Reply
Mon 23 May, 2005 09:25 am
Was just reading that time is running out for negotiations and that the "Nuclear Option" may be called out tomorrow afternoon.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/22/AR2005052200485.html
So, what's so bad about a filibuster?
What? They won't be able to lower water safety standards? Lower minimum wage? Enact corporate sponsored tax breaks? Reduce medicaid payments even more? Do away with public housing and food stamps?
Seriously, what's so bad about a filibuster? We have to pay them whether they are doing "our work" or taking corporate sponsored trips around the world, so what's the difference? What's so pressing that it can't wait for a filibuster?
Course, there is the "Cheeseburger Bill" that would be delayed...
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:H.R.554:
"Unless a deal is reached, the Republican-led Senate has set the stage to vote, likely at mid-day on Tuesday, on the so-called nuclear option effort to ban procedural roadblocks known as filibusters against candidates for U.S. appeals courts and the Supreme Court."
The most important, longest lasting "legacy" of any President are their appointments to the Supreme Court. In my view, every President deserves to have their chioces to fill these vacancies voted on by the Senate.
I understnad that the Senate can make their own rules and change them, which is how the current filibuster of Judicial nominees become effective, yet I feel this obstacle should be eliminated.
What scares me is this quote...
"If Republicans prevail -- and it remained uncertain on Sunday if they had the votes -- Democrats have vowed to retaliate by raising parliamentary obstacles to other Bush priorities, which could tie the chamber into knots."
This is very "child like" on the part of the Democrats. If I recall, the Democratic Senate in the 80's, voted to change the rules to ALLOW fillibuster of judicial nominees.
Now the republicans wnat to change the rules back.
The problem is the child like attitudes of the minority party.
One of the things I like about the fillibuster is that it prevents congress from getting things done. Call me cynical, but that's the way I like it. If not enough people can agree in order to break the fillibuster, then it's probably something that ought not to be done, or at least can be done without.
The Republicans are free to change the rules back all they want. All they have to do is the same thing the Dems did to change the rules in the first place: get a 2/3rds majority to agree upon the rule changes, which the Dems did in the 80's.
To change the rules by Fiat, by decree of the majority, is dangerous. You wouldn't want the Democrats doing that when they are in control. It violates the spirit of the Senate.
If this were really about the rules, the Republicans would realize that they have lost this particular issue and then move on to changing the rules once the issue has been resolved. But it isn't about the rules or the 'fairness.' It is about getting 100% of the nominees approved for the Prez. It is about pressure from Dobson and the Religious Right. It is about Frist's presidential ambitions. It has nothing to do with the rules.
Cycloptichorn
Cyclo, didn't you also say elsewhere that these nominees they are fighting over have already been voted on and rejected?
Yes, something like seven of the ten previously rejected were re-nominated by Bush.
Yes, they have already recieved an up-or-down vote; and lost
Cycloptichorn
It was just revealed at a press conference that a deal has been made to avoid a Senate showdown.
Senator Byrd said he remembered Ben Franklin.
I love it when bureaucrats pat themselves on the back congratulating each other for a job well done...can't think of anything more disingenuous, they're acting like they just saved the world.
Tell me about it. Aren't we nice smart people for not "blowing up the senate." Oooooh, masters of self control, they are.
Those who think it is the end of the world if the nuclear option is put into play do not realize that the Senate can make its own rules. When the Democrats gain power again, they may. of course, change the rules so that a vote of 60 Senators is needed for cloture.
But they wouldn't do that of course. They would let the Majority rules principles remain.
The Democrats care nothing for tradition. Thier only fear is that Seven Appelate Court Judges( which, by the way, are handling more and more cases which never reach the Supreme Court) Bush has nominated will help take the radical left agenda apart in the next thirty years.
Yep, and set us back a hundred.
Why weren't the republicans able to get 60 votes together? There are over 50 senators that are republicans, so they only would have needed to convince fewer than 10 democrats. Were they so incompetent that they couldn't even get a few democrats on their side?
FreeDuck wrote:Why weren't the republicans able to get 60 votes together? There are over 50 senators that are republicans, so they only would have needed to convince fewer than 10 democrats. Were they so incompetent that they couldn't even get a few democrats on their side?
Could it be because the Dems were obstructing any thing to do with the current administration? Nothing to do with being incompetent but having to do with others not wanting to do what they were elected to do and that is vote on things.
Baldimo wrote:FreeDuck wrote:Why weren't the republicans able to get 60 votes together? There are over 50 senators that are republicans, so they only would have needed to convince fewer than 10 democrats. Were they so incompetent that they couldn't even get a few democrats on their side?
Could it be because the Dems were obstructing any thing to do with the current administration? Nothing to do with being incompetent but having to do with others not wanting to do what they were elected to do and that is vote on things.
like when they literally shut the government down to get their way... oh wait, that was the republicans wasn't it? Never mind.
blueveinedthrobber wrote:Baldimo wrote:FreeDuck wrote:Why weren't the republicans able to get 60 votes together? There are over 50 senators that are republicans, so they only would have needed to convince fewer than 10 democrats. Were they so incompetent that they couldn't even get a few democrats on their side?
Could it be because the Dems were obstructing any thing to do with the current administration? Nothing to do with being incompetent but having to do with others not wanting to do what they were elected to do and that is vote on things.
like when they literally shut the government down to get their way... oh wait, that was the republicans wasn't it? Never mind.
And they paid the price didn't they?
as well they should have...
So, the moderates pulled it out of the fire. Good for them. This will not please the White House, I think, but it sure as hell pleases me.
You're pleased because of the "Cheeseburger Bill," Blatham!
Had to have been the Cheeseburger Bill, cause I didn't see anything else on the agenda more pressing.
blatham wrote:So, the moderates pulled it out of the fire. Good for them. This will not please the White House, I think, but it sure as hell pleases me.
Why displeasure at the White House? Three of Bush's nominees will now be confirmed with a minimum 55-59 votes, plus he won't have to drop the other two. Look for a call on their vote soon.
I don't see this as 'moderates' pulling it out of the fire, so much as Reid realizing he didn't have the votes to overcome the conssitutional option.
Of course, that's merely my opinion.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace