Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Dems, Repubs, Kurds and Filibusters

  1. #1
    Banned
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    B.C & USA
    Posts
    1,869
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Dems, Repubs, Kurds and Filibusters

    Kurds Invoke Senate Rule (boldface by me)


    What's good for the Kurds?

    Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist(R-Tenn.) has been talking about "going nuclear" and outlawing the Democrats' use of the filibuster to block President Bush's judicial nominees. So yesterday we find freshman Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) offering this on the floor in favor of more funds for Iraq:

    Isakson, noting he had just been in Iraq, said he asked a Kurdish leader if he worried that the majority Shiites would "overrun" the minority Kurds. And "he says, 'Oh, no, we have a secret weapon.' . . . And when asked what it was, he said one word, 'filibuster,' and then proceeded to describe their study of American democracy and our republic."

    "If there were ever a reason for optimism about" giving more aid to Iraq, Isakson said, "it is one of their minority leaders proudly stating one of the pillars and principles of our government as the way they would ensure that the majority never overran the minority." The Democrats gleefully distributed his remarks.

    Last month, a Frist spokesman, asked about some Republicans' reluctance to tinker with the Senate's filibuster rule, said Frist "will be having private discussions" with members about this.

    Might want to chat with the new guy about staying on message.

  2. #2
    God/dess Casual Observer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boston MA
    Posts
    5,670
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 144 Times in 74 Posts

    Default Re: Dems, Repubs, Kurds and Filibusters

    Changing the rules is a bad idea; eventually, the GOP will be the minority party again and will suffer the same pain.

    It's worth it to modify some choices of appointees, or to at least hope for excoriation of Dems in the press for obstruction.

    But nothing good can come from the rule change.
    Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

    William F. Buckley, Jr.

  3. #3
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Dems, Repubs, Kurds and Filibusters

    Changing the rules is a bad idea; eventually, the GOP will be the minority party again and will suffer the same pain
    ... as if Democrats ever considered the pain they would inflict on Republicans when they created this rule in the first place !

    Back to basics. Congress has the power to establish (and change) it's own rules, PROVIDED that in doing so they do not infringe on legal principles laid out in the Constitution. It is arguable that the rule change allowing judicial appointments to be filibustered is in conflict with the Constitution. The Constitution establishes a handful of clearly stated specific circumstances where a 'super-majority' congressional vote is required - one of which being the override of a Presidential Veto. No such 'super-majority' requirement is established in the Constitution in regard to the 'advise and consent' role of congress regarding judicial appointments - implying that a simple 51% majority is all that is required to confirm an appointee, and also implying that a simple 51% majority is all that is required to call for a vote on a particular appointee. By basically restoring the rules to their previous state, Bill Frist is restoring the proper rule of law - and avoiding the necessity of taking the issue before the US Supreme court (which would very probably permanently prevent Democrats from re-establishing a 'super-majority' vote requirement for judicial nominees if and when they ever regain congressional majorities).

  4. #4
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Dems, Repubs, Kurds and Filibusters

    I'm in favor of upholding the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Federalist Papers, as written ! That means maintaining the filibuster/super-majority where it was specifically indicated by the Constitution as being applicable, and changing any rules which conflict with what the Constitution says (or more specifically doesn't say) in regard to judicial nominations and presidential appointees.

    Actually, there is already a well established check and balance mechanism to protect against the 'will of the majority' overrunning a minority - it's called activist liberal judges who legislate from the bench and who overturn laws duly approved by a majority of voters ! I'm hoping that during GWB's 2nd term that we get a few more activist judge appointments, so that they can similarly carry on this check and balance mechanism from a conservative standpoint if and when the Democrats return to being the majority party in the future !

  5. #5
    God/dess
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    2,210
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Dems, Repubs, Kurds and Filibusters

    Down with the Coup of 87

    I'm in favor of abolishing congress and the rest of the DC crooks.

    The Constitution and the Federalist Papers were written by the bad guys of the time, like evil Alexander Hamilton. Had I been around and able to be vocal, I would have been a prime opponent of the Constitution.





    The book’s thesis is, even for me, controversial. I provide 400+ pages of evidence that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was in fact an illegal coup d’état. The participants knew this. This is why they took a lifetime oath of secrecy, walked upstairs to the second floor of the State House (so that eavesdroppers could not report what was going on), closed the doors, and hammered out the design for a replacement government. Newspaper reporters were excluded.

    These men had been authorized by Congress and by several state legislatures only to revise the Articles of Confederation (1781), but not replace them. Knowing full well that they planned to replace the Articles with a new form of government, the leaders of the Convention nevertheless agreed to the terms laid down by the state legislatures, and then went off to Philadelphia to begin the first stage of a political revolution.


    "Give me Liberty or Give me Death" Patrick Henry was a strong OPPONENT of the Constitution, along with most of the still living and still-in-America signers of the Declaration of Independence

    The Constitution of the United States was the result of the world's most successful coup.

