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

[Drake Tungsten]

How does trying to put justices who are ideologically similar to you on the bench amount to "packing" the Supreme Court?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

There were two sources and I can get others if you don't like that source.

Is Democratic Underground next on the list?

No, but if you'd like to know just go to google and type Republicans, filibuster and see what comes up. The Republicans used the filibuster tons of times between the 1960s and when they took over in 1996 (I think that was their big year any way).

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
How does trying to put justices who are ideologically similar to you on the bench amount to "packing" the Supreme Court?

Believe it or not there are many conservatives, especially fiscal conservatives, who are still pro-choice. The big issue is that Bush has never nominated a pro-choice judge for any position; sure, he mubbles crap about there not being a litmus test but it's a lie. Everyone knows he only nominates anti-choice judges. I call that packing becasse he's attampting to do exactly that to the courts.

[DinoDoc]

I'd much rather Frist be a man and pull out the cots forcing Dems to keep talking than go "nuclear."

[Dinner]

I'm sorry. What are you saying about cots? If there is a viable alternative to going nuclear then I'd like to hear it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

He means have the Republicans wait it out and have the Dems keep talking and talking and talking until they get too tired.

[Dinner]

Ahhh, that is bound to happen sooner or later. No one can talk forever.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Oh, you didn't just quote Daily Kos as a source, did you? This is gonna be ugly...

I have now at foundat least two Clinton nominees delayed by fillibusters, one to the 3rd circuit, and one to the FDIC.

[The Mad Monk]

I would agree with that. The old filibusters were more appropriate than the "fire and forget" ones we have today.

They were also much more entertaining.

[Dinner]

You are right that other precedural tactics were used by Republicans as well though those procedural tactics were removed by the Republicans once they became the majority. They didn't want turn around to be fair play.

[The Mad Monk]

I would like to know when the filibuster went from a strung out "debate" that halted all business on the the floor and required someone to stand there talking, to the wimpy-yet-too-powerful version we have today.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Probably when they realized it was gross that LBJ had a tube strapped to his leg filled with piss because he couldn't leave the lecturn .

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by PLATO
Presidential Judicial Nominee's need a vote. Up or Down. This was true in Clinton's time and it is true today.

The GOP blocked 54 of Clinton's nominees. I hardly think the Dems are being obstructionist by blocking ten judges, three of whom have no business being judges at all, let alone Federal ones.

[Dinner]

Republican's blocked 44 more judges then Democrats have!

Even if you divide it in half to represent one term you still see that Republican's blocked 220% more judges then the Democrats have. What lying hypocrits to now be complaining and claiming obstructionism.

This is just goes to show that once again the Republicans have zero interest in bipartisanship. Bush makes a speech about bipartisanship and then immediately tries to attack the other side. Sadly, it seems many people are dumb enough to believe it.

[Ned]

I hardly think that changing a rule to permit actually voting on a candidate is undemocratic. The people here who support parliamentary manuevers to deny a vote are the people who betray their extreme partisanship and who lack any true desire for democratic rule.