Perfect crystallization of what's wrong with the Democrats

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

In Clinton's first term something like 20% of his nominees got filibustered by the Republicans

Facts are your friend, Oerdin...

Joshua Mitchell of www.talkingpointmemo.com take on this:

How can you forget the name of Joshua Micah Marshall, especially given how prominently it's displayed on TPM?

The man deserves it

[Bosh]

Oooooh oooooh archival footage of the GOP filibustering a judicial nominee!

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/04/25.html#a2629 (scroll down a bit)

[Drake Tungsten]

The man deserves it

I agree. Any man pretentious enough to use his middle name of "Micah" in everyday life deserves to have his name forgotten.

Oooooh oooooh archival footage of the GOP filibustering a judicial nominee!

I wouldn't have such a problem with the Democrats filibustering judicial nominees if they did it the manly way, holding the floor for hours like in 1968. The ***** new-style filibuster they're using today can burn in hell, though.

[Ben Kenobi]

I wouldn't have such a problem with the Democrats filibustering judicial nominees if they did it the manly way, holding the floor for hours like in 1968. The ***** new-style filibuster they're using today can burn in hell, though.

Yep. Even their filibusters are limp wristed.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


So a extremist is someone who opposes Roe?

That's a novel definition.

Appelate justices have what to do with Roe v. Wade?

[Ben Kenobi]

You tell me.

It seems that this is the litmus test that determines whether or not the Dems will filibuster a nominee.

[Drake Tungsten]

Those videos were cool, BTW. I never knew Roger Mudd used to work for CBS. Was also crazy seeing a 70-year old Strom Thurmond...

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You tell me.

It seems that this is the litmus test that determines whether or not the Dems will filibuster a nominee.

Then you would be wrong. Apellate court justices can't overturn Roe v. Wade so it would make absolutely no sense for that to be a litmus test for appointing them.

[Ben Kenobi]

Who said the dems litmus policy made sense?

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Who said the dems litmus policy made sense?

Are you dense? Having someone's opinion on Roe v. Wade make a difference as regards to appellate justice appointments makes as much sense as having foreign policy opinions be your litmus test for voting for governors, it just doesn't apply at all.

Do you have any proof for your bizarre assertions?

[Ben Kenobi]

Perhaps that's a good litmus, because it also applies to their positions on other issues.

R v wade isn't the only issue that it up for debate, there are cases up and down the court system involving this issue.

The reason I say that it is a litmus, is because the nominees all seem to be prolife judges, while I don't see them filibustering pro abortion ones.

[DinoDoc]

Can someone explain to me why we don't force the people engaging in fillibusters to actually stand at the podium and talk until they drop? The soft filibuster currently used is way too damn powerful and annoying.

[Drake Tungsten]

Majority Leader Senator Mike Mansfield (D-Montana), spearheaded the adoption of a new Senatorial procedure. Mansfield created a system that would technically maintain the Senate's tradition of unlimited debate but would prevent a legislative logjam. This system is known as the "two-track" system. In this system, if one issue or "track" is being filibustered, the Senate can switch to another track in order to deal with other pending business.

Even this did not stop Southern Senators from filibustering the civil rights legislation in 1964. However, the majority realized they had a super-majority to invoke cloture and were determined to pass the legislation. These Senators, therefore, did not use the "two-track" system. The Southern Senators held out for fifty-seven working days, including six Saturdays, before cloture was invoked and the bill was passed nine days later

Since the 1960s the "two-track" system devised by Mansfield has prevailed, preventing old-fashioned filibusters. As John W. Dean, President Richard Nixon's former White House counsel, has written: "On the one hand, the two-track system strengthened the ability of the majority to withstand a filibuster by enabling it to conduct other business. On the other hand, it made it easier for the filibustering minority, which did not have to constantly hold the floor."

The "two-track" system appears to have changed the culture of the Senate and seems more suited to the age of soundbites and a heavy legislative workload. When there are filibusters, they are usually scheduled so that other Senate business isn't delayed. Usually, however, if a filibuster is threatened, the leadership won't even attempt to bring the issue to the floor unless it is sure it has the support of at least sixty Senators (three-fifths). In essence, the filibuster has changed from a noisy propeller airplane to a silent Stealth Bomber. The merits of the modern filibuster can be debated endlessly, but it continues to play its historical role in the Senate in giving extra power to the minority, especially nowadays in a closely divided Senate, which needs a super-majority for highly contentious matters.

http://www.hnn.us/articles/1818.html

[DanS]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Can someone explain to me why we don't force the people engaging in fillibusters to actually stand at the podium and talk until they drop? The soft filibuster currently used is way too damn powerful and annoying.

That's a very good question.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Can someone explain to me why we don't force the people engaging in fillibusters to actually stand at the podium and talk until they drop? The soft filibuster currently used is way too damn powerful and annoying.

Because people nowadays are wimps.