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

[Ned]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Ned, the FIX the filabuster. The so-called "Nuclear Option" is exactly what the Repubs said it is. A power play specifically designed to prevent the Dems from blocking judicial appointments.

-=Vel=-

So what? They have no right to block them, Vel. That is the point.

[Ned]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn


I don't. Its called checks and balances.

The filibuster lasted for two centuries because it was difficult to use and was therefore used only when truly important issues were at stake. Today, it is routinely used, so much so that the minority essentially has a veto over even the most routine matters. Obviously, those who changed the rules to make the filibuster easier to use probably did not understand the consequences of what they were doing. But if they did understand the consequences, all I can say is that they were fools.

As your point about checks and balances, checks and balances are in dividing Congress in two parts, both of which must agree to pass legislation, and in dividing powers between the president and Congress and/or the Senate. I doubt if there is a mentioned anywhere in the Federalist papers of a minority in the Senate vetoing federal appointments.

If I am wrong in this, please direct us to the chapter and verse in the Federalist papers that demonstrates where you are right and I am wrong.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

if you cant break the filibuster, that tells at least one thing

1. you dont have a mandate

[Ned]

Lawrence, what you are saying, in effect, is that the Dems will block all of Bush's appointees and the Republicans will block all of the next Democrat president's appointees. At some point, the government will cease to function.

The Supreme Court ceases to function when its membership falls below 6.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Lawrence, what you are saying, in effect, is that the Dems will block all of Bush's appointees and the Republicans will block all of the next Democrat president's appointees. At some point, the government will cease to function.

uh huh. then nominate someone more in the middle. its called compromise. not everyone wants to swallow the trash being thrown at us by the republicans. would you eat pieces of scum for breakfast? i didnt think so.

[Ned]

No, el Lawrence. The president will nominate the "right" people. If the Dems continue to block appointees, we will see them at the polls in '06. Their ringleaders will suffer the fate of Daschle.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
if you cant break the filibuster, that tells at least one thing

... That you aren't really trying.

[Velociryx]

Actually Ned, in a democracy, yes the dems DO have the right to oppose and object. That's rather the point!

The process was set up as it was by the founding fathers for a good reason. Specifically, to prevent any one party from coming to power and railroading the minority party into accepting radical judicial appointees by a conveniently slim margin (which is what the simple majority you're proposing is).

This clearly goes against both the intent and intentions of the founding fathers.

Aside from that, blocking 10 appointees out of 200 does not sound like the dems are practicing governmental paralysis to me, but rather, that they're picking their battles carefully. Of course, given the low regard that the current administration has for trivialities such as the Constitution, I'd imagine that they share your views that the dems "don't have the right" to obstruct their glorious agenda.

Thank God they disagree!

-=Vel=-

[PLATO]

Hey Vel! Good to see you.

The founders set up no such thing as a super-majority for judicial confirmations. The Senate did that to themselves through their own "rules" system. So, the Senate can change their own rules at anytime without tainting the founder's intentions. Now, weather that is a good idea or not is another question.

[Velociryx]

As to the WoMD thing....

Once upon a time, I knew a fellow named Ned who could see beyond what he was spoon-fed by the media.

That fellow seems to be on vacation, or taken a leave of absence, so I'll try and spell it out for you. Better yet, Plato did a FINE job, so I'll copy and paste his thoughts here:

The war in Iraq was about two things:

1.) Political power (on a nation-state level), and
2.) Reshaping the face of the Middle East ( in the end analysis, #2 is the same as #1)

So, why does everybody think that it was about the "immediate" threat, WMD's, and Al-Qaeda? Simple really.

The WMD issue was the only one that had international standing. The US had to try to force the UNSC's hand in order to get tacit legal cover for an invasion. 1441 accomplished this. The fact that they were unable to obtain a follow-up resolution speaks to the lack of real hard evidence of WMD. BUT, 1441 gave us the cover we needed along with the nebulous intelligence.

The "immediate" threat issue and the al-Qaeda ties were also very dubious intelligence that was used to rally an American public that needs a reason to send their kids to war. In the shadow of 911, this was a great rallying cry.



This is HARDLY conspiracy theorist stuff, and I agree with it.

Trouble was, it was disingenuous in the extreme and the absolute WRONG way to go about handling things.

Once again...Right way...Wrong way.

Of course, another hallmark of this administration is an absolute LACK of responsibility, so this is another minor detail that matters not at all.

Sad that the standards have sunk so low, and I cannot WAIT till this administration is out of power.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Good to see you too, Master Plato!

And yes, that is quite true. However, the founders' intent on judicial appointment "with advice and consent of the senate", and given the structure of the rest of the government, makes it unlikely in the extreme that a simple majority here would suffice.

-=Vel=-

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Good to see you too, Master Plato!

And yes, that is quite true. However, the founders' intent on judicial appointment "with advice and consent of the senate", and given the structure of the rest of the government, makes it unlikely in the extreme that a simple majority here would suffice.

-=Vel=-

I do believe that the founder's did not invision the strict two party system that we have today, but nonetheless, they allowed for simple majority to select the judicial nominees.

The really interesting thing here is how the "advice" of the Senate has long been ignored. I can see a mindset where the President could only nominate from a short list of Senatorial proposed candidates. More reasonably, however, it seems that a President would be prudent to consult with both party's leadership to help fashion a nominee that would make this argument moot.

Part of the spoils of being elected to control two branches of government is to be able to set the agenda for the third. The problem is that of mandate. How do you seperate full control of government from a "mandated" full control of government? And, How do you tell which is which?

I believe that the Senate was correct in originally adopting its rules. If it chooses not to do prudent things now, then that is its perogative. They are, afterall, accountable at the ballot box.

[Ned]

Vel, below is the clause in the Constitution concerning the Senate's role in providing their advice and consent on the president's appointments. Clearly, there is no super majority required for approving appointments as in the very same sentence a specific super majority is required for approving treaties.

"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."

[Ned]

Vel and Plato, if the war in Iraq had nothing to do with WMD's, but instead had to do with other things like stabilizing the Middle East, why then did Bush offer Saddam (through his compromise final UNSC resolution) one more week to comply with UN Security Council resolution 1441 (an offer that was rejected by France) and why did he in the ultimatum he issued Saddam say that there will be no war provided that Saddam would leave the country and that a follow-on regime would dismantle Iraq's WMD programs under UN supervision?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ned
Vel and Plato, if the war in Iraq had nothing to do with WMD's, but instead had to do with other things like stabilizing the Middle East, why then did Bush offer Saddam (through his compromise final UNSC resolution) one more week to comply with UN Security Council resolution 1441 (an offer that was rejected by France) and why did he in the ultimatum he issued Saddam say that there will be no war provided that Saddam would leave the country and that a follow-on regime would dismantle Iraq's WMD programs under UN supervision?

There was no real opposition to Sadaam inside Iraq. Any government installed would have quickly come under UN or US dominated UN power. The end result would have been a step toward stabilization. However, I don't think that anyone anywhere felt that Sadaam would accept those conditions.