TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Push the Shiny Red Button, Senator Reid. Doit. Doit. Doit!
Push the Shiny Red Button, Senator Reid. Doit. Doit. Doit!
Nuke the fucking Senate, Reid.
| quote: |
| Renominated Judicial Nominee Clears Senate Panel Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:01 PM ET By Thomas Ferraro WASHINGTON (Reuters) - William Myers on Thursday became the first of seven judicial nominees blocked by Democrats and renominated by President Bush to win the approval of the Senate Judiciary Committee. On a party-line vote of 10-8, the panel sent the nomination of Myers back to the full Republican-led Senate for another chance to be confirmed to a seat on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Democrats say Myers has a long anti-environmental record, a position that Republicans dispute. "The real battle will be on the floor," Chairman Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, said of the mounting showdown over renominated judicial candidates. Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, said Myers could be "the trigger" for a Senate battle as early as next month. "I'm saddened that the president felt it necessary to put a thumb in the eye of bipartisanship by renominating a handful of hard-right ideologues," Schumer said. Myers, an Idaho attorney who has been a top U.S. Interior Department lawyer and an industry lobbyist, was among 10 federal appeals court nominees Democrats blocked during Bush's first term with procedural hurdles known as filibusters. Bush renominated seven of the 10 after winning a second term in November, along with 13 other judicial nominees left hanging at the end of the last Congress. Democrats have denounced the blocked nominees as right-wing extremists, and part of what they call an effort by Bush to shift the balance on the federal bench. Bush and fellow Republicans counter that Democrats unfairly block qualified candidates to placate liberal interest groups. Republicans control the Senate, holding 55 of 100 seats. But 60 votes are needed to end a filibuster. Republicans threaten to change Senate procedures to prevent any more filibusters against judicial candidates. Democrat say if Republicans do so they will retaliate by finding other ways to drastically slow the Senate's work on nonessential matters, tying up a pile of legislation. Adding to the intensity is the fact that Bush may soon make his first nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Fifty-one votes would be needed to change Senate rules and outlaw filibusters, but it is unclear whether Republicans could muster such support. Some Republicans have voiced concerns that a host of legislation could get caught in the cross-fire and the action could hurt them in a future Democratic-led Senate. Democrats say Bush should be pleased with his overall record on judicial nominees. While 10 were filibustered, 204 others, mostly district judges, were confirmed by the Senate. But Specter pointed out that only two-thirds of Bush's appeals court nominees have been confirmed, "the lowest (rate) of any president in recent history." http://today.reuters.com/news/newsA...S-JUDGES-DC.XML |
i dare them. i recall that the last time the congress shut down (in 1994 i believe), blame was cast on the repubs.
re: the judicial nominations, the rules are stuctured so that the congress can reach a consensus, not majority rule as many repubs allege. hence, the 60 vote rule. its about time the dems had some backbone.
I'm sure every single one of these nominees is a great choice, just like picking Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank. 
That aside, there's really no way to say that a filibuster is wrong when Frist and others used the EXACT same tactics, even if you agree with the nominations.