  6. #6
    God/dess Casual Observer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boston MA
    Posts
    5,670
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 144 Times in 74 Posts

    Default Re: Dems, Repubs, Kurds and Filibusters

    Melonie, I concur with the concept of reciprocity, and acknowledge fully that the Dems are denying candidates soley based on ideological objections rather than on the basis of professional experience and credentials--which isn't how Senate confirmations worked until the first GWB administration.

    That said, changing the rules is just counterproductive.
    Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

    William F. Buckley, Jr.

  7. #7
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Dems, Repubs, Kurds and Filibusters

    I'm not Melonie, but I'd like to throw my two cents in here as well
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerlilly
    So lets cut to the chase Melonie-- are you in support of eliminating the fillibuster or not ?
    Yes. Generally speaking, unless, the nominee is a crook or clearly unqualified for the job, the president should be allowed his nominee. For pete's sake, Kennedy was allowed to have his brother as attorney general. Talk about a conflict of interest.

    I oppose eliminating the fillibuster for the following reasons listed in the article:

    Its one of the pillars and principles of our government as the way to ensure that the majority never overran the minority.
    No its not. The fillibuster is part of the senate's own rules, not our constitution. Besides that, what about a real pillar of our constitution, the power of the executive branch? The consitution gives the President the authority to appoint judges and other officials with the "advise and consent" of the Senate. Nowhere does it say that a handful of bitter political hacks can disrupt the proper operation of the judicial branch by leaving federal benches empty for years. While a minority of liberal democrats play partisan politics with justice, the backlog of cases to be heard continues to grow. I find it ironic that the same people whining about how long it takes for suspected terrorists in Guantanamo to get a hearing on their case seem to care nothing for the tremendous backlog the democrat's actions are causing for american citizens waiting for their case to be heard. Lastly the fillibuster is perversion of democracy. All the administration and the republicans in congress are asking for is to allow the nomination to come to a vote. What could be more american than that? Yet, these small minded politicians refuse to even allow an up or down vote on their qualifications.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  8. #8
    God/dess
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    2,210
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Dems, Repubs, Kurds and Filibusters

    THe executive has far too much power in my view. Last thing we need is to give it more.

    I like the idea of empty political offices. The less bureacrats the better.

    I wish we could keep the President's office empty for a few decades

  9. #9
    Veteran Member myssi's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    341
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: Dems, Repubs, Kurds and Filibusters

    The filibuster rule is okay for legislation, but not for unlimited debate over nominees. Judicial
    nominees should be allowed an up or down vote. What's to fear from that? Just vote: Yay or
    nay. To paraphrase Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, to vote without debate is unwise, but to debate without even being able to vote is ridiculous. In modern times the filibuster is invisible:
    Senators are not required to actually hold the floor, a minority of 41 simply notify the
    leadership of their intent to filibuster. Meanwhile other business goes on.

    There is no reason the Senate (by a simple majority vote) could not change its rules.
    The fact is that the filibuster rule has been changed over the years.
    First, House rules were changed to eliminate the filibuster.
    In the Senate, the first real filibuster was in 1841. The Senate changed its
    rules in 1917 when they adopted rule 22 (also known as cloture) which limits debate after
    a 2/3 majority vote in favor. The filibuster has often been criticized: particularly in the 1950s and
    1960s when southern senators used it to block civil rights legislation. In 1975 the Senate
    reduced the cloture threshold from 2/3 (67 votes) to 3/5 (60 votes). The move to reduce it from
    2/3 to 3/5 was itself filibustered!
    From the US Senate website:
    http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/...er_Cloture.htm
    Many Americans are familiar with the hours-long filibuster of Senator Jefferson Smith in Frank Capra's film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but there have been some famous filibusters in the real-life Senate as well. During the 1930s, Senator Huey P. Long effectively used the filibuster against bills that he thought favored the rich over the poor. The Louisiana senator frustrated his colleagues while entertaining spectators with his recitations of Shakespeare and his reading of recipes for "pot-likkers." Long once held the Senate floor for fifteen hours. The record for the longest individual speech goes to South Carolina's J. Strom Thurmond who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
    Last edited by myssi; 02-16-2005 at 10:06 PM. Reason: spelling errors

  10. #10
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Dems, Repubs, Kurds and Filibusters

    I first learned about Congressional filibustering in the fourth grade. Now I've had experience running a business, and running meetings in accordance with parliamentary procedure. The filibuster didn't make any more sense to me in the fourth grade than it does now.

  11. #11
    God/dess montythegeek's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    2,103
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 9 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Dems, Repubs, Kurds and Filibusters

    Make the fillibusterers really fillibuster and nothing gets done in the Senate for a month. No welfare checks to constituents, no aid to cities, no Soc. Sec. checks and the Democrats will shut down the government and get the blaim for it.

Similar Threads

  1. Dems, Repubs, Greens, Libs, etc - Explain Yourselves!
    By Miss_Luscious in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 09-18-2008, 08:06 AM
  2. The Dems are Coming
    By Ava Jadore in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 08-29-2008, 02:16 AM
  3. Why Dems Don't Get Elected
    By Deogol in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-09-2006, 02:20 PM
  4. Superior moralistic repubs take porn $$ contributions
    By devilsadvocate667 in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 02-09-2005, 09:56 AM
  5. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-13-2004, 06:05 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •