

nope. try again. The constitution clearly states that judicial nominees are confirmed with a simple majority - not a simple majority unless a filibuster is in place.

CsG

Waiting for you to show me where the Constitution sets a time limit on debate of judicial nominees.

<--- Not holding my breath.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Seems to focus a lot on Sen. Daschle (now no longer in the Senate and, arguably, one of the biggest tools the Senate's ever seen) and Sen. Leahy. I never said the Democrats didn't complain about the filibustering during Clinton's presidency. There's hypocrisy on both sides. But, now that the shoe's on the other foot you're crying foul?


Give me a break.

It focused on dashole because he was coming up on re-election in 2004.(check the date of the link)
Guess what - he lost. You know part of the reason he lost? That's right - because he was fake filibustering Judicial nominees. You'd think the other democrats would learn from that devastating loss, but also they haven't. Bodes well for 2006, no?

CsG

If they aren't going to stand up for what they believe and just roll over and play dead, what's the point of having them there? If Daschle lost because he stood up to Bush, as you claim, then it's better than him winning because he didn't. I would be more worried about ideologues like Santorum in 2006.

The problem is that they didn't stand up for what they believe as evidenced in the link I provided. Either that or he was lying...

CsG

Well, they are standing up against Bush's nominees now. If you are so convinced it's going to cost them seats in 2006, shouldn't you be happy? Or maybe you aren't so convinced...

No they aren't. They are playing the same fake filibuster game that dashole played. If the democrats were standing up against his nominees they'd have a laundry list of "atrocities" these nominees have committed. So far they can't seem to find a pencil, let alone a pad of paper to write these atrocities down on...

As requested earlier: "Please present a case against each of the fake filibustered nominees."

<-still not holding breath

CsG

That's good. Breathing is fundamental.
Like I mentioned, I won't be participating in your double negative game.
If you want me to believe that 100% of Bush nominees should be approved for lifetime appointments, and that none out of hundreds should be blocked, I am not buying it either.

I didn't say the democrats had to vote for them, but if they are going to bypass tradition because they claim they are "extreme" then they better have a laundry list of atrocities committed by these people.

conjur, no there has been nothing except a little on the woman from texas and that has been severely blown out of proportion(not to mention extremely hilarious that Gonzales's statements are being twisted to be used against her).

CsG

If the Republicans were exercising their responsibilities and not just rubberstamping whatever the administration sends them, and the Democrats would not need to resort to filibusters.
Show me in the Constitution that one has a right to be an appeals court judge for a lifetime unless he or she has committed atrocities.

<- Not holding my breath.

wtf? The Constitution clearly lays out the proceedure for judicial nominations. A simple majority is needed to confirm them regardless of atrocities. So why are the Democrats not allowing the Constitutionally mandated vote?

CsG

So do you confirm that the Republican party standard for someone to be appointed to a lifetime position as a judge is that they not commit any atrocities?
As far as Constitution laying out the procedure for judicial nominations, it does not lay out a limit on the amount of time that can be spent debating and considering these nominees. That is left to Senate rules.

Atrocities are not mentioned in the Constitution, but a consent vote is.

Then lets debate them on the Senate floor then. What is reid afraid of? That he and his fake filibuster goons won't have anything of substance to oppose? If debate is what you want - I'm all for it. Let Americans see what the democrats oppose in these nominees...

CsG

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Seems to focus a lot on Sen. Daschle (now no longer in the Senate and, arguably, one of the biggest tools the Senate's ever seen) and Sen. Leahy. I never said the Democrats didn't complain about the filibustering during Clinton's presidency. There's hypocrisy on both sides. But, now that the shoe's on the other foot you're crying foul?


Give me a break.

It focused on dashole because he was coming up on re-election in 2004.(check the date of the link)
Guess what - he lost. You know part of the reason he lost? That's right - because he was fake filibustering Judicial nominees. You'd think the other democrats would learn from that devastating loss, but also they haven't. Bodes well for 2006, no?

CsG

If they aren't going to stand up for what they believe and just roll over and play dead, what's the point of having them there? If Daschle lost because he stood up to Bush, as you claim, then it's better than him winning because he didn't. I would be more worried about ideologues like Santorum in 2006.

The problem is that they didn't stand up for what they believe as evidenced in the link I provided. Either that or he was lying...

CsG

Well, they are standing up against Bush's nominees now. If you are so convinced it's going to cost them seats in 2006, shouldn't you be happy? Or maybe you aren't so convinced...

