Frist's alma mater stages a filibuster against him!

[Ramo]

And I don't see why "states' rights" is a good reason for an imperfection in democracy, while giving strong legislative minorities a little bit of influence in how judicial appointments are made is a bad "imperfection in democracy."

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo
And I don't see why "states' rights" is a good reason for an imperfection in democracy, while giving strong legislative minorities a little bit of influence in how judicial appointments are made is a bad "imperfection in democracy."

And I'm consistent in that I approve both imperfections .

[Shi Huangdi]

If I were being a hack, I would say I agreed with the blue-slip policy, which I said I don't. I think both are bad.

There is a good reason, however, to make a distinction between the blue slip and the filibuster- The Blue slip effect the judiciary in one state on the basis of what the elected senior Senator of that State said, as opposed to the filibuster whereby even a national judge(SCOTUS) can be blocked by a 2/5 +1 minority of the national Senators. You're just resorting to insults now.

So far your argument in favor of the filibuster have just been tradition, civility in the Senate, and that a minority of 41 being able to block anything the majority wants is a good thing to have so the majority doesn't run over the minority. That's fine if you think those are good reasons. But any other means by which we don't have pure democracy such as the blue slip or the Senate representing States doesn't mean we should have additional anti-democratic measures such as the filibuster.

Obviously we don't have perfect and pure democracy. One way in which we restrict is by having representatives instead of direct democracy. Another is allowing representation by State. I don't deny in that some cases it can be alright to have some anti-democratic elements, such as representatives instead of just letting the people vote on anything. But just because we have some anti-democratic elements doesn't justify forgetting about the whole concept and introducing unneccesary ones such as the filibuster.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You are being a hack. If it was the other way around, you'd be yelling to the rafters that the filibuster is so important.

Given that he's parroting the same arguements Dems were using (The reason I said that he was in good Democratic company) against the filibuster in general and the Republicans killing Judicial nominees in committee. I'd say that is a safe assumption.

[Shi Huangdi]

"And I don't see why "states' rights" is a good reason for an imperfection in democracy, while giving strong legislative minorities a little bit of influence in how judicial appointments are made is a bad "imperfection in democracy.""

IF you want to argue whether having a Senate represented by State's is a legitimate perfection, that's a seperate topic. I don't see though why you support additioanl imperfections on top of the ones we already have though.

[Ramo]

It's not a separate topic. The rules are such that Republicans are over-represented in the Senate. Why should the simple majority always get its way in a body where the deck is stacked against the Democrats? The nuclear option's a shameless power grab.

[Ramo]

And I'm consistent in that I approve both imperfections

There are probably some imperfections in democracy that you don't support though. Has nothign to do with consistency.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There is a good reason, however, to make a distinction between the blue slip and the filibuster

You continue on your path to partisan hackery...

The Blue slip effect the judiciary in one state on the basis of what the elected senior Senator of that State said, as opposed to the filibuster whereby even a national judge(SCOTUS) can be blocked by a 2/5 +1 minority of the national Senators. You're just resorting to insults now.

I've already shown you that the blue slip applied to Circuit Court of Appeals. The blue slip has been used against Circuit judges MUCH more than they've been filibustered.

2/5+1 minority is far more democratic than one Senator in the state, whether District or Circuit. These are FEDERAL Judges, not State Judges. They deal with federal law. By saying it affects the judiciary in one state is being disingenous.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
Still hurting... Worst hangover I've ever had.

Please tell me that exams are over for you.

[Ramo]

And again, under Hatch's rules during the Clinton era, either Senator could kill a nomination.

[Ramo]

Two more to go. Both easy. Luckily this morning's final was really easy with a lot more time than was necessary. I had to convalesce for the first hour or so before I could do any coherent thinking (I threw up - first time ever from alcohol - a couple minutes before taking the test).

[Shi Huangdi]

"It's not a separate topic. The rules are such that Republicans are over-represented in the Senate. Why should the simple majority always get its way in a body where the deck is stacked against the Democrats? "

Again Ramo, what you are saying is because we have one imperection in democracy(unequal size of electoral districts), why not have another one(you need 60% to pass anything). Using that logic you may as well say becaus we have representative allowing for the passage of bills that people might not support, why not just have a king who rules by decree?

Something being more democratic is an argument in favor of something. In any case, there could be arguments against it which could overrule it- in the case of direct democracy it isn't very practical to do that most of the time, which we take to overrule the fact that direct democracy is more democratic. But I don't see any of the arguments in favor of the filibuster as justifiying the sacrifice to democracy it causes.

I don't really so how with your ideology you support the filibuster on principle, other then you like it's results given the current makeup of the Senate. If that is the case, I have no problem with that, but don't go upholding the filibuster like it some great American institution.


"
I've already shown you that the blue slip applied to Circuit Court of Appeals. The blue slip has been used against Circuit judges MUCH more than they've been filibustered."

OK. For the Circuit courts, that is also a problem that they don't get up and down votes, and I have said multiple times I don't approve of the blue slip. But even still, there is at least some(although weak) Justification so long as the blue slip privilege is applied constituency since the Senator is still from the area and the whole Senate isn't from the area. The filibuster, OTOH, could be applied to SCOTUS(as the Dems have said there would be if a pro-lifer is nominated), of which the whole Senate is a part, and of which is there no reason for one particualr senator have more say then another particular Senator.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
Two more to go. Both easy. Luckily this morning's final was really easy with a lot more time than was necessary. I had to convalesce for the first hour or so before I could do any coherent thinking (I threw up - first time ever from alcohol - a couple minutes before taking the test).

Why would you get that drunk during Finals week and not after?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Who says you can't do both?

But even still, there is at least some(although weak) Justification so long as the blue slip privilege is applied constituency since the Senator is still from the area and the whole Senate isn't from the area.

No, there isn't. Not even weak justification. These are federal judges, the not state judges.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Who says you can't do both?

This might be a good reason: I had to convalesce for the first hour or so before I could do any coherent thinking (I threw up - first time ever from alcohol - a couple minutes before taking the test).