If I had my way GODLESSCOMMIE and Electronicmaji would be on the court.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Spacey Orange i dare them. i recall that the last time the congress shut down (in 1994 i believe), blame was cast on the repubs. re: the judicial nominations, the rules are stuctured so that the congress can reach a consensus, not majority rule as many repubs allege. hence, the 60 vote rule. its about time the dems had some backbone. |
No judge in the history of the United States has been filibustered. The dems have set a very bad precedent. It's ok though...I welcome their move to the fringe left. I guarantees a 3rd defeat for them at the ballot box next year. In the mean time, government will br frozen...no more laws passed...a double win for liberty
woot woot
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Capitalizt No judge in the history of the United States has been filibustered. The dems have set a very bad precedent. It's ok though...I welcome their move to the fringe left. I guarantees a 3rd defeat for them at the ballot box next year. In the mean time, government will br frozen...no more laws passed...a double win for liberty woot woot |
The left is filibustering judicial nominees on the Senate floor. This NEVER happened under Clinton, or ever before in U.S. history. All of Clinton's nominees at least got the courtesy of a vote. They weren't confirmed because the GOP swept 200+ seats in 1994 and had the votes to win...but the republicans never prevented an up or down vote as the dems are doing now. I think these tactics do prove that the dems have shifted far left, and are desperate to keep a grip on the only branch of government where they have a chance of passing their agenda, the judiciary.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Capitalizt The left is filibustering judicial nominees on the Senate floor. This NEVER happened under Clinton, or ever before in U.S. history. All of Clinton's nominees at least got the courtesy of a vote. They weren't confirmed because the GOP swept 200+ seats in 1994 and had the votes to win...but the republicans never prevented an up or down vote as the dems are doing now. I think these tactics do prove that the dems have shifted far left, and are desperate to keep a grip on the only branch of government where they have a chance of passing their agenda, the judiciary. |
| quote: |
| U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 106th Congress - 2nd Session as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate Vote Summary Question: On the Cloture Motion (Cloture Motion RE: Nom. of Richard Paez to be U.S. Circuit Judge ) Vote Number: 37 Vote Date: March 8, 2000, 05:51 PM Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture Motion Agreed to Nomination Number: PN44 Nomination Description: Richard A. Paez, of California, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, vice Cecil F. Poole, resigned... NAYs ---14 Allard (R-CO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Craig (R-ID) DeWine (R-OH) Enzi (R-WY) Frist (R-TN) Gramm (R-TX) Helms (R-NC) Hutchinson (R-AR) Inhofe (R-OK) Murkowski (R-AK) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-NH) |
| quote: |
| First et al forget that Republicans used the same weapon to block several judicial nominees put forth by President Bill Clinton. They even forced Clinton to find a new nominee for surgeon general. In fact, the filibuster has served whichever party has been in the minority since the 18th century. Democrats fear that, if successful, Republicans will use the same tactic to avoid filibusters on other presidential nominees, as well as legislation. |
Here's one of the judges we're talking about.
| quote: |
| Justice Priscilla Owen Nominated to: U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, Status of nomination: Renominated 1/7/03; Pending Senate Floor Voted out of Committee on 03/27/2003 There have been four failed cloture votes: May 1, 2003: May 8, 2003; July 28, 2003; November 14, 2003 Brief Biography. Born 1954, Palacios Texas B.A. 1975, Baylor University J.D. 1977, Baylor University School of Law Andrews, Kurth, Campbell & Jones (became Andrews & Kurth) Associate 1978-84 Partner 1985-94 Justice, Texas Supreme Court 1995-present (elected in 1994). Party Affilliation. Priscilla Owen was appointed and has twice been elected to the Texas Supreme Court as a Republican. She was originally picked for the court by advisor to then-Governor Bush Karl Rove, who worked to make every one of Texas's elected seats Republican. General Information. Anchoring the far-right end of a very conservative court, Priscilla Owen consistently supports big business and special interests against the claims of ordinary Americans. Before joining the court, Owen was a partner at the Houston firm Andrews & Kurth, where she represented primarily large corporations, including oil and pipeline interests. On the Texas Supreme Court, she has tended to distort or rewrite the law to reach desired results, voting consistently to dismiss the claims of injured workers and consumers and citizens wishing to protect the environment. In addition, prior to her nomination to the Fifth Circuit, she never voted to grant a minor a judicial bypass under Texas' Parental Notification Statute. The Houston Chronicle wrote that her "interpretations [in these cases] were generally stricter and more conservative than the majority of her all-Republican colleagues" on the court. Indeed, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, then a fellow Justice, called one of her dissents in a bypass case "an unconscionable act of judicial activism."1 Owen is also notoriously slow at issuing opinions and has reportedly had cases taken away from her because of her backlog. Finally, the decision to renominate Owen, after her rejection by the Senate Judiciary Committee, is indicative of a strategy on the part of Bush and his advisor Karl Rove to pack the federal judiciary with right-wing judges who are prepared to implement the administration's anti-choice, pro-corporate, and anti-environment domestic agenda.2 Decisions Favoring Corporations over Injured Plaintiffs. In several recent cases, Owen has dissented from rulings by the Texas Supreme Court affecting the rights of injured individuals, and in other cases, she has written for or joined the court's right-wing majority to dismiss such claims. In some cases, her opinions had implications beyond leaving the specific plaintiff without a remedy; they were so broad as to