No they aren't. They are playing the same fake filibuster game that dashole played. If the democrats were standing up against his nominees they'd have a laundry list of "atrocities" these nominees have committed. So far they can't seem to find a pencil, let alone a pad of paper to write these atrocities down on...

As requested earlier: "Please present a case against each of the fake filibustered nominees."

<-still not holding breath

CsG

That's good. Breathing is fundamental.
Like I mentioned, I won't be participating in your double negative game.
If you want me to believe that 100% of Bush nominees should be approved for lifetime appointments, and that none out of hundreds should be blocked, I am not buying it either.

I didn't say the democrats had to vote for them, but if they are going to bypass tradition because they claim they are "extreme" then they better have a laundry list of atrocities committed by these people.

conjur, no there has been nothing except a little on the woman from texas and that has been severely blown out of proportion(not to mention extremely hilarious that Gonzales's statements are being twisted to be used against her).

CsG

If the Republicans were exercising their responsibilities and not just rubberstamping whatever the administration sends them, and the Democrats would not need to resort to filibusters.
Show me in the Constitution that one has a right to be an appeals court judge for a lifetime unless he or she has committed atrocities.

<- Not holding my breath.

wtf? The Constitution clearly lays out the proceedure for judicial nominations. A simple majority is needed to confirm them regardless of atrocities. So why are the Democrats not allowing the Constitutionally mandated vote?

CsG

So do you confirm that the Republican party standard for someone to be appointed to a lifetime position as a judge is that they not commit any atrocities?
As far as Constitution laying out the procedure for judicial nominations, it does not lay out a limit on the amount of time that can be spent debating and considering these nominees. That is left to Senate rules.

Atrocities are not mentioned in the Constitution, but a consent vote is.

Then lets debate them on the Senate floor then. What is reid afraid of? That he and his fake filibuster goons won't have anything of substance to oppose? If debate is what you want - I'm all for it. Let Americans see what the democrats oppose in these nominees...

CsG

I agree to that as well. Let Americans see what the Republicans support in these nominees. Republicans are the ones setting the agenda for the Senate. So it's up to them to schedule debates.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
CsG,

Start reading:

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1541294&enterthread=y
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1582517&enterthread=y
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1588786&enterthread=y

And:
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=14172

Nice try conjur but that doesn't even come close. What you have in those threads are DNC tidbits and no laundry list of atrocities that make them extreme. As to the pfaw site- is that what the democrats think? Is that their list? BTW it seems the pfaw site offers quite a bit of misinterpretation and flat out misrepresentation. Just taking a look at what they have on Brown - they misrepresent her opinion on the Avis case(which isn't surprising). But anyway - do the fake filibuster democrats buy into the pfaw atrocity lists? If so, why aren't they stating so in the media instead of just continually spewing their sound bite rhetoric? Why aren't they on the floor of the senate putting it on record if these nominees really are THAT bad? I mean they could always still fake filibuster after they aired these atrocities for all to see - no?
Why do the fake filibusterers keep hiding behind generic accusations of "extremism"?

CsG

Try reading instead of dismissing. Your partisan bias is showing.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Seems to focus a lot on Sen. Daschle (now no longer in the Senate and, arguably, one of the biggest tools the Senate's ever seen) and Sen. Leahy. I never said the Democrats didn't complain about the filibustering during Clinton's presidency. There's hypocrisy on both sides. But, now that the shoe's on the other foot you're crying foul?


Give me a break.

It focused on dashole because he was coming up on re-election in 2004.(check the date of the link)
Guess what - he lost. You know part of the reason he lost? That's right - because he was fake filibustering Judicial nominees. You'd think the other democrats would learn from that devastating loss, but also they haven't. Bodes well for 2006, no?

CsG

If they aren't going to stand up for what they believe and just roll over and play dead, what's the point of having them there? If Daschle lost because he stood up to Bush, as you claim, then it's better than him winning because he didn't. I would be more worried about ideologues like Santorum in 2006.

The problem is that they didn't stand up for what they believe as evidenced in the link I provided. Either that or he was lying...

CsG

Well, they are standing up against Bush's nominees now. If you are so convinced it's going to cost them seats in 2006, shouldn't you be happy? Or maybe you aren't so convinced...

