Error editing post! Your message is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 5 characters. Dem Senator 'Sheets' Byrd strikes again !
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Dem Senator 'Sheets' Byrd strikes again !

  1. #1
    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 Dem Senator 'Sheets' Byrd strikes again !


  2. #2
    Featured Member Amethyst's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    795
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 14 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Re: Dem Senator 'Sheets' Byrd strikes again !

    I completely disagree with Sen. Byrd's comparing the GOP to the Nazi party (althought I think he was comparing their TACTICS, not necessarily the people themselves), but I find all this hooplah about him making that statement an interesting diversion to the fact that Republicans have the balls to actually propose ending filibusters on judicial nominations.

    Remove references to Hitler/Nazi/Mussolini from Byrd's statements, and it sounds pretty legit to me.

    My favorite twist:

    Brooks also attacked as "disgusting" Byrd's remark that "some in the Senate are ready to callously incinerate" senators' rights to filibuster. The comment came amid several references by Byrd to the "nuclear option."

    "There is no excuse for raising the specter of the Holocaust crematoria in a discussion of the Senate filibuster," Brooks said. "That kind of political heavy-handedness is inappropriate and reprehensible."
    Surely, Brooks realizes Byrd is referring to one of the most obvious effects of NUKE-U-LAR bombs (incinerating) and not a crematorium. Gotta appreciate the diversionary tactics of the Right. The Left could learn a thing or two...


  3. #3
    Veteran Member myssi's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    341
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: Dem Senator 'Sheets' Byrd strikes again !

    Talk about diversion... not about abolishing the filibuster... simply a rule change preventing it
    from being used to BLOCK voting on judicial nominations... a minority could still obstruct
    Senate business via the filibuster in ALL legislative votes. Senate rules have been changed
    before by a simple majority vote. Hardly "nuclear". Anyway, we've had THAT thread before.
    THIS thread seems more about (former klansman's) Byrd's reprehensible "hate speech".

  4. #4
    Veteran Member Lurker's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    209
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Dem Senator 'Sheets' Byrd strikes again !

    Sauce for the goose...Didn't the same thing happen in the Clinton years?

    I'd be happy to see the filibuster rules disappear altogether, but I have to question the idealism of all the Republicans who have suddenly decided that it's a necessary step to get rid of obstructionism.
    "All this time you were pretending
    So much for my happy ending."
    --Avril Lavigne

  5. #5
    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: Dem Senator 'Sheets' Byrd strikes again !

    Sauce for the goose...Didn't the same thing happen in the Clinton years?
    Well, not exactly. The Democrat's attempt to apply super-majority rules to judicial appointments is clearly not supported by the constitution, which spells out every instance where a super-majority vote is required (i.e. overriding a presidential veto). The constitution's Advise and Consent clause says absolutely nothing along these lines in regard to presidential appointments, meaning that a simple 51 vote majority is all that is needed to approve the judge nominated. Last year with an essentially equally divided Senate, the Democrats hit upon the obstructionist strategy of filibustering GWB's judicial nominees without fear of a rule change or other challenge to the practice. However this year there is a clear Senate majority such that a rule change (and it's not really even a change but a new rule stating the 51 vote majority requirement that the constitution already sets forth) is only a vote away if the majority leader calls for such a vote.

    From what I have read, it appears that the Senate republican leadership has been reluctant to spearhead such a direct confrontation with the senate's democratic minority, for fear of receiving a huge tongue lashing from liberal mainstream media. However, many of the alternative media outlets are proclaiming that many average US voters would hold up such a republican with the balls to take on the democrats head-on as a 'hero'.

  6. #6
    Veteran Member Lurker's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    209
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Dem Senator 'Sheets' Byrd strikes again !

    Well, it's pretty clearly a rules change in the eyes of a majority of the Senators--though I'd love to see the struggle on the floor of the Senate between Majority and Minority Leaders if they really disagreed over the legality of the issue! We'd look like Taiwan!

    I spent a little time looking for this data on the web, but it's hard to find apples-to-apples comparisons. My strong recollection is that Democrats got angered during the 1994-2000 era when Republicans controlled Congress and rejected a much higher number of Clinton's nominees than any previous Congress had, as well as stalling and allowing scores of nominations to lapse without review when Clinton left office. The Democrats' treatment of Republican nominees under Bush has been payback.

    I'd love for there to be no filibusters--it would reduce pork and prevent the watering-down of bills. For that matter, I'd love to have a parliamentary system in the US. Then Bush (or Clinton, or whoever) could enact his policies and we'd be able to stand in judgment on them each election without having to worry about who was obstructing who. But these are hypocritical complaints from the Republicans--the Gingrich-dominated Congress tried to force Clinton into a default rather than give him the courtesy of a debt ceiling increase, which had no historical precedent. This use of procedure pales in comparison in terms of abusing the mechanics of government for political gains. Politics is getting dirtier and nastier and pettier, and the Republican party is at LEAST as guilty of that as the Democrats.
    Last edited by Lurker; 03-04-2005 at 03:02 PM. Reason: "rule change"? I need to start reading this stuff before submitting...
    "All this time you were pretending
    So much for my happy ending."
    --Avril Lavigne

  7. #7
    Veteran Member myssi's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    341
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: Dem Senator 'Sheets' Byrd strikes again !