threaten to leave entire classes of future plaintiffs with similar claims with no means of obtaining relief. For example, in Quantum Chemical Corp. v. Toennies, Owen issued a dissenting opinion that distorted a key Texas civil rights law to make it much more difficult for employees to prove a violation of their rights.3 Her position, had it been adopted by a majority of the court, would have required employees to prove that discrimination was the sole reason for a dismissal or other action, even though the statute clearly states that discrimination must simply be "a motivating factor." Although Toennies was an age discrimination case, Owen's view, if adopted, would have weakened protections against several other forms of employment discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and disability. In Hyundai Motor Co. v. Alvarado, Justice Owen authored a dissent joined by Justices Phillips, Hecht, and Enoch against awarding damages to the family of a teenager who was paralyzed when he was ejected through the car's sun roof in an accident.4 Owen took the position that the federal National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 preempted the Alvarados' common law negligence claim for Hyundai's construction of the Excel's passenger restraint system without lap belts. Owen's argument would turn the federal law, which was designed to minimize injuries and deaths from car accidents,5 into a protective measure for negligent manufacturers and a barrier to stop people from persuading car makers to employ better safety methods. And in Enron Corp. v. Spring Independent School Dist., Owen authored the opinion for a unanimous court that held constitutional a Texas tax law that allowed companies to choose between two dates to evaluate their inventory for tax purposes.6 Owen's opinion saved Enron $225,000 and resulted in lost revenue for the school district, which had challenged the law that allowed companies to select the date on which their inventory would be valued, which minimized the company's tax burden. As reported in many papers, Owen had received $8,600 in campaign contributions from Enron prior to writing the opinion.7 Reproductive Rights.In every reported case to come before her prior to her nomination to the federal bench, Owen voted against permitting a minor to obtain an abortion without notifying her parents. In many of these cases, she tried to rewrite the Texas Parental Notification Statute to create additional barriers to young women's access to abortion services. For example, in her concurrence inIn re Jane Doe 2, Owen urged the adoption of a new, made-up criterion for granting judicial bypasses: "The Court has omitted any requirement that a trial court find an abortion to be in the best interest of the minor". This is the only reasonable construction of 33.003(i).8 The statute requires only that a court determine whether parental notification is in the minor's best interest, but Owen would rewrite the statute to add a requirement that the court determine whether theabortion itself is in the minor's best interest. Owen's Disregard For The Rights Of The Public In Environmental Cases. Owen's actions in two cases raise serious concerns about the priority she places on the government's responsibility to protect the environment and the health and safety of its citizens. In FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin, Justice Owen strongly dissented from the court's decision to strike down a state law that had been tailored to allow a particular developer to bypass the city of Austin's municipal water-quality laws.9 The majority pointed out that the law illegally delegated a basic right - the right to pollute - to a private property owner. Owen's dissent was dismissed by the majority as "nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric" thus merit[ing] no response.10 Parties affiliated with the developer contributed more than $47,000 to Owen's campaign. In her Senate Judiciary Committee Questionnaire, Owen named In re City of Georgetown one of her ten "most significant opinions."11 Here, her decision resulted in the withholding of important information from the public regarding government decisions related to environmental protection. Texas Citizen Action identified this decision on its list of the state's "Terrible Ten," which it stated were cases that "stripped consumers of important protections." Owen's Ethically Questionable Actions On The Texas Supreme Court. Owen is part of a court notorious for accepting campaign contributions from parties appearing before it-including Enron and Halliburton-with its justices refusing to recuse themselves from those cases. Justice Owen has engaged in this practice, rendering decisions favorable to contributors. In 1994, Judicial Candidate Owen and Justices Hecht and Raul Gonzalez endorsed a pro-business PAC financed by many of the parties that argued before her in court. In addition, when the Travis County Attorney investigated the practice by Texas Supreme Court justices of allowing their law clerks to accept pre-employment bonuses from law firms with cases before them, Owen continued to condone such awards and dismissed the investigation as a "political issue that is being dressed up as a good-government issue."12 In addition, Owen voted in an egregious case to dismiss charges of malpractice against an attorney who, without informing his client, had rejected an offer on her behalf for full immunity, an offer that was later accepted by another of the same attorney's clients.13 The attorney at issue, who was a vocal supporter of Owen's nomination, is a partner at Hughes & Luce, a firm that donated generously to Owen's campaigns.14 Other. Priscilla Owen is a member of both the Austin and Houston chapters of the Federalist Society. Her nomination was rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 5, 2002, but President Bush announced her renomination, along with that of Charles Pickering and the nominees left pending at the end of the 107th Congress, on January 8, 2003. |
Someone is mad that he lost the election
[sip]
sipape
| quote: |
| Originally posted by johnny<3trance Someone is mad that he lost the election [sip] sipape |
The way it works in a democracy is the party in power does anything and everything it wants and anyone who disagrees is just bitter or too extreme...err wouldn't that be more like totalitarianism? It's absolutely wrong to point out hypocritical agendas with facts. Thanks for your deep, meaningful insight and smokeape impression.
thats how you did it back in the clinton days 
[sip]
sipape
Really? I don't recall just telling people they were bitter in political debates if they actually tried presenting some sort of arguement based on facts. Also, I disagreed with quite a few Clinton administration policies myself. Care to actually debate the issue?
meh ...no
[sip]
sipape
ive already beaten you even thought in your little puny brain you might think I havent..
Wow, you're quite the expert on political issues. Maybe they'll teach you how to formulate an argument in college. You'll notice that Capitalizt will come back, provide a point of disagreement and actually discuss it, hence the forum name "Political Discussion/Debate."
EDIT: Hmm, by the way, we missed you Electronicmaji Remember when you used to post like this?
| quote: |
| it was sarcastic i think you need to take a chill pill kids are not people man i wish they would have aborted you [smoke] |
ok I stand corrected on the senate thing...It looks like a few of the pubbies tried to filibuster someone but didn't have anywhere near enough votes to do it. Still those 14 'nay' votes don't look like a united front to me. This was not a serious act of resistance...more like a small act of protest among conservatives, with the other 33-34 Republicans voting for cloture.
And the article on judge Owen is obviously slanted to the left. I don't see a source, but it looks like it was pulled straight from a lefty activist site like moveon.org where moderates are considered "conservative", and conservatives are considered extremists.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Capitalizt No judge in the history of the United States has been filibustered. The dems have set a very bad precedent. |
| quote: |
| Filibuster Precedent? Democrats Point to '68 and Fortas But GOP Senators Cite Differences in Current Effort to Bar Votes on Judges By Charles Babington Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, March 18, 2005; Page A03 The Senate was launched on a full-blown filibuster, with one South Carolina senator consuming time by reading "long passages of James F. Byrnes's memoirs in a thick Southern accent," according to a newspaper account. That four-day talkathon in September 1968 has largely been forgotten. But some Senate Democrats want to bring it back to mind to counter a key Republican attack against their stalling tactics that have blocked confirmation votes for several of President Bush's most conservative judicial nominees. The GOP claim, asserted in speeches, articles and interviews, is that filibusters against judicial nominees are unprecedented. Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) told his panel this month that the judicial battles have escalated, "with the filibuster being employed for the first time in the history of the Republic." Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said in a Senate speech last week, "The crisis created by the unprecedented use of filibusters to defeat judicial nominations must be solved." Such claims, however, are at odds with the record of the successful 1968 GOP-led filibuster against President Lyndon B. Johnson's nomination of Abe Fortas to be chief justice of the United States. "Fortas Debate Opens with a Filibuster," a Page One Washington Post story declared on Sept. 26, 1968. It said, "A full-dress Republican-led filibuster broke out in the Senate yesterday against a motion to call up the nomination of Justice Abe Fortas for Chief Justice." A New York Times story that day said Fortas's opponents "began a historic filibuster today." As the debate dragged on for four days, news accounts consistently described it as a full-blown filibuster intended to prevent Fortas's confirmation from reaching the floor, where a simple-majority vote would have decided the question. The required number of votes to halt a filibuster then was 67; filibusters can be halted now by 60 of the Senate's 100 members. The Senate had confirmed Fortas in 1965 as a Supreme Court associate justice. But Johnson's effort to elevate him to chief justice three years later, when Earl Warren announced his plans to vacate the post, ran into stiff opposition from a core of GOP senators and several conservative southern Democrats. Some current Republican