Congrats to John Bolton, new U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.!

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Thank you for making my point.

If you're not going to take the UN seriously then they have no reason to place much stock in any suggestions you have for their reform.

How does recognizing that the position of UN ambassador is a powerless and unimportant one translate into not taking the UN seriously? In case you haven't noticed, the US does take the UN seriously from time to time, but when we do it's not the UN ambassador that does the heavy lifting there.

As for reform, I think that if the most important country on earth lacks faith in an international organization, reform should be high on that organization's list of priorities.

[Timexwatch]

For all the circle jerk about the filibuster, it is more of akin to erecting a high, high hoop to jump through in order to get a vote on your issue. It isn't a "no" because it's a use of procedure to delay a vote. Senators are allowed an unlimited time to debate, so when they don't like a bill, they use various parliamentary tricks to extend the debate time. It's not a no, and it's not a yes. It's simply a delay. It doesn't signify either losing or winning. Yes, it does kill a lot of bills, but in and of itself it doesn't signify much beyond the desire of a few Senators

One thing to remember is that filibusters are far easier to conduct nowadays than they used to. You no longer have to stand at the podium to do it like they used to. Nore more Mr. Smith goes to Washington style filibusters. If the Republicans want to make things interesting, they would move to make filibusters more like they used to. Congeniality might return to the Senate of quorum calls, roll calls and motions were made to go on all night long.

Another thing to remember is that "advise and consent" for the most part has been delegated to the committee level. No matter what political theory you subscribe to as to the purpose/usefulness of committees, they have been made to act as a mini-Senate that performs many of the advise and consent functions without having to deal with 100 Senators. If a cadidate makes it through committee with a recommendation and a near unanimous vote to send them to the floor, then they deserve a vote.

On a side note, as much as I laugh at Senate Dems for screaming about this, it does concern me that Bolton was kicked out of committee without a recommendation. The letter circulated supporting his nomination conspicuously lacks Powell's signature. It also lacks Kissenger, Haig, Eagleberger and other former SecState signatures. If none of the patriarchs of Republican foreign policy can agree to sign a letter in support of your nomination, that immediately sends up red flags.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Thanks Imran - you made it clear it wasn't just me.

BTW, it's nice to know you are now a "vast left wind conspirator." Hell, I guess that makes me a member of Che's communist party.

Haah just means Imran is doing his level best to keep the status quo wherein the party inpower is blocked and otherwise impeded. Afterall his mantra during the presidential runup was elect Kerry as he will be checked by the Repub senate ala Clinton years.

He may want it that way doesn't mean however he is right.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Except for the fact that here I am right.

[Drake Tungsten]

If you're still talking about the "filibuster is more than just a delaying tactic" thing, then you're actually not right...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Center right perhaps but not correct.

[Timexwatch]

It's a delaying tactic whose net effects can, in some circumstances, lead to killing a bill. It all really depends on schedules, horse trading, what point it is in the session, etc. It's more complicated than "it's a veto".

[Drake Tungsten]

It's a particularly effective delaying tactic, especially in its modern form, but a delaying tactic nonetheless.

[Patroklos]

If you want to call the filibuster a precident that has assumed actual legal status due to squating rights, then recess appointments have the exact same status.

In any case "abuse of power" is a ridiculous claim, and if filibusters are of the same caliber, as it would be if Imran is correct, then Democrats are the last people to be whining about abuses.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Timexwatch
It's a delaying tactic whose net effects can, in some circumstances, lead to killing a bill. It all really depends on schedules, horse trading, what point it is in the session, etc. It's more complicated than "it's a veto".

And it's more complicated that "it's just a delaying tactic'". In the case of Bolton it basically was a veto. Unless you really though he would eventually be confirmed by Congress.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Then by God vote him down but regardless make the friggin Senate do their job.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
In the case of Bolton it basically was a veto.

You'ld be hard pressed to prove it, as no actual filibuster took place merely the threat of one.


Chicken****s the whole lot of them.

But I suppose now the absence of any action at all is now to be construed as a veto.

[Timexwatch]

Originally posted by Patroklos
If you want to call the filibuster a precident that has assumed actual legal status due to squating rights, then recess appointments have the exact same status.

That's a bad comparison because recess appointments are based in the Constitution and filibusters in the Senate's parliamentary rules.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Then by God vote him down but regardless make the friggin Senate do their job.

As che has said, there is speculation that Frist didn't bring his name to the full Senate because he wasn't sure he'd pass. I'm not actually sure if there was any filibuster taking place, though if they had the vote on the floor (and there was a chance he'd pass), then it would have prevented him from taking that office.

However, even if it had. They WOULD BE doing their job. The filibuster is a procedural tool that is given to the Senate in the doing of their job. Using that tool would be a part of doing their job. As history has proven up and down votes in front of the full Senate is not required for the Senate to "do its job". One can legitimately argue that the Senate blocking extremists, in any way it can, is actually more doing its job than rubber stamping nominees through.

[Patroklos]

That's a bad comparison because recess appointments are based in the Constitution and filibusters in the Senate's parliamentary rules.

True, but if we consider a nonconstitutional filibuster "legal" then the recess appointment is beyond reproach.