    "Rejected" nominees is quite different from the full Senate NEVER having even voted on them.
    Rejection is fine, blocking a simple vote is not. "Payback" Bush/The GOP by voting
    against nominees if you want... not by blocking a vote. Another tactic used excessively by
    Clinton was the recess appointment... (see US Consitution Article II Section 2 Paragraph 3)
    some appointees served much longer than law allowed (another law Clinton broke). When Bush took over he allowed Clinton's Judges that he nominated as a lame duck to stay on... even
    though ideologically they were not ones Bush would have selected. Same thing with the massive
    last minute Clinton pardons...(many put through without any review for people like his brother
    and other cronies...he even sold pardons like he did nights in the Lincoln bedroom and plots at
    Arlington Cemetary)...some pardons were not even signed... Bush could have challenged them,
    but out of respect did not. So even when his predecessor was dishonorable, Bush honorablly
    chose to abide by those actions.

  8. #8
    Veteran Member myssi's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    341
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: Dem Senator 'Sheets' Byrd strikes again !

    By the way... Here is what Sen. Byrd said on Senate rule changes in 1979...from the
    Congressional Record, January 15, 1979...

    "This Congress is not obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past
    . . . The first Senate, which met in 1789, approved 19 rules by a majority vote. Those rules have been changed from time to time . . . So the Members of the Senate who met in 1789 and approved that first body of rules did not for one moment think, or believe, or pretend, that all succeeding Senates would be bound by that Senate . . . It would be just as reasonable to say that one Congress can pass a law providing that all future laws have to be passed by two-thirds vote. Any Member of this body knows that the next Congress would not heed that law and would proceed to change it and would vote repeal of it by majority vote."

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

    Default Re: Dem Senator 'Sheets' Byrd strikes again !

    Oh.. wait there's more... Byrd's record on the matter of rule changes...
    http://www.house.gov/rules/jcoc2p.htm
    (snip)
    substituting a requirement of three-fifths of the full Senate (60 votes).

    In 1975, this last proposal, originated by then Majority Whip Robert C. Byrd, was adopted for most measures...
    (snip)

    In 1975 Majority Whip Robert Byrd was the primary sponsor of a proposal to reduce the super-majority in the Senate from two-thirds to three-fifths. When Senators changed the filibuster requirement from 67 votes to 60, after concluding that it only takes a simple majority of Senators to change the rules governing their proceedings. As Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-MT) said at the time: "We cannot allow a minority" of the senators "to grab the Senate by the throat and hold it there." Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Byrd, and Biden, all agreed.

  10. #10
    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: Dem Senator 'Sheets' Byrd strikes again !

    As Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-MT) said at the time: "We cannot allow a minority" of the senators "to grab the Senate by the throat and hold it there." Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Byrd, and Biden, all agreed.
    I guess that this rationale only applies when the 'minority of senators' in question were republicans !

  11. #11
    Veteran Member Lurker's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    209
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Dem Senator 'Sheets' Byrd strikes again !

    C'mon guys--

    Of COURSE Bush didn't review Clinton's last-minute pardons, just like Carter didn't review the Nixon pardon, etc. Nobody wants to set the precedent that may burn them...

    Melonie, see Senator Hatch on the "blue slip" policies for reviewing judges before you start casting stones over Senate flip-flops. Again, I think it's all driven by political expediency. One side is not clearly better than the other and we can fill up threads and threads citing and counter-citing examples like the ones you and Myssi are so concerned about here without actually settling anything.

    Myssi, you're setting the bar wherever it suits you. Before the Clinton era, it was customary for only a tiny fraction of nominees to be rejected. The Republicans from 1995-2000 extended "advise and consent" to "vet for political reasons". The Democrats in the Bush era, knowing they can't win floor votes, have resorted to procedural maneuvering. Is that wrong? Was it wrong of the Senate in 1995 to decide they would politicize judicial review? Aren't ALL filibusters wrong if allowing the Senate an up-or-down vote on any particular bill is the only "right" thing to do?

    Sheesh.
    "All this time you were pretending
    So much for my happy ending."
    --Avril Lavigne

Similar Threads

  1. Best Spread Sheets?
    By TopHeavyCutie in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-09-2008, 12:34 PM
  2. bamboo sheets are COMFY!!
    By Chrissy68 in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-12-2007, 08:15 AM
  3. New Shoot - Contact Sheets
    By Sirona in forum Picture Post
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-20-2007, 05:43 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-21-2005, 12:15 PM
  5. silicone scar sheets?
    By ami in forum Body Business
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-09-2004, 08:47 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
  •