leaders -- citing comments by then-Sen. Robert P. Griffin (R-Mich.), who led the Fortas opposition -- say the 1968 debate was not a true filibuster. But there is little in the record to support that assertion. The Washington Post reported on Oct. 2, 1968: "In a precedent-shattering rebuff to the Administration, the Senate yesterday refused to cut off the filibuster against consideration of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice." The Congressional Quarterly Almanac reported in 1968: "The effort to block the confirmation by means of a filibuster was without precedent in the history of the Senate." The Senate Web site's account of the episode is headlined "Filibuster Derails Supreme Court Appointment." Current GOP leaders sometimes amend their comments, saying the Fortas battle is not a precedent for today's filibusters because Fortas faced so much opposition that his confirmation would have failed on a simple yes-no vote. Democrats acknowledge that the nominees they are blocking -- on grounds they are too conservative -- would be confirmed by a simple-majority vote in the Senate, where Republicans hold 55 seats. "Never before has a minority blocked a judicial nominee that has majority support for an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor," Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said in a widely reported December speech. But such assertions are unproven at best, and certainly subject to challenge based on the record. It is impossible to gauge the exact support for Fortas because 12 senators were absent for the "cloture" or "closure" vote, which failed to halt the filibuster. The 45 to 43 vote in favor of ending debate fell far short of the needed two-thirds majority. Some Fortas backers, including Johnson, said the vote suggested that a slim majority favored him. The disappointed president "feels there is a majority in the Senate in favor of the nomination," his spokesman said shortly after the defeat. Anecdotal evidence suggests, but does not prove, that a majority of senators may have backed Fortas or been undecided when the debate began. An Associated Press head count found that 35 of the 100 senators "are now committed against voting for closure," the New York Times reported. That suggested that as many as 65 senators conceivably were open to voting on the nomination. Then-Sen. Howard H. Baker Jr. (R-Tenn.), a Fortas opponent, also hinted that his side felt it lacked a majority. Defending the newly launched filibuster, Baker said: "On any issue the majority at any given moment is not always right." Frist sometimes speaks of the current judicial impasse in terms that take the Fortas case's complexities into account. "Never before in the history of the Senate has a nominee with clear majority support been denied an up or down vote on the Senate floor because of a filibuster," Frist said Tuesday. Such language puts him on more solid historical footing. The New York Times wrote of the 45 to 43 cloture roll call: "Because of the unusual crosscurrents underlying today's vote, it was difficult to determine whether the pro-Fortas supporters would have been able to muster the same majority in a direct confirmation vote." The strongest evidence that anti-Fortas senators were not confident of commanding a majority is the fact that they fought so tenaciously to keep the confirmation from reaching a vote, says Norman J. Ornstein, a congressional scholar who has written extensively on the Fortas matter. Ornstein, of the American Enterprise Institute, said: "This was a filibuster. It was intended to keep the nomination from moving forward for the remainder of that term." Frist and others who now threaten to ban filibusters of judicial nominees, Ornstein said, "are trying to provoke a change that isn't defensible through history." Research editor Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report. |
To be fair, the article refers to a supreme court nominee. Bush has appointed dozens of district and appeals court nominees, which are far less prominent positions. These seats have been vacant for many months now...longer than ever before, due to the filibusters.
Perhaps I'm a bit confused on the philosophical standpoint of the difference between blocking judges from both sides.