No they aren't. They are playing the same fake filibuster game that dashole played. If the democrats were standing up against his nominees they'd have a laundry list of "atrocities" these nominees have committed. So far they can't seem to find a pencil, let alone a pad of paper to write these atrocities down on...

As requested earlier: "Please present a case against each of the fake filibustered nominees."

<-still not holding breath

CsG

That's good. Breathing is fundamental.
Like I mentioned, I won't be participating in your double negative game.
If you want me to believe that 100% of Bush nominees should be approved for lifetime appointments, and that none out of hundreds should be blocked, I am not buying it either.

I didn't say the democrats had to vote for them, but if they are going to bypass tradition because they claim they are "extreme" then they better have a laundry list of atrocities committed by these people.

conjur, no there has been nothing except a little on the woman from texas and that has been severely blown out of proportion(not to mention extremely hilarious that Gonzales's statements are being twisted to be used against her).

CsG

If the Republicans were exercising their responsibilities and not just rubberstamping whatever the administration sends them, and the Democrats would not need to resort to filibusters.
Show me in the Constitution that one has a right to be an appeals court judge for a lifetime unless he or she has committed atrocities.

<- Not holding my breath.

wtf? The Constitution clearly lays out the proceedure for judicial nominations. A simple majority is needed to confirm them regardless of atrocities. So why are the Democrats not allowing the Constitutionally mandated vote?

CsG

So do you confirm that the Republican party standard for someone to be appointed to a lifetime position as a judge is that they not commit any atrocities?
As far as Constitution laying out the procedure for judicial nominations, it does not lay out a limit on the amount of time that can be spent debating and considering these nominees. That is left to Senate rules.

Atrocities are not mentioned in the Constitution, but a consent vote is.

Then lets debate them on the Senate floor then. What is reid afraid of? That he and his fake filibuster goons won't have anything of substance to oppose? If debate is what you want - I'm all for it. Let Americans see what the democrats oppose in these nominees...

CsG

I agree to that as well. Let Americans see what the Republicans support in these nominees. Republicans are the ones setting the agenda for the Senate. So it's up to them to schedule debates.

Then it's settled. You call reid and I'll call Frist. deal? We'll commence the up/down vote unless debate over the nominee is wanted by any Senator.

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur
Try reading instead of dismissing. Your partisan bias is showing.

I've already read them and then I dismissed them due to lack of objectivety and/or lack of truth.

But just for grins - do you think the dems would go to the floor of the Senate and use the stuff from pfaw? :laugh:

CsG

 

[conjur]

Umm...yeah...right.

Lack of truth? :laugh:



Oh, I forgot. You live in Bizarro World where up is down and lying is moral.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Seems to focus a lot on Sen. Daschle (now no longer in the Senate and, arguably, one of the biggest tools the Senate's ever seen) and Sen. Leahy. I never said the Democrats didn't complain about the filibustering during Clinton's presidency. There's hypocrisy on both sides. But, now that the shoe's on the other foot you're crying foul?


Give me a break.

It focused on dashole because he was coming up on re-election in 2004.(check the date of the link)
Guess what - he lost. You know part of the reason he lost? That's right - because he was fake filibustering Judicial nominees. You'd think the other democrats would learn from that devastating loss, but also they haven't. Bodes well for 2006, no?

CsG

If they aren't going to stand up for what they believe and just roll over and play dead, what's the point of having them there? If Daschle lost because he stood up to Bush, as you claim, then it's better than him winning because he didn't. I would be more worried about ideologues like Santorum in 2006.

The problem is that they didn't stand up for what they believe as evidenced in the link I provided. Either that or he was lying...

CsG

Well, they are standing up against Bush's nominees now. If you are so convinced it's going to cost them seats in 2006, shouldn't you be happy? Or maybe you aren't so convinced...

No they aren't. They are playing the same fake filibuster game that dashole played. If the democrats were standing up against his nominees they'd have a laundry list of "atrocities" these nominees have committed. So far they can't seem to find a pencil, let alone a pad of paper to write these atrocities down on...

As requested earlier: "Please present a case against each of the fake filibustered nominees."

<-still not holding breath

CsG

That's good. Breathing is fundamental.
Like I mentioned, I won't be participating in your double negative game.
If you want me to believe that 100% of Bush nominees should be approved for lifetime appointments, and that none out of hundreds should be blocked, I am not buying it either.

