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 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?
George Smiley
Just incase anyone else hasn't got a clue...!!
So how does giving a 24 hour speech stop bills anyway?
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.
Konijn
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.
wolverine16
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!!!
Fir3start3r
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.
:whip:
Arbiter
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!
Zharen
Source?
devonian rabbit
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.
MisterOpus1
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:
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.
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."
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 .
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.
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.
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.
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.
In short, it's nothing shy of ing 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 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 . 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.....
josh4
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.