Capitalizt, you've conceded that it's happened in the past as well as Republicans taking part in it. You say:
| quote: |
| ok I stand corrected on the senate thing...It looks like a few of the pubbies tried to filibuster someone but didn't have anywhere near enough votes to do it. Still those 14 'nay' votes don't look like a united front to me. This was not a serious act of resistance...more like a small act of protest among conservatives, with the other 33-34 Republicans voting for cloture. |
| quote: |
| The left is filibustering judicial nominees on the Senate floor. This NEVER happened under Clinton, or ever before in U.S. history. All of Clinton's nominees at least got the courtesy of a vote. They weren't confirmed because the GOP swept 200+ seats in 1994 and had the votes to win...but the republicans never prevented an up or down vote as the dems are doing now. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Capitalizt ok I stand corrected on the senate thing...It looks like a few of the pubbies tried to filibuster someone but didn't have anywhere near enough votes to do it. Still those 14 'nay' votes don't look like a united front to me. This was not a serious act of resistance...more like a small act of protest among conservatives, with the other 33-34 Republicans voting for cloture. And the article on judge Owen is obviously slanted to the left. I don't see a source, but it looks like it was pulled straight from a lefty activist site like moveon.org where moderates are considered "conservative", and conservatives are considered extremists. |
Ed Kilgore's one of my favorite bloggers, and his post pertaining to this issue is pretty relevant to our thread. He refers to the WaPost article found here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2005Mar15.html
Here's his response, emphasis mine throughout:
| quote: |
| Nuclear Deterrence Harry Reid and Senate Democrats have thrown down the gauntlet, in no uncertain terms. If GOPers follow through with their threat to pursue the so-called "nuclear option" (a procedural maneuver that would outlaw filibusters on judicial nominations and allow them to slide through on a simple majority vote), Senate Dems will stop cooperating with all the legislative lubricants (many of which require unanimous consent) that keep the chamber operating. According to (subscription-only) Roll Call today, every Senate Democrat is on board with this strategy, and while Republicans claim to have 50 solid votes for upholding the rule change that's at the heart of "going nuclear," their ranks are shaky, beginning with Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. There are several smart things about the way Reid has approached this fight. First, he's made it clear that Democratic resistance will not extend to issues like support for U.S. troops, urgent national security matters, or the basic functioning of the federal government. This will avoid some of the parallels the media, in its two-sides-to-every-argument approach to partisan issues, would otherwise draw to Newt Gingrich's defiant and hugely unsuccessful government shutdown of 1995. Second, Reid is treating the "nuclear option" not as a procedural matter, or even as a defiance of Senate traditions, but as part of a broader pattern of abuse of power by the Republicans who control Washington. As such, he is linking Democratic opposition to this tactic to a broader message of reform, which is exactly what Democrats ought to be doing every day of the year. If nothing else, it will help remind the roughly one-third of the population that doesn't know who runs Congress that Republicans can no longer pose as the anti-Washington party, because they are in charge of the whole federal government. And third, in terms of the underlying dispute over the judiciary, Reid is linking Democratic resistance to a long bipartisan tradition of opposition to one-party and executive-branch control of the federal bench. I hope Democrats take every opportunity to remind people that these are lifetime appointments we are talking about, which could have a profound impact on the laws of this country for decades. Now, Democrats obviously have a Big Bertha in reserve: the GOP's real goal, which is to pave the way for Supreme Court appointments designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, the long-delayed payoff to the cultural conservative foot-soldiers of the Republican base. As a self-proclaimed (if moderate) pro-lifer, Reid may well have special credibility in opposing an indirect assault on the right to choose, by GOPers who know they would lose any straight fight on abortion. Add it all up, and you've got a formula for raising the stakes on this obscure-sounding conflict, and that's what Democrats need in order to win. Some real drama is required to overcome the media perception that this is just cloakroom maneuvering by the partisan pols in Washington, over a snoozer of an issue. Maybe the Democratic battle-plan will act as a deterrent to the deployment of the nuclear option. Some GOPers, after all, want to use the so-called Judicial Obstruction issue as a conservative fundraising and crowd-pleasing device going into the 2006 elections. And even more of them won't be happy with the consequences of provoking a partial shutdown of the Senate, interfering with all sorts of opportunities for pork-barrelling, constituency-tending, and beast-starving (not to mention those handy little bills naming some home-state highway interchange after a big contributor or local potentate). But deterrent or not, this is a fight well worth having, and a fight that can only be won if Democrats are serious and systematic about waging it with a large reform message. -- Posted at 5:36 PM http://www.newdonkey.com/2005/03/nu...deterrence.html |
This thread saddens me.
I miss Herve
Well, I hope we can get a new Justice in the Supreme Court with some common f*cking sense. I was pretty pissed at them outlawing the death penalty for 16-17 year olds recently. Law stood for over 200 years and they went to dicking with it. Need to get one on board to block gay marriage bullshit as well...