I didn't say the democrats had to vote for them, but if they are going to bypass tradition because they claim they are "extreme" then they better have a laundry list of atrocities committed by these people.

conjur, no there has been nothing except a little on the woman from texas and that has been severely blown out of proportion(not to mention extremely hilarious that Gonzales's statements are being twisted to be used against her).

CsG

If the Republicans were exercising their responsibilities and not just rubberstamping whatever the administration sends them, and the Democrats would not need to resort to filibusters.
Show me in the Constitution that one has a right to be an appeals court judge for a lifetime unless he or she has committed atrocities.

<- Not holding my breath.

wtf? The Constitution clearly lays out the proceedure for judicial nominations. A simple majority is needed to confirm them regardless of atrocities. So why are the Democrats not allowing the Constitutionally mandated vote?

CsG

So do you confirm that the Republican party standard for someone to be appointed to a lifetime position as a judge is that they not commit any atrocities?
As far as Constitution laying out the procedure for judicial nominations, it does not lay out a limit on the amount of time that can be spent debating and considering these nominees. That is left to Senate rules.

Atrocities are not mentioned in the Constitution, but a consent vote is.

Then lets debate them on the Senate floor then. What is reid afraid of? That he and his fake filibuster goons won't have anything of substance to oppose? If debate is what you want - I'm all for it. Let Americans see what the democrats oppose in these nominees...

CsG

I agree to that as well. Let Americans see what the Republicans support in these nominees. Republicans are the ones setting the agenda for the Senate. So it's up to them to schedule debates.

Then it's settled. You call reid and I'll call Frist. deal? We'll commence the up/down vote unless debate over the nominee is wanted by any Senator.

CsG

I think it is settle. You call Frist and I'll call Reid. Deal? We'll commence the up/down vote when 60 Senators say they don't want anymode debate over the nominee.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Seems to focus a lot on Sen. Daschle (now no longer in the Senate and, arguably, one of the biggest tools the Senate's ever seen) and Sen. Leahy. I never said the Democrats didn't complain about the filibustering during Clinton's presidency. There's hypocrisy on both sides. But, now that the shoe's on the other foot you're crying foul?


Give me a break.

It focused on dashole because he was coming up on re-election in 2004.(check the date of the link)
Guess what - he lost. You know part of the reason he lost? That's right - because he was fake filibustering Judicial nominees. You'd think the other democrats would learn from that devastating loss, but also they haven't. Bodes well for 2006, no?

CsG

If they aren't going to stand up for what they believe and just roll over and play dead, what's the point of having them there? If Daschle lost because he stood up to Bush, as you claim, then it's better than him winning because he didn't. I would be more worried about ideologues like Santorum in 2006.

The problem is that they didn't stand up for what they believe as evidenced in the link I provided. Either that or he was lying...

CsG

Well, they are standing up against Bush's nominees now. If you are so convinced it's going to cost them seats in 2006, shouldn't you be happy? Or maybe you aren't so convinced...

No they aren't. They are playing the same fake filibuster game that dashole played. If the democrats were standing up against his nominees they'd have a laundry list of "atrocities" these nominees have committed. So far they can't seem to find a pencil, let alone a pad of paper to write these atrocities down on...

As requested earlier: "Please present a case against each of the fake filibustered nominees."

<-still not holding breath

CsG

That's good. Breathing is fundamental.
Like I mentioned, I won't be participating in your double negative game.
If you want me to believe that 100% of Bush nominees should be approved for lifetime appointments, and that none out of hundreds should be blocked, I am not buying it either.

I didn't say the democrats had to vote for them, but if they are going to bypass tradition because they claim they are "extreme" then they better have a laundry list of atrocities committed by these people.

conjur, no there has been nothing except a little on the woman from texas and that has been severely blown out of proportion(not to mention extremely hilarious that Gonzales's statements are being twisted to be used against her).

CsG

If the Republicans were exercising their responsibilities and not just rubberstamping whatever the administration sends them, and the Democrats would not need to resort to filibusters.
Show me in the Constitution that one has a right to be an appeals court judge for a lifetime unless he or she has committed atrocities.

<- Not holding my breath.

wtf? The Constitution clearly lays out the proceedure for judicial nominations. A simple majority is needed to confirm them regardless of atrocities. So why are the Democrats not allowing the Constitutionally mandated vote?

CsG

So do you confirm that the Republican party standard for someone to be appointed to a lifetime position as a judge is that they not commit any atrocities?
As far as Constitution laying out the procedure for judicial nominations, it does not lay out a limit on the amount of time that can be spent debating and considering these nominees. That is left to Senate rules.

