Filibustering let loose

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

Well, yeah, hence the comment I mean they're all opinion posts around here righ?

I dunno, a lot of posts come off as though they are trying to be facts.

No. I don't. But that's irrelevant.

I am saying that the filibuster is an important part of the political process because it ensures moderate judges that are acceptable to both sides of the American political divide.

This is true no matter who is in the Senate.

I do not recall Bob Dole filibustering any of Clinton's judicial nominations...

In addition to the approximately 60 judicial nominees that the Republican-led Senate blocked without resorting to a filibuster, several Republican senators, including current Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), unsuccessfully attempted to filibuster other Clinton judicial nominees. The Los Angeles Times reported on November 13, 2003: "As recently as March 2000, several Republicans voted to filibuster two Californians whom President Clinton had named to the 9th Circuit appellate court: Richard A. Paez and Marsha L. Berzon. ... Ultimately, the Republican stalling tactics failed, and both jurists now sit on the appellate court." The Washington Post documented a third attempted filibuster of a Clinton judicial nominee on October 5, 1994: The Senate "voted 85 to 12 to cut off a filibuster against confirmation of U.S. District Judge H. Lee Sarokin as a member of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But Republicans continued to talk into the evening against Sarokin, whom they condemned as a 'liberal' and 'judicial activist.' "

Because the democratic leadership has threatened to use filibustering in much the same way a two year old uses a tantrum when they do not get their way.

Statesmanship in the Democratic party has gone the way of the edsel I am afraid.

Because the democratic leadership has threatened to use filibustering in much the same way a two year old uses a tantrum when they do not get their way.

Statesmanship in the Democratic party has gone the way of the edsel I am afraid.

Because the democratic leadership has threatened to use filibustering in much the same way a two year old uses a tantrum when they do not get their way.

This question for Baldimo, Woiyo and McGentrix

Are you opposed to the filibuster on principle, or is this just partisan whining.

Would you all feel the same way if the tables were turned and there was an extreme (in your opinion) liberal president with a Democratically controlled Congress? Would you support a Democratic attempt to rewrite the rules mid-session to stop a filibuster?

There. I thought not.

A filibuster to stop a judical nominee is wrong regardless of who is in the majority.

ebrown_p wrote:

No. I don't. But that's irrelevant.

I am saying that the filibuster is an important part of the political process because it ensures moderate judges that are acceptable to both sides of the American political divide.

This is true no matter who is in the Senate.

So, if you don't believe them to be ultra-conservative, right winged, evangelical sycophants, what makes you believe they would vote for ultra-conservative, right winged, evangelical sycophant judges?