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

[Dinner]

Originally posted by 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.

Would that be the Republicans who used it when they were in the minority or the Democrats who are using now that they are the minority?

Ned, you consider it OK that Republicans blocked 54 of Clinton's judges but it is such a crime that Democrats have blocked 10 Bush judges? How on Earth can you justify that flip flop?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon

Filibustering is an abuse of parliamentary procedure to give the minority effective veto power over all legislation

No it isn't. It's a way of forcing compromise and moderation. The idea is that one side has to find enough of the other side to support it so that it can get stuff done.

It's necessary for judicial appointments. You forget that many people on both sides are moderates, they should prevail because they represent mainstream thinking. It's better for the country to find candidates that don't veer to the extreme.

Have you ever heard of closure?

Even if you have, I would guess you have never seen a judicial appointment blocked by any Commons or Lords in the Commonwealth.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Would that be the Republicans who used it when they were in the minority or the Democrats who are using now that they are the minority?

Ned, you consider it OK that Republicans blocked 54 of Clinton's judges but it is such a crime that Democrats have blocked 10 Bush judges? How on Earth can you justify that flip flop?

Define "blocked."

The only question that is on the table here is whether the Republicans used parliamentary maneuvers to deny a vote. I would consider a NO vote to be something other than "blocked" in this context.

Recall that the Republicans controlled the Senate thru the bulk of Clinton's reign.

[Dinner]

They use various rules to prevent a vote from occuring.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by 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 .

Wimps.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oerdin
They use various rules to prevent a vote from occuring.

Why would the Republicans use "rules" to block a vote when they have the majority?

[Dinner]

They had a majority of like one or two seats. As you may remember 10 years ago the Republicans weren't very disciplined, especially in the Senate, which meant that Democrats could count on several defecting and voting their way. As I recall it was the pro-life crowd which was mad about Clinton nominating pro-choice judges and who were afraid pro-choice Republicans would vote for them.

Basically, it was expected that moderate Republicans would vote yes and the far right wanted to stop those votes from happening. They did this on a much wider scale then Democrats have been doing to Bush yet no one complained as it was just a fair part of living in a democracy. Now all the sudden the far right is claiming their same tactic is undemocratic? I say something smells rotten in Denmark.

[Gatekeeper]

I remember when the Dallas Cowboys were all-powerful in the 1990s ... their owner basically told the NFL to f*ck off when it came to profit sharing agreements he had with the league because his team was No. 1 at the time and a marketing gold mine. Then their twilight came, as it inevitably does, and now the Cowboys are just another NFL team (and a rather bad one this season so far).

My point? The Republicans are playing the same game now, and they're going to live to regret it. Unless, of course, they succeed in completing the subversion of the government at the federal level to ensure their grip on power, ala Mexico for many, many decades. (And we all see how Mexico benefited from one-party rule ...) In that case, all Americans — except for those with the right connections — will live to regret it.

Gatekeeper

[Dinner]

Amen, the people need choices along with checks & balances in government.

[Ned]

Oerdin, you still have not answered the question about how the Republicans, with a majority "blocked" Clinton's appointees other than by not confirming them through a vote in the Senate. The opening post was not about whether the nominees were confirmed or not, it is about whether the Republicans were twarting democracy by DEMANDING a VOTE.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ned
Oerdin, you still have not answered the question about how the Republicans, with a majority "blocked" Clinton's appointees other than by not confirming them through a vote in the Senate. The opening post was not about whether the nominees were confirmed or not, it is about whether the Republicans were twarting democracy by DEMANDING a VOTE.

He did answer it. They didn't want a vote because it was very likely the Judges *would* get confirmed. The Moderate Republicans would have sided with the Democrats in all likelihood. Hence the more conservative Republicans worked to make sure that no vote happened. They succeeded quite often.

On a more general note, the 60-vote requirement to overturn a filibuster is important. Since we only have two parties, it is too easy to get a one-party majority in the Senate. This one party does not in fact represent the American people very well, because we are too varied for a two-party system to recognize us. Hence a 60-vote requirement works to make sure the American people are better represented. It isn't perfect, but we'd have to go to a multi-party system to do better.

-Drachasor

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
I remember when the Dallas Cowboys were all-powerful in the 1990s ... their owner basically told the NFL to f*ck off when it came to profit sharing agreements he had with the league because his team was No. 1 at the time and a marketing gold mine. Then their twilight came, as it inevitably does, and now the Cowboys are just another NFL team (and a rather bad one this season so far).

My point? The Republicans are playing the same game now, and they're going to live to regret it. Unless, of course, they succeed in completing the subversion of the government at the federal level to ensure their grip on power, ala Mexico for many, many decades. (And we all see how Mexico benefited from one-party rule ...) In that case, all Americans — except for those with the right connections — will live to regret it.

Gatekeeper

Good point.

How can the check and balances between the judicial, executive, and legislative branches function if one political party controls all three?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Drachasor

On a more general note, the 60-vote requirement to overturn a filibuster is important. Since we only have two parties, it is too easy to get a one-party majority in the Senate. This one party does not in fact represent the American people very well, because we are too varied for a two-party system to recognize us. Hence a 60-vote requirement works to make sure the American people are better represented. It isn't perfect, but we'd have to go to a multi-party system to do better.

Nah. You'd just get coalitions with 1-5 point majorities.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Nah. You'd just get coalitions with 1-5 point majorities.

No crap, but those are *coalitions* of multiple parties, and hence better represent the make-up of America. Coalitions can have members disagree with each other much more easily than a single party can as well. It is extremely unlikely a coalition would ever get into the position the Republicans are currently in, where every member of every coalition party is pressured to toe the line.

-Drachasor

[Pax]

Originally posted by Ned
Oerdin, you still have not answered the question about how the Republicans, with a majority "blocked" Clinton's appointees other than by not confirming them through a vote in the Senate. The opening post was not about whether the nominees were confirmed or not, it is about whether the Republicans were twarting democracy by DEMANDING a VOTE.

I'm kind of fond of the idea the founding fathers had against limiting absolute power to prevent tyranny. 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.