Atrocities are not mentioned in the Constitution, but a consent vote is.

Then lets debate them on the Senate floor then. What is reid afraid of? That he and his fake filibuster goons won't have anything of substance to oppose? If debate is what you want - I'm all for it. Let Americans see what the democrats oppose in these nominees...

CsG

I agree to that as well. Let Americans see what the Republicans support in these nominees. Republicans are the ones setting the agenda for the Senate. So it's up to them to schedule debates.

Then it's settled. You call reid and I'll call Frist. deal? We'll commence the up/down vote unless debate over the nominee is wanted by any Senator.

CsG

I think it is settle. You call Frist and I'll call Reid. Deal? We'll commence the up/down vote when 60 Senators say they don't want anymode debate over the nominee.

OK, but you have to hold the floor and really filibuster then, none of this fake filibuster threat crap. Talk, talk, talk if you wish. No business will be conducted until it is over and the up/down vote is completed.

deal? ...I'm on hold...

CsG

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Seems to focus a lot on Sen. Daschle (now no longer in the Senate and, arguably, one of the biggest tools the Senate's ever seen) and Sen. Leahy. I never said the Democrats didn't complain about the filibustering during Clinton's presidency. There's hypocrisy on both sides. But, now that the shoe's on the other foot you're crying foul?


Give me a break.

It focused on dashole because he was coming up on re-election in 2004.(check the date of the link)
Guess what - he lost. You know part of the reason he lost? That's right - because he was fake filibustering Judicial nominees. You'd think the other democrats would learn from that devastating loss, but also they haven't. Bodes well for 2006, no?

CsG

If they aren't going to stand up for what they believe and just roll over and play dead, what's the point of having them there? If Daschle lost because he stood up to Bush, as you claim, then it's better than him winning because he didn't. I would be more worried about ideologues like Santorum in 2006.

The problem is that they didn't stand up for what they believe as evidenced in the link I provided. Either that or he was lying...

CsG

Well, they are standing up against Bush's nominees now. If you are so convinced it's going to cost them seats in 2006, shouldn't you be happy? Or maybe you aren't so convinced...

No they aren't. They are playing the same fake filibuster game that dashole played. If the democrats were standing up against his nominees they'd have a laundry list of "atrocities" these nominees have committed. So far they can't seem to find a pencil, let alone a pad of paper to write these atrocities down on...

As requested earlier: "Please present a case against each of the fake filibustered nominees."

<-still not holding breath

CsG

That's good. Breathing is fundamental.
Like I mentioned, I won't be participating in your double negative game.
If you want me to believe that 100% of Bush nominees should be approved for lifetime appointments, and that none out of hundreds should be blocked, I am not buying it either.

I didn't say the democrats had to vote for them, but if they are going to bypass tradition because they claim they are "extreme" then they better have a laundry list of atrocities committed by these people.

conjur, no there has been nothing except a little on the woman from texas and that has been severely blown out of proportion(not to mention extremely hilarious that Gonzales's statements are being twisted to be used against her).

CsG

If the Republicans were exercising their responsibilities and not just rubberstamping whatever the administration sends them, and the Democrats would not need to resort to filibusters.
Show me in the Constitution that one has a right to be an appeals court judge for a lifetime unless he or she has committed atrocities.

<- Not holding my breath.

wtf? The Constitution clearly lays out the proceedure for judicial nominations. A simple majority is needed to confirm them regardless of atrocities. So why are the Democrats not allowing the Constitutionally mandated vote?

CsG

So do you confirm that the Republican party standard for someone to be appointed to a lifetime position as a judge is that they not commit any atrocities?
As far as Constitution laying out the procedure for judicial nominations, it does not lay out a limit on the amount of time that can be spent debating and considering these nominees. That is left to Senate rules.

Atrocities are not mentioned in the Constitution, but a consent vote is.

Then lets debate them on the Senate floor then. What is reid afraid of? That he and his fake filibuster goons won't have anything of substance to oppose? If debate is what you want - I'm all for it. Let Americans see what the democrats oppose in these nominees...

CsG

I agree to that as well. Let Americans see what the Republicans support in these nominees. Republicans are the ones setting the agenda for the Senate. So it's up to them to schedule debates.

