Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Top 10 Republican filibuster lies!

  1. #1
    Veteran Member devilsadvocate667's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    241
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Top 10 Republican filibuster lies!

    With Senate debate on two of President Bush's most controversial judicial nominees beginning May 18, the heated rhetoric over the so-called "nuclear option" to ban Senate filibusters on judicial nominations has reached its boiling point. The rules of the Senate thus far remain intact, but filibuster opponents have pulled all rhetorical stops, advancing numerous falsehoods and distortions, and the media have too often perpetuated that misinformation by unskeptically, and sometimes even deliberately, repeating it.


    LIE #1: Democrats' filibuster of Bush nominees is "unprecedented

    LIE #2: Bush's filibustered nominees have all been rated well-qualified by the ABA; blocking such highly rated nominees is unprecedented

    LIE #3: Democratic obstructionism has led to far more judicial vacancies during Republican administrations than Democratic administrations

    LIE #4: "Nuclear Option" is a Democratic term

    LIE #5: Democrats oppose Bush nominees because of their faith, race, ethnicity, gender, stance on abortion, stance on parental notification ...

    LIE #6: Public opinion polling shows clear opposition to judicial filibusters, support for "nuclear option"

    LIE #7: Filibustering judicial nominees is unconstitutional

    LIE #8: Clinton's appellate confirmation rate was far better than Bush's rate

    LIE #9: Sen. Byrd's alterations to filibuster rules set precedent for "nuclear option"

    LIE #10: Democrats have opposed "all" or "most" of Bush's judicial nominees


  2. #2
    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: Top 10 Republican filibuster lies!

    so where are the lies ?

  3. #3
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Top 10 Republican filibuster lies!

    Quote Originally Posted by devilsadvocate667
    LIE #5: Democrats oppose Bush nominees because of their faith, race, ethnicity, gender, stance on abortion, stance on parental notification ...
    There's no question in my mind that some of the nominees are being opposed by Democrats because of their gender and/or ethnicity.

    If Bush is nominating crooks and political hacks for life-time judgeships, the democrats owe it to the American people to expose that fact. Why don't they bring these nominations to the senate floor and let Americans see for themselves what type of people GWB wants on the federal bench?
    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

  4. #4
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,993
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: Top 10 Republican filibuster lies!

    There are lots of qualified candidates out there, my question is why are they so intent on pushing through a candidate(s) that they know are so adamantly opposed by EVERY democrat? How is that good for the country? Where is the compromise?

    One other interesting tidbit to keep in mind, even though GOP US Senators outnumber Democratic US Senators, the constituency of the Democratic Senators far outnumbers that of the GOP Senators, so who's really representing the majority here?

  5. #5
    Veteran Member devilsadvocate667's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    241
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Top 10 Republican filibuster lies!

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    There's no question in my mind that some of the nominees are being opposed by Democrats because of their gender and/or ethnicity.

    Why? Because Hannity told you so? You're being manipulated


  6. #6
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    262
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Top 10 Republican filibuster lies!

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard_Head
    There are lots of qualified candidates out there, my question is why are they so intent on pushing through a candidate(s) that they know are so adamantly opposed by EVERY democrat?
    Why should that be a factor? Shouldn't a candidate be selected based on their own merits, rather than their chances of winning?


    One other interesting tidbit to keep in mind, even though GOP US Senators outnumber Democratic US Senators, the constituency of the Democratic Senators far outnumbers that of the GOP Senators, so who's really representing the majority here?

    So what's your point? Are you saying the system is flawed and we should change it? Or is it just a complaint?

  7. #7
    Sitri
    Guest

    Default Re: Top 10 Republican filibuster lies!

    While this thread is about judges and fillibusters, I believe the larger issue is one which underlies our democracy. That is that although there is a majority party the majority does not have the right to override the rights of the minority. This is the common thread that most of our issues on this site address.

    As Mrs. Bush travels the mid-east, she said the Americans are not really understood and that we are fundamentally a people of fairness and "tolerance".


    IMHO The current administration and party is greatly lacking in both. The conservative christian right does not represent Christians or Republicans and they are definitely not tolerant. They are using their current political power to forward their agenda and not the agenda of the american people.

    I believe it is important that the Judiciary is appointed that is not extremist either left or right. Moderation and tolerance has always been a mainstay of our country and I believe it should remain so.

