TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The filibuster issue

The filibuster issue

After a quick browse about I noticed that there wasn't a thread about the ending of democratic filibusters in the senate. Please feel free to both flame me and direct me to the thread about this if there is such an animal. But now it's time for my rant.

Isn't ending the filibuster of the minority party taking the democracy out of our supposed democracy? Why can't anyone out there accept this for what it is: Republicans saying "Shut the fuck up, we're doing what we're doing and screw all those whom disagree." "Stopping the democratic filibuster" is far too tactful to put it, call it the Republicans "stfu n00b" policy. And this is highly dangerous.

To me, this administration has been, by far, the most detrimental to American ideals than any other one in my lifetime. This stoppage of the filibuster is very, verrrrry dangerous to American ideals.


Thoughts?

Just incase anyone else hasn't got a clue...!!



So how does giving a 24 hour speech stop bills anyway?

It's much better to be able to debate something at length if it's going to harm societal interests rather than have them discuss it for 45 minutes and then have the Republicans pass it anyways.

People should be allowed to at least hear the other argument. If you don't, then you just become a blind myrmidon to the majority party's stance.

Re: The filibuster issue

quote:

Originally posted by Krysta_101 "stfu n00b" policy

i heard george will use that very term just this morning

quote:

To me, this administration has been, by far, the most detrimental to American ideals than any other one in my lifetime. This stoppage of the filibuster is very, verrrrry dangerous to American ideals. Thoughts?

it depends which ideals you're referring to. a large chunk of jeffersonian ideals have been getting their asses kicked during the past 5 years while adams and hamilton ain't doin' too shabby.

the [domestic] ideals of FDR and LBJ have also been battered and bloodied but the lion's share of the beating occured under Reagan, which I believe you were alive for, and not bush the younger.

beyond the body politic of course, lie other sets of popularly accepted american ideals and archetypes, namely those of the 'gambler' and the 'rugged individual', which have found a comfortable home with the current administration.

there are no absolute american ideals.

quote:

Originally posted by Krysta_101 It's much better to be able to debate something at length if it's going to harm societal interests rather than have them discuss it for 45 minutes and then have the Republicans pass it anyways. People should be allowed to at least hear the other argument. If you don't, then you just become a blind myrmidon to the majority party's stance.

Well it is honestly more than just an attempt to extend debate on the issues in the way that it's being used now and in many famous historical instances, but I think it is actually one of the most important items to preserve democracy by preventing sudden, radical change (though sometimes it has prevented needed change (e.g. when used against civil rights)). The fact that 60 votes are needed for cloture greatly reduces the possibility that a narrow majority can monopolize power and must at least receive some consent from moderates of the other party. When the framers created the Constitution and modeled the system of checks & balances based on the ideas of Montesquieu, it was not imagined that a dominant 2-party system would emerge. With one party controlling the legislative and executive branches, along with a slight majority of the judicial branch, the checks and balances designed to preserve democracy are greatly weakened.

It would be one thing if the Democrats filibustered 100% of Bush's nominees, but what's now less than 10 of 215, who have been nominated a 2nd time is simply an attempt to prevent the most extreme nominees from going through. Additionally the senate has many other tools that have been used, by both parties to prevent the majority from getting a simple vote. If the current Republicans think everyone really should get an up-or-down vote (funny how everyone on T.V., radio & in print uses those exact words to advocate it, eh?) they might want to explain why so many times throughout history their own party has prevented votes through policies like blue-slipping & holding up nominees in committee, including more than 60 Clinton nominees.

quote:

To me, this administration has been, by far, the most detrimental to American ideals than any other one in my lifetime. This stoppage of the filibuster is very, verrrrry dangerous to American ideals.

I have to agree. I even miss his dad at this point!!!

Re: The filibuster issue

quote:

Originally posted by Krysta_101 To me, this administration has been, by far, the most detrimental to American ideals than any other one in my lifetime. This stoppage of the filibuster is very, verrrrry dangerous to American ideals. Thoughts?