Then it's settled. You call reid and I'll call Frist. deal? We'll commence the up/down vote unless debate over the nominee is wanted by any Senator.

CsG

I think it is settle. You call Frist and I'll call Reid. Deal? We'll commence the up/down vote when 60 Senators say they don't want anymode debate over the nominee.

OK, but you have to hold the floor and really filibuster then, none of this fake filibuster threat crap. Talk, talk, talk if you wish. No business will be conducted until it is over and the up/down vote is completed.

deal? ...I'm on hold...

CsG

Deal. The less business is conducted by the Republican Senate, the better. If it was up to me, they would do nothing but debate judges for the next 3 and a half years.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Seems to focus a lot on Sen. Daschle (now no longer in the Senate and, arguably, one of the biggest tools the Senate's ever seen) and Sen. Leahy. I never said the Democrats didn't complain about the filibustering during Clinton's presidency. There's hypocrisy on both sides. But, now that the shoe's on the other foot you're crying foul?


Give me a break.

It focused on dashole because he was coming up on re-election in 2004.(check the date of the link)
Guess what - he lost. You know part of the reason he lost? That's right - because he was fake filibustering Judicial nominees. You'd think the other democrats would learn from that devastating loss, but also they haven't. Bodes well for 2006, no?

CsG

If they aren't going to stand up for what they believe and just roll over and play dead, what's the point of having them there? If Daschle lost because he stood up to Bush, as you claim, then it's better than him winning because he didn't. I would be more worried about ideologues like Santorum in 2006.

The problem is that they didn't stand up for what they believe as evidenced in the link I provided. Either that or he was lying...

CsG

Well, they are standing up against Bush's nominees now. If you are so convinced it's going to cost them seats in 2006, shouldn't you be happy? Or maybe you aren't so convinced...

No they aren't. They are playing the same fake filibuster game that dashole played. If the democrats were standing up against his nominees they'd have a laundry list of "atrocities" these nominees have committed. So far they can't seem to find a pencil, let alone a pad of paper to write these atrocities down on...

As requested earlier: "Please present a case against each of the fake filibustered nominees."

<-still not holding breath

CsG

That's good. Breathing is fundamental.
Like I mentioned, I won't be participating in your double negative game.
If you want me to believe that 100% of Bush nominees should be approved for lifetime appointments, and that none out of hundreds should be blocked, I am not buying it either.

I didn't say the democrats had to vote for them, but if they are going to bypass tradition because they claim they are "extreme" then they better have a laundry list of atrocities committed by these people.

conjur, no there has been nothing except a little on the woman from texas and that has been severely blown out of proportion(not to mention extremely hilarious that Gonzales's statements are being twisted to be used against her).

CsG

If the Republicans were exercising their responsibilities and not just rubberstamping whatever the administration sends them, and the Democrats would not need to resort to filibusters.
Show me in the Constitution that one has a right to be an appeals court judge for a lifetime unless he or she has committed atrocities.

<- Not holding my breath.

wtf? The Constitution clearly lays out the proceedure for judicial nominations. A simple majority is needed to confirm them regardless of atrocities. So why are the Democrats not allowing the Constitutionally mandated vote?

CsG

So do you confirm that the Republican party standard for someone to be appointed to a lifetime position as a judge is that they not commit any atrocities?
As far as Constitution laying out the procedure for judicial nominations, it does not lay out a limit on the amount of time that can be spent debating and considering these nominees. That is left to Senate rules.

Atrocities are not mentioned in the Constitution, but a consent vote is.

Then lets debate them on the Senate floor then. What is reid afraid of? That he and his fake filibuster goons won't have anything of substance to oppose? If debate is what you want - I'm all for it. Let Americans see what the democrats oppose in these nominees...

CsG

I agree to that as well. Let Americans see what the Republicans support in these nominees. Republicans are the ones setting the agenda for the Senate. So it's up to them to schedule debates.

Then it's settled. You call reid and I'll call Frist. deal? We'll commence the up/down vote unless debate over the nominee is wanted by any Senator.

CsG

I think it is settle. You call Frist and I'll call Reid. Deal? We'll commence the up/down vote when 60 Senators say they don't want anymode debate over the nominee.

OK, but you have to hold the floor and really filibuster then, none of this fake filibuster threat crap. Talk, talk, talk if you wish. No business will be conducted until it is over and the up/down vote is completed.

deal? ...I'm on hold...