    I cannot reconcile the noble effort to stop stem cell research because Bush says he will uphold a line he had already drawn against science that "destroys life in order to save life." while at the same time he promotes wars that destroy life to achieve democracy.

    It is just heavy handedness.

  8. #8
    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: Top 10 Republican filibuster lies!

    Sitri, while I agree with you on the issue of "extreme" elements of political constituencies being allowed to have disproportionate input to political parties, and while I also agree that judicial and executive appointments should not include persons who embody those "extreme" positions, I would point out that this phenomenon is certainly not unique to Republicans.

    Indeed the question at hand is America's somewhat unique structure of a Republic, which attempts to balance the wishes (i.e. votes) of the majority while at the same time preventing tyranny over the minority. However I would contend that, at the moment at least, it is the minority party in congress which is attempting to assert 'rights' which do not exist and also attempting to deny well established 'rights' of the chief executive.

  9. #9
    God/dess
    Joined
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Phoenix is home, work in Upper Midwest Boonies
    Posts
    3,274
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 107 Times in 61 Posts

    Default Re: Top 10 Republican filibuster lies!

    There will NEVER be any compromise by the Bush Administration. They have a religious agenda to see through and his judicial picks and policy choices will not be watered down willingly.EVERY person Bush has picked upholds a staunch Christian Conservative view of life, and people with staunch religious beliefs are unwilling to accept the fact that it is ok for other people to have different beliefs and live different lifestyles.

    Compromise here means that this administration would be willing to back off of their religious agenda on certain issues to keep the peace and to appeal to people on both sides of the fence.

    Problem is, the people on the right wing side of the fence are selfish and want everything to be their way or no way, in the name of God.

    We are in for some nasty political battles in the near future. It's going to take possible violence to rid this country of the evil effects of these crazed conservatives who are using religious guilt coupled with money and political power to take over this country.

  10. #10
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,993
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: Top 10 Republican filibuster lies!

    Quote Originally Posted by Hef
    Why should that be a factor? Shouldn't a candidate be selected based on their own merits, rather than their chances of winning?
    There are plenty of other candidates who are just as qualified, if not more so, just not as extreme, what of their merits, why aren't they being considered, wouldn't that be better for the country?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hef
    So what's your point? Are you saying the system is flawed and we should change it? Or is it just a complaint?
    The system is not flawed, it has worked fine for 200+ years, it's the GOP who is threatening to change it. I was just making a point that it was infact the minority in this case trying to impose their beliefs upon the majority and they'd best tread carefully.

  11. #11
    Sitri
    Guest

    Default Re: Top 10 Republican filibuster lies!

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    Sitri, while I agree with you on the issue of "extreme" elements of political constituencies being allowed to have disproportionate input to political parties, and while I also agree that judicial and executive appointments should not include persons who embody those "extreme" positions, I would point out that this phenomenon is certainly not unique to Republicans.

    Indeed the question at hand is America's somewhat unique structure of a Republic, which attempts to balance the wishes (i.e. votes) of the majority while at the same time preventing tyranny over the minority. However I would contend that, at the moment at least, it is the minority party in congress which is attempting to assert 'rights' which do not exist and also attempting to deny well established 'rights' of the chief executive.
    I am not concerned about preserving the rights of the chief executive nor is our constitution. I am concerned about OUR rights and the rationalization of this government to violate the rights of human beings. The preservation of the chief executives rights at the minimization of the rights of the people is called Tyranny. If we can practice Tyranny against other countries or peoples because they are not Americans, how long can it be before acts of tyranny applies to Americans who aren't republicans, or fundamentalist christians in the name of democracy or freedom?



    Bill of Rights

    Amendment I



    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.





    Amendment IV



    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.



    Amendment V



    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.



    Amendment VI



    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.



    Amendment VII



    In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.





    Amendment IX



    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.



    Amendment X



    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

  12. #12
    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: Top 10 Republican filibuster lies!

    Hmmm, any significant mention of similar tyranny in regard to the 2nd amendment, the 5th amendment's takings clause, as examples, seems to be conspicuously absent from your preferred collection. Tyranny accusations are a two way street. Often, those being most vocal in advocating a certain group of constitutional protections are also actively trying to regulate/restrict/deny other constitutional protections.