...and not just American politics either.
Our own Canadian parliment is having this very issue with the opposition pressing (and rightly so) for an immediate vote of confidence of the ruling party (the Liberals).
In a nutshell the Liberals got caught with their hands in the cookie jar with lots of (metaphorical) pictures and (realistic) damning court testamony.
A LOT of taxpayer money was pocketed and doled out for favours.

The filibuster has always been a ham-handed solution to one of the inherent flaws of a representative republic. But cutting off one's hands is no solution to clumsiness!

Source?

quote:

Originally posted by Krysta_101 It's much better to be able to debate something at length if it's going to harm societal interests rather than have them discuss it for 45 minutes and then have the Republicans pass it anyways. People should be allowed to at least hear the other argument. If you don't, then you just become a blind myrmidon to the majority party's stance.

This filibuster isn't really about debating the issue any longer.. it is being used as a procedural tool to keep these extreme judges from being approved, since it is the only method available to the Democrats to have any sort of real role in the approval of judges.

It is not uncommon for "debate" during a filibuster to consist of a Senator reading long passages from completely unrelated literature, just to waste time. For example, back when the Republicans were filibustering Abe Fortas' nomination to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, South Carolina Senator Ernest Hollings read long excerpts from James F. Byrnes's memoirs.

Oooh, ooooh, another girl in the PDD Forum!

OMGH2U!

What's your fav. producer? You like PVD? OMGIDIE everytime I hear him!

Tiesto is God, huh? Yeah?

Don't you just h8 candy ravers? OMG me too!

































Uhh, sorry. Anyways, good to see someone new keeping up on this here. Actually I did post on this here:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=264960

And a bit earlier back here:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=251872

In short, the Republicans are going to have to break the Senate rules in order to get what they want, as outlined here:

quote:

To get there, Republicans will have to evade a requirement that they have a two-thirds vote -- 67 of 100 senators -- to change the chamber's rules. Republicans will argue that they are attempting to set a precedent, not change the Senate rules, to disallow the use of filibusters as a delaying tactic on judicial nominations. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5051701425.html

They'll also be going against the nonpartisan analysis of Senate rules by the Congressional Research Service:

quote:

A report last month by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service asserted that "the point of a 'nuclear' or 'constitutional' option is to achieve changes in Senate procedure by using means that lie outside the Senate's normal rules of procedure." http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/whatscrs.html

As well as ignore the Senate parliamentarian:

quote:

Reid told reporters last month that the parliamentarian, Alan S. Frumin, had told him that he opposed the Republicans' plan and that "if they do this, they will have to overrule him." Frumin, who was appointed by Republican leaders in 2001, has not been granting interviews. But a senior Republican Senate aide confirmed that Frist does not plan to consult Frumin at the time the nuclear option is deployed. "He has nothing to do with this," the aide said. "He's a staffer, and we don't have to ask his opinion."

But as it's been made pretty clear, they don't really give a shit.

218 confirmations out of 228 just isn't enough for absolute power by the GOP. They want it all.

Now here's an interesting tidbit on where this all started - from a guy named Miranda who hacked into Democrat computers. He's actually quite a bit behind this whole debacle:

quote:

With the Estrada debate underway, Republicans threatened lawsuits and political retribution. But it was not until Stevens raised the "Hulk" option that serious talk of a historic rewrite of Senate precedents ensued. It gained momentum after Republicans found misplaced computer memos by Democratic staff members talking of even more possible filibusters -- suggesting that the Democrats had a secret plan for blocking several more candidates. Within weeks of the "Hulk" meeting, former Republican leader Trent Lott (Miss.) coined the term "nuclear option" to describe a rule change that would ban judicial filibusters and allow up-or-down votes on the president's nominees. The notion once had seemed unimaginable, but Lott and other conservatives now favored it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5051802144.html

Misplaced my fucking ass! In case you're wondering who Manny Miranda is, and how these memos became "misplaced":

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...5¬Found=true

Hey, strange that - Manny being on Frist's staff, and now Frist leading the charge to destroy the voice of the minority party in the Senate! Wierd, huh?