CsG

Deal. The less business is conducted by the Republican Senate, the better. If it was up to me, they would do nothing but debate judges for the next 3 and a half years.

OK, fine with me I do hope you realize that your boys would get trounced in the mid-term elections if they shut down the Senate with the filibuster stunt - right? I mean dashole already got the boot from voters - just imagine the fallout from actually filibustering and shutting things down? :laugh:

<-can't wait for this scenario to play out.


CsG

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Seems to focus a lot on Sen. Daschle (now no longer in the Senate and, arguably, one of the biggest tools the Senate's ever seen) and Sen. Leahy. I never said the Democrats didn't complain about the filibustering during Clinton's presidency. There's hypocrisy on both sides. But, now that the shoe's on the other foot you're crying foul?


Give me a break.

It focused on dashole because he was coming up on re-election in 2004.(check the date of the link)
Guess what - he lost. You know part of the reason he lost? That's right - because he was fake filibustering Judicial nominees. You'd think the other democrats would learn from that devastating loss, but also they haven't. Bodes well for 2006, no?

CsG

If they aren't going to stand up for what they believe and just roll over and play dead, what's the point of having them there? If Daschle lost because he stood up to Bush, as you claim, then it's better than him winning because he didn't. I would be more worried about ideologues like Santorum in 2006.

The problem is that they didn't stand up for what they believe as evidenced in the link I provided. Either that or he was lying...

CsG

Well, they are standing up against Bush's nominees now. If you are so convinced it's going to cost them seats in 2006, shouldn't you be happy? Or maybe you aren't so convinced...

No they aren't. They are playing the same fake filibuster game that dashole played. If the democrats were standing up against his nominees they'd have a laundry list of "atrocities" these nominees have committed. So far they can't seem to find a pencil, let alone a pad of paper to write these atrocities down on...

As requested earlier: "Please present a case against each of the fake filibustered nominees."

<-still not holding breath

CsG

That's good. Breathing is fundamental.
Like I mentioned, I won't be participating in your double negative game.
If you want me to believe that 100% of Bush nominees should be approved for lifetime appointments, and that none out of hundreds should be blocked, I am not buying it either.

I didn't say the democrats had to vote for them, but if they are going to bypass tradition because they claim they are "extreme" then they better have a laundry list of atrocities committed by these people.

conjur, no there has been nothing except a little on the woman from texas and that has been severely blown out of proportion(not to mention extremely hilarious that Gonzales's statements are being twisted to be used against her).

CsG

If the Republicans were exercising their responsibilities and not just rubberstamping whatever the administration sends them, and the Democrats would not need to resort to filibusters.
Show me in the Constitution that one has a right to be an appeals court judge for a lifetime unless he or she has committed atrocities.

<- Not holding my breath.

wtf? The Constitution clearly lays out the proceedure for judicial nominations. A simple majority is needed to confirm them regardless of atrocities. So why are the Democrats not allowing the Constitutionally mandated vote?

CsG

So do you confirm that the Republican party standard for someone to be appointed to a lifetime position as a judge is that they not commit any atrocities?
As far as Constitution laying out the procedure for judicial nominations, it does not lay out a limit on the amount of time that can be spent debating and considering these nominees. That is left to Senate rules.

Atrocities are not mentioned in the Constitution, but a consent vote is.

Then lets debate them on the Senate floor then. What is reid afraid of? That he and his fake filibuster goons won't have anything of substance to oppose? If debate is what you want - I'm all for it. Let Americans see what the democrats oppose in these nominees...

CsG

I agree to that as well. Let Americans see what the Republicans support in these nominees. Republicans are the ones setting the agenda for the Senate. So it's up to them to schedule debates.

Then it's settled. You call reid and I'll call Frist. deal? We'll commence the up/down vote unless debate over the nominee is wanted by any Senator.

CsG

I think it is settle. You call Frist and I'll call Reid. Deal? We'll commence the up/down vote when 60 Senators say they don't want anymode debate over the nominee.

OK, but you have to hold the floor and really filibuster then, none of this fake filibuster threat crap. Talk, talk, talk if you wish. No business will be conducted until it is over and the up/down vote is completed.

deal? ...I'm on hold...

CsG

Deal. The less business is conducted by the Republican Senate, the better. If it was up to me, they would do nothing but debate judges for the next 3 and a half years.