    Back to the point of this thread, the bottom line is whether or not the current crop of nominees has the 'right' to an up or down Senate confirmation vote. Nobody is arguing that any nominees who are ultimately rejected by 51% of Senators shouldn't be sent packing. What is being argued is the (unconstitutional) ability of 40% of Senators to obstruct the process and deny nominees that up or down vote ... which up to now has effectively sent those nominees packing, and at the same time has also protected those 40% of Senators from having to go on record as having actually opposed the particular nominee (which would carry political baggage at re-election time).
    Last edited by Melonie; 05-21-2005 at 10:15 PM.

  13. #13
    Veteran Member myssi's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    341
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: Top 10 Republican filibuster lies!

    Who's being pushed through (improperly)? After several years of waiting, the nominees simply deserve a vote...up or DOWN. Yes, each senator deserves a chance to vote NO too. But some don't want to allow ANY senator to vote. Sounds pretty UN-democratic to me.
    Sounds like grounds for impeachment if a Senator doesn't want to do the job they were elected to do: vote on things.

    How about these democrat lies:

    1) Rules of the senate have never changed in 200 years.
    2) It's okay to deny the entire Senate the right to vote for OR against a nominee if a minority think it best.
    3) Nominees have been "blocked" before so that means they've been filibustered by the opposite party and not been either nominated too late, held up by members of the administration's own party, failed to be voted out of committee, failed a vote on their nomination, etc.

  14. #14
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,993
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: Top 10 Republican filibuster lies!

    Quote Originally Posted by myssi
    Who's being pushed through (improperly)? After several years of waiting, the nominees simply deserve a vote...up or DOWN. Yes, each senator deserves a chance to vote NO too. But some don't want to allow ANY senator to vote. Sounds pretty UN-democratic to me.
    Sounds like grounds for impeachment if a Senator doesn't want to do the job they were elected to do: vote on things.
    Senate rules allow the minority to demand fillibusters, this is not new and it is certainly not impeachable, it helps prevent a simple majority from abusing the rights of the minority, what is really so wrong with that?

  15. #15
    Veteran Member myssi's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    341
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: Top 10 Republican filibuster lies!

    I'm paying my senator to vote on things. If he doesn't want to do his job because he feels his rights are being abused by having to decide, but still expects payment, to me that is theft. If he doesn't want to vote on things, then resign and let somebody else be senator. The democrats have threatened to shut down all senate business if they don't get their way. The only ones really being abused here are the American people. Impeach them if they don't want to be our senators! Would you keep paying someone who refuses to do their job?

  16. #16
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Top 10 Republican filibuster lies!

    Quote Originally Posted by devilsadvocate667
    Why? Because Hannity told you so? You're being manipulated
    Let's pretend for a moment that the U.S. Senate was a privately owned corporation. U.S. Senate, Inc. refusing to even consider women and minorities for promotion to senior positions would bring the EEOC down on them so fast it would make your head spin.
    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

  17. #17
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Top 10 Republican filibuster lies!

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    Let's pretend for a moment that the U.S. Senate was a privately owned corporation. U.S. Senate, Inc. refusing to even consider women and minorities for promotion to senior positions would bring the EEOC down on them so fast it would make your head spin.
    uuuuh so? the senate cannot discriminate based on those criteria either...though if gay you're screwed.

  18. #18
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    262
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Top 10 Republican filibuster lies!

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard_Head
    There are plenty of other candidates who are just as qualified, if not more so, just not as extreme, what of their merits, why aren't they being considered, wouldn't that be better for the country?
    I believe that the best candidates should be put forward. I don't care who thinks they're extreme or not (it's all in your point of view). I would vote for the most qualified individual who I believe has an ideology similar to my own. I want someone whose decisions would most often be made in agreement with my beliefs.


    The system is not flawed, it has worked fine for 200+ years, it's the GOP who is threatening to change it. I was just making a point that it was infact the minority in this case trying to impose their beliefs upon the majority and they'd best tread carefully.
    I wasn't actually suggesting the system is flawed, or that you may feel it might be. I just wanted to see exactly what your point is. And I agree, they should tread carefully.

  19. #19
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    262
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Top 10 Republican filibuster lies!

