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?

___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here

Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA

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]

What's with the imitation smokeape signature anyway? That and the Bill O'Reilly book suggestion gave it away, but feel free to go back and edit those so that you can claim they never happened.

___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here

Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA

Last edited by wolverine16 on Mar-18-2005 at 08:43

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.

Last edited by Capitalizt on Mar-18-2005 at 12:40

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.

oh really? the repubs used this same tactic. please read on . . .

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.

Washington Post Link

___________________
UnauthorizedTranceAddict Youtube Channel where I post older mixes from the TA DJ Promotion Forum

My mixes:

Still up:1:2

Down:3:4:5

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.

What is the difference between the ACT of attempting to filibuster a nominee between the Republicans doing this in the past and the Dems. doing it now? The end result is irrelevant - the simple ACT of standing up and attempting to block a nominee via filibuster is identical.

So why attempt to create a discrepency?

Furthermore you said:

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.

First you state that Clinton's nominees got the courtesy of a vote - I'll assume you mean a full Senate vote rather than the Judiciary Committee vote. I must assume this because the following sentence you state that some Clinton nominees weren't, in fact, confirmed as a result of the GOP sweeping many seats. Otherwise you would be in a bit of a contradiction. The two questions that must be asked are this:

1. What is the philosophical difference in the act of blocking nominees between the full Senate vote like the Dems. are doing now and blocking nominees in the Judiciary Committee, which the Republicans did 60 times during Clinton years? Blocking a vote is blocking a vote. Claiming the higher ground for the Republicans just because they merely blocked the nominees in Committee vs. a full Senate vote is pretty disingenuous at best. They knew those judges would likely pass on the full Senate floor, therefore I cannot see how you can make a very strong case as to their actions being any different than the Dems. doing a filibuster.

2. You state that the nominees weren't confirmed because the GOP swept the House. That directly implies politics were involved in their decisions. How is this act of Republicans playing politics any different than Democrats supposedly playing politics with filibustering now?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

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.

That's the current leader in the Senate voting for against cloture, who is now leading the attack and stating that the move is unconstituional. There's also that blue slip issue raised earlier, which was another tactic used by the GOP which they now say shouldn't be used. Again, if the tables were turned, I'm sure you'd want the move used. I'll dig up some other examples later involving other judicial nominees.

There is a source listed on the Owen article underneath and yes it's a group on the left, but it presents a number of concerns that are quite valid regarding her nomination. Those Enron items, for example, are quite factual and actually deal with some issues that were involved in the company's downfall and illegal activities. If you want to argue that the Democrats are moving to the far left by wanting to use the filibuster technique, Owen would clearly be on the very far right. Congress should be more than just a rubber stamp for every nominee and this one should not be on the bench.

___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here

Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA

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

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

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

Umm, let's see what else? Oh, I really got sick of hearing this lovely Republican spin once again being successfully passed onto that darn liberal media about the Dems. being the culprits of calling this the “nuclear option”, when in fact it was the fucking REPUBLICANS who actually coined the phrase, dating back to Trent Lott:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200504260001

Another fine example of the fine-tuned Right Wing Noise Machine at work. You really have to admire this Machine, no matter who’s side you’re on.

But just like pretty much every other issue these past 4 months, the Republicans are once again on the wrong side of the fence with the public:

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

And within the GOP itself, the issue was not so hot either:

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

But don't let that stop the fundies who continue to run the show.

If any of this reminds anyone of the Schiavo case, you're not alone...

Lastly, we have a douchebag law professor from UCLA, Prof. Bainbridge, claim that the Democrats are discriminating against Christians by blocking these judges:

http://www.professorbainbridge.com/...ial_nomina.html

Well the wampum blog has a terrific smackdown of this professor's absolute bullshit argument:

http://wampum.wabanaki.net/archives/001931.html

Cathy Young over on the Boston Globe also chimes in:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...religious_wars/

So to recap,

-things are once again going shitty for the GOP
-they are once again way out of the mainstream on this issue
-it's not a popular idea even within their own party
-Frist continues to cater to the fundies for his '08 hopes
-When things go bad, enter Rovian new language to call the issue something else
-When things go bad, blame the Democrats on the language when in fact it was you who fucking named the damn thing
-Frist is looking more and more like a fucking tool
-When in doubt, yell "BIAS" or "DISCRIMATION", without any merit or support in hopes the MSM repeats it (and more often than not it does)

Enjoy your day.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...