OK, fine with me I do hope you realize that your boys would get trounced in the mid-term elections if they shut down the Senate with the filibuster stunt - right? I mean dashole already got the boot from voters - just imagine the fallout from actually filibustering and shutting things down? :laugh:

<-can't wait for this scenario to play out.


CsG

They are not my boys. And it is up to Republicans whether to continue the debate or move on to more pressing issues.

 

[jjzelinski]

I hope the dems play this through because if the right wing goes nucular there might as well not be a two party system; it will cease to effectively exist. Better to go out with a bang.

 

[Jhhnn]

From the ever slippery CsG, on being called for a basic deception-

"nope. try again. The constitution clearly states that judicial nominees are confirmed with a simple majority - not a simple majority unless a filibuster is in place."

Quote the section of the Constitution you reference, there, CsG. Obviously, you can't- The constitution allows the Senate and the House to make their own rules, and furthermore establishes the duty of the Senate to advise and consent wrt judicial nominees... How that is accomplished is entirely up to the Senate... If the Senate so chooses, they can amass a 2/3 majority to amend their rules, establish any new ones they want.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Actually no, it is not the only part pertinent to this debate. You might think it is but it's not. the whole next part is important to the context of that sentence. You pulled that one sentence and tried to portray it as a stand alone argument/statement which it clearly was not. The next part goes on to suggest that her opinion was grounded in LAW and reality...but hey, go ahead and ignore what you wish if you feel it necessary.

CsG

Exactly as I said: the Democrats seem to disagree with you. This changes nothing.

And it destroys your little argument against what I said because you took it out of context.

CsG

Like I have been trying to say, the context is unimportant. You're not going to budge an inch here, so I'm not gonna bother going on about this. Just have to let you know I wasn't ignoring your response.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Actually no, it is not the only part pertinent to this debate. You might think it is but it's not. the whole next part is important to the context of that sentence. You pulled that one sentence and tried to portray it as a stand alone argument/statement which it clearly was not. The next part goes on to suggest that her opinion was grounded in LAW and reality...but hey, go ahead and ignore what you wish if you feel it necessary.

CsG

Exactly as I said: the Democrats seem to disagree with you. This changes nothing.

And it destroys your little argument against what I said because you took it out of context.

CsG

Like I have been trying to say, the context is unimportant. You're not going to budge an inch here, so I'm not gonna bother going on about this. Just have to let you know I wasn't ignoring your response.

Context is very important, but I guess if your goal is to change intent/meaning so you can argue against it - then it would be unimportant.

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

From the ever slippery CsG, on being called for a basic deception-

"nope. try again. The constitution clearly states that judicial nominees are confirmed with a simple majority - not a simple majority unless a filibuster is in place."

Quote the section of the Constitution you reference, there, CsG. Obviously, you can't- The constitution allows the Senate and the House to make their own rules, and furthermore establishes the duty of the Senate to advise and consent wrt judicial nominees... How that is accomplished is entirely up to the Senate... If the Senate so chooses, they can amass a 2/3 majority to amend their rules, establish any new ones they want.

The "Plain Language"
Maybe you'll understand...but then again I doubt you will...

CsG

 

[conjur]

You criticize the OP for posting an editorial piece and then you post your own?


:roll:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur
You criticize the OP for posting an editorial piece and then you post your own?


:roll:

HAHAHA!!!!
From earlier in this thread:

Admit it conjur, if I would have posted an opinion piece on this issue - I would have been accused of RNC talking points - probably by you! So you can drop the holier than thou routine and start looking at thing from a realistic perspective(something you used to be able to do).

Anyway, "What part about what's been posted isn't true," conjur?

CsG

 

[conjur]

Just pointing out your own hypocrisy.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur
Just pointing out your own hypocrisy.

..or proving my point.

CsG

 

[Jhhnn]

In addition to the transparent dishonesty about tradition on page 1, CsG then offers this-

"The constitution clearly states that judicial nominees are confirmed with a simple majority - not a simple majority unless a filibuster is in place."

When called upon to quote the Constitutional demand for his statement, he merely offers an editorialized interpretation of the Constitution- not the same thing, at all.

The Constitution is quite clear about the other side of the issue, however- Article 1, section 5, clause 2-

" Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..."

Which is precisely what the Senate has done wrt filibusters. The Founders, I suspect, never contemplated the naked power play currently envisioned by the Repub leadership, breaking the rules to change the rules... They likely figured on a much higher level of integrity than what we're seeing today...