Republicans: We Will NOT Tolerate blocking Bush's Nominees, The End of Fillibusters?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ramo is right here. The blue slip rules were WAY worse than any fillibuster, and it was used often against Clinton nominees.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Then the solution, with your Right-Wing....erm...Republican majority, would be to reinstate the old filibuster rules, not re-write the manual to ensure your continued dominance.

That is in the spirit of Democracy...

-=Vel=-

Perhaps. In fact I would think this is a good idea.

[Ned]

Hey, Vel, since when have you become afraid of patriotism, free enterprise and liberty and justice for all -- er the Republican Party?

[Kuciwalker]

Vel is for free enterprise and liberty, he's fine with patriotism, he just doesn't like nationalism.

[Velociryx]

I'm all for Liberty and Justice for all, I'm a diehard Capitalist who believes strongly in free enterprise, and I'm...eh...definitely not RABIDLY patriotic, but I count myself as fairly so.

Sadly, these are not the things I identify with the Republican party currently in power.

When I see what they do day-to-day...when I listen to them talk about their plans for my future, I hear their words, laced through with sinister whispers.

I hear the echoes of paranoia and fundamentalist thought behind their ideas.

I see evidence of rabid, senseless nationalism the likes of which we have not seen since the 40's, and I see a party who, having come to fully control the Congress and the office of the President, seems hell bent on re-writing the rules book in order to maintain their power.

This is not...is NOT in the democratic tradition.

It is dangerous and it is short-sighted.

Further, I see a nation that once could count numerous friends and allies around the world, now standing increasingly alone.

This is a grave mistake.

Part of our greatness lies in the fact that we have never sought to go it alone, but to forge strong partnerships.

Part of our greatness lies in the fact that until recently, we have made an effort (sometimes more than others, granted) to act from the moral high ground.

Those things are eroding, and they are eroding more quickly than ever under our present leadership.

I am not alone in counting down the days until we are rid of this disease that inhabits the White House, and I hope that the damage he and his croonies cause while there can be undone by the next President, who will surely have his work cut out for him.



-=Vel=-

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ned
Just three.

Ned, I didn't bother to look back further then the Clinton years. I found three filibusters the Republicans did in the Clinton years on judicial nominees and I found 51 other judicial nominees which Republican tied up in commitee in order to prevent an up or down vote.

Your obsession with filibusters is worrying. If a man is murdered does it really matter if he's stabbed or hit with a crowbar? The fact remains he's dead. Republicans blocked lots and lots and lots of judicial appointees and the ONLY reason filibusters have become big in the last 8 years is because Republicans have changed the commitee rules. The Republicans had a minority veto in commitee and they didn't want Democrats to have the same so they changed the rules when they became the majority.

Come on this isn't rocket science man. I know you can follow it if you want to.

[Ned]

Oerdin, it is hardly anti-democratic to have a candidate not confirmed by majority vote. The issue here it again is not whether a candidate was confirmed or not confirmed by either party but whether a minority was able to stop judicial nominations by use of a filibuster are its equivalent.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Ned


PAX, it is amazing you are here, is it not, given that you were born after Roe v. Wade to a single mother. (I believe I have your family history correct.) Somehow, I suspect your liberalism on the issue of judges is misplaced.

My parents were married when I was born. My little sister was born after my parents divorced. Just because a woman is single or married does not mean she will or will not get an abortion. There are many single mothers and many married women who have had an abortion while married.

[Pax]

My point was not directed at the Nomination process only the voting process.

[Ned]

Vel, I have seen you argue forcefully for free enterprise here in this forum in many debates about communism. That is why I found it very strange for you to be supporting a party who seems to have lost its way on the issue of capitalism.

But I see in your response that you are very suspicious of the current White House when you say these words:

"I hear the echoes of paranoia and fundamentalist thought behind their ideas.

I see evidence of rabid, senseless nationalism the likes of which we have not seen since the 40's, and I see a party who, having come to fully control the Congress and the office of the President, seems hell bent on re-writing the rules book in order to maintain their power.

This is not...is NOT in the democratic tradition.

It is dangerous and it is short-sighted.

Further, I see a nation that once could count numerous friends and allies around the world, now standing increasingly alone.

This is a grave mistake.

Part of our greatness lies in the fact that we have never sought to go it alone, but to forge strong partnerships.

Part of our greatness lies in the fact that until recently, we have made an effort (sometimes more than others, granted) to act from the moral high ground."

It is strange at you and I can look at the same events and come the wholly different conclusions. By expelling one of the worst dictators since Hitler, and in bringing democracy to 45 million people in the Middle East (both Afghanistan and Iraq), it is hard to imagine that the current administration has done anything but take the moral high ground. When you accuse the current administration of not seeking alliances, it is hard to imagine what you mean when we formed a very large coalitions for our operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq. We are hardly going it alone, we are just going without France and Germany in Iraq. But if you want to be fair about this, at least France was bribed by Saddam. But for that bribery, France may have been there with us.

[Berzerker]

Oerdin, I disagree. Not allowing a nominee past committee by a majority is the same thing as a no vote by a majority.

No it isn't, a majority of that committee blocked the candidate from an up or down vote by the Senate. The Constitution says the Senate will "advise and consent", not some committee... Both parties don't like it when committees block nominees since a small majority on a committee can block a nominee who has the support of a majority of the Senate. But once one party does use the committee to reject nominees, the other party will typically seek revenge by using the rules to block the other party's nominees.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Berzerker


No it isn't, a majority of that committee blocked the candidate from an up or down vote by the Senate. The Constitution says the Senate will "advise and consent", not some committee... Both parties don't like it when committees block nominees since a small majority on a committee can block a nominee who has the support of a majority of the Senate. But once one party does use the committee to reject nominees, the other party will typically seek revenge by using the rules to block the other party's nominees.

Berserker, it looks like I might have tangled my words in that response. But from a my understanding, Senate committee makeups parallel the whole body. If Republicans have a majority of the Senate, they also comprise the majority of the committee. Thus, if the Republicans who have the majority in the Senate blocked a nominee at the committee level they do so because they have a majority vote on the committee.

Now, if it is your contention that the committees must merely pass on to the whole Senate every nominee, then I ask you whether judicial nominees ought to be vetted by committees at all?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Pax
My parents were married when I was born. My little sister was born after my parents divorced. Just because a woman is single or married does not mean she will or will not get an abortion. There are many single mothers and many married women who have had an abortion while married.

But, I hope you would agree that it is far more likely for an unwed single mother to have an abortion that it is for a married woman.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Ned


But, I hope you would agree that it is far more likely for an unwed single mother to have an abortion that it is for a married woman.

I think it's more likely for americans to lose their democracy if we keep giving away our rights and giving more and more power to the government. The primary use of the government should be to allow individuals the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. My comments are about limiting governmental powers. Keeping the feds out of my bedroom, out of my video rental decisions, and out of my mail. I also think that instead of passing laws on the one end to prevent death and passing laws on the other to produce death we should start figuring out how we are going to educate the living, reduce polution, increase employment and standards of living and find alternative fuel systems. These would be some of my goals that come before war and abortion.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Pax
At this point, I say let the Republicans have everything they want so 20 years from now I can say I told you so from my secret hiding place in the last supposedly free territory. Antartica.

Warm, sunny, tropical Antarctica, if the GOP has it's way.