The Democrats on filibustering judges

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Seriously read the Gold Gupta report its far better reading than the piece of trash put out by PFAW and does a rather fair job of evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the precedential claims.

Yeah... sure.... The opinions of two Bush political appointees is less biased then an independent media source because...?

[Ned]

Oerdin, did you know that the House once also had the filibuster? That ended in the 1890's, IIRC. Also, none other that your glorious racist president, the Demoncrat Wilson, called for the end to filibusters in 1917.

Grab for power? Nah. It is the demons who are blocking the will of the people. They shall pay for their arrogance.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Yeah... sure.... The opinions of two Bush political appointees is less biased then an independent media source because...?

I take it you still refuse to read it. Pity that.

[Dinner]

The one reason why the Senate is more willing to compromise and reach common ground is because of the filibuster. Without the filibuster the senate becomes just another House where the majorty tramples everyone else and the public lose all checks on extremism. If you want that now then then we don't want any complaining when Democrats pack everything in their favor four years from now.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe

I take it you still refuse to read it. Pity that.

Thanks, but I don't have time to read long dry legal opinions which I already know is written by a biased politically motivated source. Instead I get the argument by going directly to the real source by listening to Frist himself speak. So far at least half of Frist's claims have been proven to be lies.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Given my contempt for all senators and avoiding all the hyperbole I'll stick with the long dry legal opinions thank you very much.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The one reason why the Senate is more willing to compromise and reach common ground is because of the filibuster. Without the filibuster the senate becomes just another House where the majorty tramples everyone else and the public lose all checks on extremism. If you want that now then then we don't want any complaining when Democrats pack everything in their favor four years from now.

Oerdin, the filibuster stayed in existence for 200 years to primarily to keep slavery in the US in one form or another, including denying civil rights to blacks.

But, as Oerdin is from the party of slavery, I understand why he wants to keep the filibuster. He is beginning to sound like some of our Confederate Patriots here -- the Civil War to them is not that at all, but it was the War of Northern Aggression. And to them, the war was not about slavery, but about states rights.

Well Oerdin, slave party member, continues to defend the filibuster. Why are we surprised.

[dannubis]

ned, you're not even funny anymore

why am i not surprised.

[Drake Tungsten]

'Sides that, if you want to use James' opinion as some sort of moral argument, that's fine

I'm not using Madison's opinion as any sort of argument. I just think it's interesting to see how far the debate today has strayed from the intent of one of the Founding Fathers.

[Ned]

Originally posted by dannubis
ned, you're not even funny anymore

why am i not surprised.

You may think I'm joking until you see who they filibuster and how they do it. Thomas was a black man who was appointed to the high court. The Dems really went after this guy on a very personal level. His reputation has never recovered. One of the most outstanding candidates the Dems have been blocking is a black woman. She is being villified beyond all the other nominees. Finally I refer to Condi Rice. She was opposed by the Dems in such an openly racist manner as to be almost beyond the pale.

Only, no one calls them on their flagrant racism. At least not the liberal media.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Ned


You may think I'm joking until you see who they filibuster and how they do it. Thomas was a black man who was appointed to the high court. The Dems really went after this guy on a very personal level. His reputation has never recovered. One of the most outstanding candidates the Dems have been blocking is a black woman. She is being villified beyond all the other nominees. Finally I refer to Condi Rice. She was opposed by the Dems in such an openly racist manner as to be almost beyond the pale.

Only, no one calls them on their flagrant racism. At least not the liberal media.

I'm telling myself that I shouldn't, but I will reply against my better judgement.

First, your argument basically is that the Democrats must be filibustering for a reason, and that they have been opposed to certain blacks, and that therefore, the filibuster is racist. Democrats are opposed to arch-conservatives, and thomas and owen are archconservatives. You cannot deny this. Most on the right do not deny this. As to the anita hill affair, my understanding is that the real personal attacks were directed against her, and her concerns were never granted the consideration that they deserved. His reputation, as I understand it, is that of an archconservative, which he is, so i really don't know what you're talking about regarding his reputation never "recovering." The opposition to Rice, architect of the Bush foreign policy, is based upon the fact that she deliberately contributed to lying to the American people. It has recently come to light that Bush was definitely planning to go to war before the UN resolutions, so there really isn't that much room for doubt her. Why attribute to racism what is better attributed to common-sense anger and resentment?

But I will go further. Ned, and a couple of far right wing blogs have been trying to characterize the Democratic party as racist. They do this either from a complete lack of understanding of politics, an inability to look at events that have happened since 1964, or a deliberate and gleeful attempt to attack the Democrats for faults that are actually their own.

Tell me, why do black people vote overwhelmingly for Democrats? Is it because the Democrats are racist, and all black people are masochistic? Why is it that Republicans, before elections, try to get innocent black people added to felon lists in state where felons can't vote? It can't be because they know that these people will vote Democratic, and they can be safely eliminated from the voting pool. It must be that 80% of blacks are so stupid that they don't know that they're voting for a party that hates them.

I can't say I'm really surprised at you, Ned. But I do long for the day when you question your assumptions, and see beyond your fictionalized universe.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ned
Thomas was a black man who was appointed to the high court. The Dems really went after this guy on a very personal level. His reputation has never recovered.

There was a credible charge that, while head of the EEOC, he harassed a female subordinate. Although there is still great debate over who was right in this he-said-she-said dispute, there is no doubt that under Thomas, EEOC investigations of racism in employment went nowhere. Thomas is now the weakest intellect on the high court. He basically copies from Scalia.

One of the most outstanding candidates the Dems have been blocking is a black woman. She is being villified beyond all the other nominees.

She's an arch conservative. If that's vilification, so be it.

Finally I refer to Condi Rice. She was opposed by the Dems in such an openly racist manner as to be almost beyond the pale.

Rice was linked to this administration's misleading of the American public and the Congress into launching a war of aggression in Iraq, a country which was not threatening the U.S. At the beginning of the war, the adminstration had 80% of the American people that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 911 attacks.

[Imran Siddiqui]

He basically copies from Scalia.

Highly false. You can make a point without throwing up falsehoods. Thomas and Scalia do come to similar conclusions, but on VASTLY different bases.

[Boris Godunov]

Finally I refer to Condi Rice. She was opposed by the Dems in such an openly racist manner as to be almost beyond the pale.

How is it openly racist when only 2 Dems on the committee opposed her, and only 13 in the full Senate opposed her, and no reference was ever made to her race, and explicit opposition was voiced to her war policies?

You're such a liar, it's unbelievable.

So, I take when any black candidate was opposed by a minority of Republicans in the Clinton years, it was also because of overt racism?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ned
Well Oerdin, slave party member, continues to defend the filibuster. Why are we surprised.

Oh, Ned. You are such a silly little man.