Now there is an argument out there on the GOP talking points that the minority party should not have this power to block nominees, and that an up or down vote should be given. They further opine that the Republicans, while in the minority, did not block an up or down vote whatsoever.

Fucking bullshit:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/20/45532/7160

Revisionist history much there Republicans?

What's more, not many out there are aware of the old Blue-Slip clause in Judicial nominees. Funny how those rules changed once a Republican came into power:

quote:

Originally, after Republicans gained control of the Senate in the 1994 elections and Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch assumed control of the Judiciary Committee, the rule regarding judicial nominees was this: If a single senator from a nominee's home state objected to (or "blue-slipped") a nomination, it was dead. This rule made it easy for Republicans to obstruct Clinton's nominees. But in 2001, when a Republican became president, Hatch suddenly reversed course and decided that it should take objections from both home-state senators to block a nominee. That made it harder for Democrats to obstruct George W. Bush's nominees. In early 2003 Hatch went even further: Senatorial objections were merely advisory, he said. Even if both senators objected to a nomination, it could still go to the floor for a vote. Finally, a few weeks later, yet another barrier was torn down: Hatch did away with "Rule IV," which states that at least one member of the minority has to agree in order to end discussion about a nomination and move it out of committee. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2005Jan30.html

And finally, let's not forget Frist's failed attempt at a filibuster himself back in 2000:

quote:

But the majority leader protests too much. Not only have filibusters been attempted against judicial nominees in the past, but Frist himself has even voted for one. In 2000, after Senate conservatives had held up Bill Clinton's nomination of Richard Paez to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit for four years, Frist joined in an unsuccessful attempt to filibuster Paez -- a judge who was favored by a clear majority of the Senate and who won confirmation after the filibuster was broken by a vote of 59 to 39. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2005Jan30.html

In short, it's nothing shy of fucking pathetic what the historically-challenged Republicans are trying to pull off right now. But since they have the majority in both the Executive and Legislative branches, they pretty much feel their "mandate" powers are just.

As Wolverine alluded to earlier, much more is on the line here. In essence, the GOP is about to turn the Senate into the House, where the minority party has little to no say in pretty much anything at all. And the voice of the remaining 49% of the voters out there mean absolutely jack shit to them.

And did I mention that one of the judges, Owen, was called a "judicial activist" by one of her own Texas Supreme Court collegues, none other than Attorney General Gonzalez? Yeah, the same type of judicial activist label that Republicans threw around during their lovely Terry Schiavo rants. Cute, isn't it? She is by all accounts, extremist and corrupt as fuck. It might actually be worth watching a debate on her in the full Senate, just to see her record spilled out to the public. Of course that won't change the "yes-men" GOP votes any, but I think more exposure to the extremists that control the current GOP can only help the Dems. in the long run.....

quote:

Senators Avert Showdown Over Filibusters By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent 14 minutes ago In a dramatic reach across party lines, Senate centrists sealed a compromise Monday night that cleared the way for confirmation of many of President Bush's stalled judicial nominees, left others in limbo and preserved venerable filibuster rules. "We have reached an agreement to try to avert a crisis in the United States Senate and pull the institution back from a precipice," said Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., adding the deal was based on "trust, respect and mutual desire to .... protect the rights of the minority. "We have lifted ourselves above politics," agreed Sen. Robert C. Byrd (news, bio, voting record), D-W. Va., "And we have signed this document....in the interest of freedom of speech, freedom of debate and freedom to dissent in the United States Senate. Under the terms, Democrats agreed to allow final confirmation votes for Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor, appeals court nominees they have long blocked. There is "no commitment to vote for or against" the filibuster against two other conservatives named to the appeals court, Henry Saad and William Myers. The agreement said future judicial nominees should "only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances," with each senator � presumably the Democrats � holding the discretion to decide when those conditions had been met. Officials said the pact was intended to cover the Supreme Court as well as other levels of the judicary. "In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement," Republicans joined Democrats in pledging to oppose any attempt to make changes in the application of filibuster rules � a commitment that Sen. Mike DeWine (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio, said at the news conference was conditional on Democrats upholding their end of the deal. While the agreement was signed by only 14 senators, they held the balance of power in a sharply divided Senate � able to thwart continued Democratic filibusters, on the one hand, and block GOP attempts to alter filibuster practices on the other. Republicans, moving quickly, said they would seek to confirm Owen as early as Tuesday, with other cleared nominees to follow quickly. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050524...ilibuster_fight