    Quote Originally Posted by Sitri
    I am not concerned about preserving the rights of the chief executive nor is our constitution. I am concerned about OUR rights and the rationalization of this government to violate the rights of human beings. The preservation of the chief executives rights at the minimization of the rights of the people is called Tyranny. If we can practice Tyranny against other countries or peoples because they are not Americans, how long can it be before acts of tyranny applies to Americans who aren't republicans, or fundamentalist christians in the name of democracy or freedom?



    Bill of Rights

    Amendment I



    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.





    Amendment IV



    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.



    Amendment V



    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.



    Amendment VI



    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.



    Amendment VII



    In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.





    Amendment IX



    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.



    Amendment X



    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


    You must have the abridged version of the Bill of Rights. The rest of America has a couple other amendments in the version we use, and they are as follows:


    "Amendment II
    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    Amendment III
    No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

    Amendment VIII
    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."


    If you're going to defend the Bill of Rights, you can't just pick and choose which parts you defend. Defend the whole thing or find a new angle to your arguement.

  20. #20
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    262
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Top 10 Republican filibuster lies!

    Quote Originally Posted by kymchoon
    I may be opening a can of worms here, but...

    Can somebody clarify something for a non-US citizen? It seems to me like the above is fairly clear cut. It serves to protect the right of local communities to maintain organised militia (hence 'well regulated'). To my (albeit limited and outside) understanding, that role is filled by your National Guard units?

    How does this translate, then, to the right for private citizens to own firearms? I mean, it's not like you guys operate under the Swiss system (where yes, people keep assault weapons in their houses, but all adult males are in the military reserves until age 50)(and hence gain the training and discipline to be responsible with said weapons).

    I'm not anti-gun, although Australia has some pretty strict gun laws. I quite like having access to firearms, should I so wish (although I don't trust Joe Average with them. Hell, I don't trust me with them, but that's by-the-by). I simply would like somebody to explain where all the debate comes from, as the intent of the Amendment appears to be pretty obvious.


    I'm not going to hijack this thread in order to address your post. There's another thread here about gun control where you should post this.

  21. #21
    Sitri
    Guest

    Default Re: Top 10 Republican filibuster lies!

    Well, regarding not selecting the whole Bill of Rights, in this context I am defending a particular issue. I don't need to put in the non relevant parts. If I were defending gun ownership, I would select different ones.

    If you were defending someone for murder, you wouldn't quote irrelevant sections of the code related to drunken driving? So why would I use the ones I omitted. Hope that explains it.

  22. #22
    Veteran Member devilsadvocate667's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    241
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Top 10 Republican filibuster lies!

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    Let's pretend for a moment that the U.S. Senate was a privately owned corporation. U.S. Senate, Inc. refusing to even consider women and minorities for promotion to senior positions would bring the EEOC down on them so fast it would make your head spin.
    LMFAO! I do believe you are serious! That is cute.

    Are you aware that the only minority female congresswomen are democrats?

    I think this republican whining about racism is jsut a convenient dodge of responsibility and accountability for nominating far right wing radical extremists that are out of touch with America.


  23. #23
    Veteran Member devilsadvocate667's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    241
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Top 10 Republican filibuster lies!

    Quote Originally Posted by myssi

    How about these democrat lies:

    1) Rules of the senate have never changed in 200 years.
    Tell me who has said that? That is a misrepresentation. Not one democrat has ever said that.

    Quote Originally Posted by myssi
    2) It's okay to deny the entire Senate the right to vote for OR against a nominee if a minority think it best.
    It worked for the republicans when they were the minority. Yet people of your ilk had no problem with it then. You're only whining now cause your own tactics are being used against you and you HATE that. Yet hypocritically you think now it's unfair.

    Quote Originally Posted by myssi
    3) Nominees have been "blocked" before so that means they've been filibustered by the opposite party and not been either nominated too late, held up by members of the administration's own party, failed to be voted out of committee, failed a vote on their nomination, etc.
    That isn't even a coherent sentence!


Similar Threads

  1. You Know You're a Republican/Democrat If...
    By Budai in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-11-2007, 12:14 AM
  2. California going republican
    By Deogol in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 06-08-2006, 09:13 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-29-2005, 07:19 AM
  4. 1968 GOP Used judicial filibuster
    By devilsadvocate667 in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 05-20-2005, 09:10 AM
  5. Filibuster no more
    By azamber's bitch in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-16-2005, 11:59 PM

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
  •