[[[smoke]]]
Well I'm surprised no one has mentioned all the hoopla on these filibuster cases lately, since it seems to be all the talk on the MSM lately. I won't rehash too much of it, since I'll assume most of you here have been at least a little bit aware of things going on.
But I will mention that Sen. Reid, the Dem. Minority leader of the Senate tried to throw Frist and Rove a bone with a bit of a compromise on the issue:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=703619
only to have Frist and Rove flatly shoot it right down:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...ht&sid=84439559
Which isn't too surprising given that Frist lined up with the fundie fucks over this issue, and would have much to answer for if he did, in fact, compromise with Reid. Considering that Frist is going for the '08 elections, and considering that he knows he must cater to the fundies for a substantial chunk of the vote, this is not surprising to say the least.
To Reid's credit, he has decided to push his own agenda that actually meets the needs of the American people for a change, should Frist and Co. decide to break the filibuster rule. I really do like Reid's strategy here, but quite frankly I think he should be pushing these goals regardless of the outcome:
via DailyKos:
| quote: |
| As a matter of comity, the Minority in the Senate traditionally defers to the Majority in the setting of the agenda. If Bill Frist pulls the nuclear trigger, Democrats will show deference no longer. Invoking a little-known Senate procedure called Rule XIV, last week Democrats put nine bills on the Senate calendar that seek to help America fulfill its promise. If Republican's break the rules Democrats will use the rule to bring to the Senate floor an agenda that meets the needs of average Americans, such as lowering gas prices, reducing the cost of health care and helping veterans. "Across the country, people are worried about things that matter to their families - the health of their loved ones, their child's performance in schools, and those sky high gas prices," said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. "But what is the number one priority for Senate Republicans? Doing away with the last check on one-party rule in Washington to allow President Bush, Senator Frist and Tom Delay to stack the courts with radical judges. If Republicans proceed to pull the trigger on the nuclear option, Democrats will respond by employing existing Senate rules to push forward our agenda for America." Democrats have introduced bills that address America's real challenges. (Details attached) 1. Women's Health Care (S. 844). "The Prevention First Act of 2005" will reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions by increasing funding for family planning and ending health insurance discrimination against women. 2. Veterans' Benefits (S. 845). "The Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2005" will assist disabled veterans who, under current law, must choose to either receive their retirement pay or disability compensation. 3. Fiscal Responsibility (S. 851). Democrats will move to restore fiscal discipline to government spending and extend the pay-as-you-go requirement. 4. Relief at the Pump (S. 847). Democrats plan to halt the diversion of oil from the markets to the strategic petroleum reserve. By releasing oil from the reserve through a swap program, the plan will bring down prices at the pump. 5. Education (S. 848). Democrats have a bill that will: strengthen head start and child care programs, improve elementary and secondary education, provide a roadmap for first generation and low-income college students, provide college tuition relief for students and their families, address the need for math, science and special education teachers, and make college affordable for all students. 6. Jobs (S. 846). Democrats will work in support of legislation that guarantees overtime pay for workers and sets a fair minimum wage. 7. Energy Markets (S. 870). Democrats work to prevent Enron-style market manipulation of electricity. 8. Corporate Taxation (S. 872). Democrats make sure companies pay their fair share of taxes to the U.S. government instead of keeping profits overseas. 9. Standing with our troops (S. 11). Democrats believe that putting America's security first means standing up for our troops and their families "Abusing power is not what the American people sent us to Washington to do. We need to address real priorities instead -- fight for relief at the gas pump, stronger schools and lower health care costs for America's families," said Senator Reid. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/4/25/134319/005 |
| quote: |
| Would you support or oppose changing Senate rules to make it easier for the Republicans to confirm Bush�s judicial nominees? Support � 26% Oppose � 66% Do you think the Senate Democrats are right or wrong to block these nominations? Right � 48% Wrong � 36% http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...poll_042505.pdf |
| quote: |
| Private Republican polling shows scant support for a plan to stop minority Democrats from blocking judicial nominees, officials said Thursday... ...These officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said a recent survey taken for Senate Republicans showed 37 percent support for the GOP plan to deny Democrats the ability to filibuster judicial nominees, while 51 percent oppose. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=692780 |
a bumpety bump for Krysta
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.