quote:

Originally posted by Zharen Source?

stop your cloning!

Hey Krysta, did Opus mention the tired Democratic talking point of the Gonzalez/Owens "actvist judge" accusation? yeah he did

it's a lie. don't fall for it.
...and if he propagates that as truth then you must question his real motives behind the rest of the fear and smear campaign that he and the rest of his ilk propagate here and throughout main stream media. i know i do. god bless.

Re: Re: The filibuster issue

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r ...and not just American politics either. Our own Canadian parliment is having this very issue with the opposition pressing (and rightly so) for an immediate vote of confidence of the ruling party (the Liberals). In a nutshell the Liberals got caught with their hands in the cookie jar with lots of (metaphorical) pictures and (realistic) damning court testamony. A LOT of taxpayer money was pocketed and doled out for favours.

It's even worse in Canada...

At least in the U.S., the Senate reviews judicial (and other) appointees...

In Canada, the PM ALONE appoints judges.. not just Supreme Court justices, but also lower level provincial judges! There's absolutely no review of the appointees by Parliament, or even an independant board. It's a dictatorship.

To make things worse, the Lieberals have appointed dangerous, radical judges... such as Rosalie Abella.


AND even worse, they've been appointing party hacks!! This could turn out to be a major scandal.

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=259972

http://andrewcoyne.com/2005/04/judgescam.php

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo Hey Krysta, did Opus mention the tired Democratic talking point of the Gonzalez/Owens "actvist judge" accusation? yeah he did it's a lie. don't fall for it. ...and if he propagates that as truth then you must question his real motives behind the rest of the fear and smear campaign that he and the rest of his ilk propagate here and throughout main stream media. i know i do. god bless.

Well why don't you elaborate on aforementioned falsity so we can all become learned on said "lie"es? This is Gonzalez's complete statement, please point out the misrepresentation:

quote:

The dissenting opinions suggest that the exceptions to the general rule of notification should be very rare and require a high standard of proof. I respectfully submit that these are policy decisions for the Legislature. And I find nothing in this statute to directly show that the Legislature intended such a narrow construction. As the Court demonstrates, the Legislature certainly could have written section 33.033(i) to make it harder to bypass a parent's right to be involved in decisions affecting their daughters. See ___ S.W.3d at ___. But it did not. Likewise, parts of the statute's legislative history directly contradict the suggestion that the Legislature intended bypasses to be very rare. See id. at ___ (detailing legislative history). Thus, to construe the Parental Notification Act so narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or to create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the statute, would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism. As a judge, I hold the rights of parents to protect and guide the education, safety, health, and development of their children as one of the most important rights in our society. But I cannot rewrite the statute to make parental rights absolute, or virtually absolute, particularly when, as here, the Legislature has elected not to do so. The Court said in Doe 1(I) that a minor must make at least three showings before she may exercise the bypass rights the Legislature gave "mature and sufficiently well informed" minors under section 33.003(i). In re Doe 1(I), ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. 2000). These showings are to ensure that the minor can demonstrate the level of maturity and knowledge the Legislature seems to have intended when it passed a statute that primarily protects parental rights, but also confers judicial bypass rights to certain minors. Based on the evidence of Doe's maturity and knowledge, I conclude the limitations upon parental rights in section 33.003(i) apply here. Therefore, I am compelled to grant Doe's application. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2.../sc/000224c.htm

