Perfect crystallization of what's wrong with the Democrats

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap


Except the democrats have never moved to remove the ability TO FILLIBUSTER-they changed its effectiveness and use. NO precedent was set for the "nuclear option". This is why you continue to be wrong.

Nor do the repubs it's just that 51% is required to break said delaying tactic. Discussion and debate is still intact.

and by the way

a) in 1977 that set of closed loopholes did prevent filibuster after cloture.

b) in 1979 it eliminated fillibuster opportunities for appropriations amendments

c) in 1980 it changged the order of the executive calendar to prevent fillibustering on preceding orders of business

all prevented fillibuster in one fashion or another with get this a mere majority of the senate.

However in 1987 the repubs were simply just being ****** with their tactic of being asked to be excused from the vote ad infinitum and rightly were spanked. Had that not been stopped a mere 2 senators could bring everything to a halt.

Remind me, did you castigate Sava for his behavior when Strum died?

Choking on bile does not imply death merely a long term suffering.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Nor do the repubs it's just that 51% is required to break said delaying tactic. Discussion and debate is still intact.

It completely eradicates the point of filibuster.

[GePap]

I see Ogie's and I raise a

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Dans'd

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
a) in 1977 that set of closed loopholes did prevent filibuster after cloture.

b) in 1979 it eliminated fillibuster opportunities for appropriations amendments

c) in 1980 it changged the order of the executive calendar to prevent fillibustering on preceding orders of business

all prevented fillibuster in one fashion or another with get this a mere majority of the senate.

Thanks for the info DanS'er.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Seriously if you wanna read about it heres the link from Harvard


Gold & Gupta Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy report

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Of course back in those days the Democrats had a plurality in the Senate and the FRC was strong arming right wingers into filibustering James C. Hormel (Clinton's nominee for ambassador to Luxembourg) on the grounds that Mr. Hormel was gay.

As long as we're dragging out quotes:

"What we are witnessing today is a direct assault on the President¹s constitutional power to nominate and appoint judges. Deliberate efforts are being made in Congress to undermine the judicial independence that is at the heart of the rule of law. Advise and consent in the Senate is becoming abuse and dissent." (Senator Edwards Kennedy, Prepared Remarks To The Alliance For Justice, April 30, 1997)

"For too long, we have accepted the premise that the filibuster rule is immune. Yet, Mr. President, there is no constitutional basis for it. We impose it on ourselves. And if I may say so respectfully, it is, in its way, inconsistent with the Constitution, one might almost say an amendment of the Constitution by rule of the U.S. Senate. "(Senator Joseph Lieberman, Congressional Record, January 4, 1995)

In 1995, the only Senators on record supporting the end of the filibuster were all Democrats, nine of whom are still serving in the Senate. (Karen Hosler, "Senators Vote 76-19 To Maintain Filibuster," The Baltimore Sun, January 6, 1995; S.Res. 14, CQ Vote #1: Motion Agreed To 76-19: R 53-0; D 23-19, January 5, 1995, Bingaman, Boxer, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Lieberman, and Sarbanes Voted Nay)

Edit:

It is an example of Government not fulfilling its constitutional mandate because the President nominates, and we are charged with voting on the nominees." (Senator Charles Schumer, Congressional Record, March 7, 2000)

Just more lies and spin from Democratic hypocrits.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Dino surely Oberman covered those Dem quotes as well, no?

[Bosh]

Just more lies and spin from Democratic hypocrits.

Which are exactly the same as the spin and lies from the Republican hypocrites. Its just hilarious that anyone thinks that either side has ANY moral high ground on this issue.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I certainly don't. Which is why when the issue of rules change is brought up one merely need look at precedent and deal with it dispassionately.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Bosh

Which are exactly the same as the spin and lies from the Republican hypocrites. Its just hilarious that anyone thinks that either side has ANY moral high ground on this issue.

I don't. The harping Oerdin was doing about the EVIL Republicans on this issue was annoying so I took the opening he provided.

[Dinner]

If both majority groups at different time didn't like the filibuster then it is likely a good rule and should stay since it prevents extremists from being put in place.

Republicans do have some very bad policies and I do believe their leadership is filled with deeply immoral people but I don't recall ever saying the Republicans were evil.

[Odin]

I find it absolutely incredible that the fundies say the reason they want to pack the court with theocrats is to "preserve religious freedom". The only freedom the Fundies want is the religious freedom to stone gay people.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Just more lies and spin from Democratic hypocrits.

Back at ya.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:1ll1ckptBlIJ:democrats.senate.gov/~dpc/pubs/107-2-285.html+Clinton+judicial+nominations+blocked+by+Republicans&hl=en

It is disingenuous for Republicans to now claim that all judicial nominees should get votes on the floor of the Senate after they blocked scores of judicial nominees from ever receiving a Committee hearing or a vote. Democrats repeatedly called for nominees to be given a Committee vote, up or down. Now that judicial nominees are finally receiving due process, Republicans do not like the results.

While only two of President Bush's judicial nominees have been defeated in open votes, nearly 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees were defeated through secret, anonymous holds and other secretive, non-transparent Republican tactics.

The Democrats were complaining about the GOP using such tactics, not the fillibuster. Democrats aren't holding up Bush nominees in committee with secretive tactics, after all.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Back at ya.

Your senator disagrees with your view of the matter.