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo Hey Krysta, did Opus mention the tired Democratic talking point of the Gonzalez/Owens "actvist judge" accusation? yeah he did it's a lie. don't fall for it. ...and if he propagates that as truth then you must question his real motives behind the rest of the fear and smear campaign that he and the rest of his ilk propagate here and throughout main stream media. i know i do. god bless.

I gotta admit - in my old age I tend to be a bit slower on catching folks here being a bit facetious at times. For now I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and consider your remark a bit of sarcasm about me lying.

But I gotta ask - "fear and smear campaign"? What am I running for office or something here? Please tell me you're just being goofy or something. Please?




Edit: BTW, shouldn't you be on your military tour by now? If not, when are you leaving?

Oh yeah, I wrote a diary over at Daily Kos on this so-called compromise here, in case you want to read my opinion on the matter:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/24/0541/15763

In a nutshell, I think the Dems. got the raw end of the deal, despite what the Republican pundits were crying about. Whether this agreement was reached because Reid didn't have enough votes or whether it was reached because Reid felt like he has enough votes to turn 1 or more of the 3 nominees down in the full Senate - honestly I don't know but I guess we'll wait and see. I'm more inclined to think that in the end he didn't have enough votes to keep the filibuster, which really sucks that he didn't go through with this regardless.

And I gotta agree with Tony Snow whom I often listen to in the mornings (the sheer anger wakes me up out better than coffee) - this isn't over by a long shot. This is just the beginning. The real showdown is coming for the Supreme Court nominee(s). Worth keeping an eye on for the future.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo Hey Krysta, did Opus mention the tired Democratic talking point of the Gonzalez/Owens "actvist judge" accusation? yeah he did it's a lie. don't fall for it. ...and if he propagates that as truth then you must question his real motives behind the rest of the fear and smear campaign that he and the rest of his ilk propagate here and throughout main stream media. i know i do. god bless.

Oh, please! Since when are you non-partisan? Especially considering what you just said is a REPUBLICAN TALKING POINT!

Note that the article claims that Gonzalez was really referring to another judge on the court, but if you look at the statement word for word, as Occrider posted, and consider Owens wrote the dissenting opinion herself outlining the items criticized for not being included in the law, how is Opus wrong and furthermore how would that not be considered activism if she was adding to what the law actually said?

The usual "you're just jealous because you lost the election" response will hardly discount the facts.

And this should be the nail in the coffin:

From Owen's dissenting opinion (linked in the previous post):

quote:

IV The Court says that "judges' personal views may inspire inflammatory and irresponsible rhetoric" and that the "highly-charged nature [of abortion issues] does not excuse judges who impose their own personal convictions into what must be a strictly legal inquiry." __ S.W.3d at __. To which judge or judges does the Court refer? To the judge of the trial court, who saw and heard Doe testify in person during the course of two hearings and made findings that are supported by the record? To the three justices on the court of appeals who reviewed the record and wrote a thoughtful opinion that cannot be characterized as inflammatory or as containing irresponsible rhetoric? To one or more of the justices on this Court?

Welp, the best judge corporate money can buy, the most ardent anti-choice, and a very judicial activist judge got in, as to be expected really (56-43):

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05...nees/index.html

What a dumb bitch. But what really surprises me was Byrd voting in favor of her nomination? That had to be an under-the-table deal with the filibuster compromise. Oh well. Frist is now calling for cloture on the Bolton nomination. I'm guessing this piece of shit will likely squeak by with the help of a "moderate" Dem. or two (I'll bet the house that Lieberman is one of them).

Business as usual for the Dems. - no unity, no backbone.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.