1
   

The IGNORANCE Of The US Voters

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 04:12 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
Setanta wrote:
RexRed wrote:
The republicans are now happy they did not get rid of the filibuster... :wink:


You (typically) display your ignorance. Neither party wants to change the Senate rules which make the filibuster possible, for very obvious reasons. Even if the Republicans had, however, wanted to do so, they never had the votes. Senate rules require a two-thirds vote to change Senate rules, and the Republicans have not controlled two-thirds of the vote in the Senate since 1921.


Setanta, I have to agree with Rex on this one.

You can break a filibuster with a simple majority because of a loophole. This is the "nuclear option" that was being threatened by the Republican majority over the Bush judge appointments.

To break a fillibuster in the Senate a member of the majority party can call a point of order. The chair can then rule on it which then goes to a straight majority vote. This way a rule change can be affected with 51 votes.

This certainly can happen and could of happened. When the Democrats threatened to fillibuster judge Alito, the Republicans said that they would use this very loophole (and they very well could have pulled it off).

If you remember it was the Democrats who backed down (with a bit of compromise to the so-called group of 14).

But Rex is right.... rule changes can be affected with 51 votes if the majority party is willing to go through with it.

I also agree with Rex that the Republicans were probably happy they didn't (even though in fact it was the Democrats that mostly stood down).


It's rather embarrassing to find that you are no better informed than Rex. What you refer to is known in the Senate as the Byrd option, because it was first used by the Democratic Majority Leader, Senator Byrd, in the 1970s and -80s. It was only cubbed "nuclear option" by pundits in 2005 as clueless as Rex (and apparently, as are you). The means that Byrd used to end debate and move to a floor vote was to raise a point of order, and therefore have access to a simple majority vote on that point of order. It has been christened the nuclear option because the result in every case in which Byrd used it was concerted obstruction by Republicans on every measure, and in 2005, the Republicans did not use it for precisely that reason--without a clear three-fifths majority, they needed to make nice with the Democrats.

You seem to have missed the real point here, though. Rex spoke of getting rid of the filibuster. You can't do that except by a change in Senate procedural rules, and Senate Rule 22 calls for a two-thirds majority vote to change Senate rules. The co-called nuclear option doesn't remove the possibility of filibustering, it only ends the particular filibuster in progress at the time that the point of order is raised during debate.

The last time the Democrats had a secure two-thirds majority was in 1965. The last time the Republicans had a clear two-thirds majority was 1921. Even if either party wanted to eliminate filibusters, neither of them have the votes to do it. Anyway, neither party wants to get rid of the filibuster--it just ain'ta gonna happen.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 04:13 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Rex, did you not listen to Wavy Gravy?


Wavy Gravy?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 04:23 pm
Setanta,

The nuclear option can be used to force a rule change. Frist's threat was to change the Senate rules to make the filibuster unusable against any judicial nomination. It wasn't just for one judge, the whole point was to change the rules with a simple majority.

You can get the facts here...

Wikipedia article on nuclear option
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 04:24 pm
Because my last post doesn't make it clear, raising a point of order can only end debate in the single instance in which the point of order is raised. It cannot change the Senate rules, and Byrd was relying on procedural precedent, and not formal Senate rules when he introduced that innovation.

I also misstated the nature of Senate Rule 22. Senate Rule 22 invokes cloture, and requires a two-thirds vote, at which time further debate is limited to 30 hours. Senate Rule 22 was enacted in 1917, and in 1975, the margin for cloture was reduced from two-thirds to three-fifths.

Invoking cloture only ends the debate in progress, it has never, and was never intended, to prohibit the filibuster.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 04:30 pm
RexRed wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Rex, did you not listen to Wavy Gravy?


Wavy Gravy?


I looked him up...

Funny guy. Smile
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 04:34 pm
You are wrong Set. This would have ended in a general prohibition against filibustering judicial appointments.

What would have happened after the point of order is the Senate would have voted about whether using the filibuster against judicial nominees was constitutional.

So if 51 Senators voted with Frist, they would have ruled that a filibuster against a judicial nominee was unconstitutional.

So the net effect would be to eliminate the ability for the minority to use the filibuster against judicial nominees.

If this isn't a rule change... I don't know what is-- but then again you seem to enjoy arguing semantics.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 04:42 pm
You can get the facts here, Brown:

Standing Rules of the Senate

Byrd employed Senate Rule XX, "Questions of Order":

1. A question of order may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, except when the Senate is voting or ascertaining the presence of a quorum, and, unless submitted to the Senate, shall be decided by the Presiding Officer without debate, subject to an appeal to the Senate. When an appeal is taken, any subsequent question of order which may arise before the decision of such appeal shall be decided by the Presiding Officer without debate; and every appeal therefrom shall be decided at once, and without debate; and any appeal may be laid on the table without prejudice to the pending proposition, and thereupon shall be held as affirming the decision of the Presiding Officer.

2. The Presiding Officer may submit any question of order for the decision of the Senate.


Senate Rule V provides for "Suspension and Amendment of the Rules":

1. No motion to suspend, modify, or amend any rule, or any part thereof, shall be in order, except on one day's notice in writing, specifying precisely the rule or part proposed to be suspended, modified, or amended, and the purpose thereof. Any rule may be suspended without notice by the unanimous consent of the Senate, except as otherwise provided by the rules.

2. The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules.


Wikipedia is a wonderful resource, but i consider it less conclusive than the Senate's web site page on the Rules of the Senate.

************************************************

You have misconstrued (or misunderstood) what it was that Frist intended. He was contemplating the removal of matters on the Executive Calendar (measures sent to the Senate from the White House) from the authority of Rule XXII--which would not have ended filibusters, but would only have ended filibustering treaties and Presidential appointments.

Ironically, Senator Byrd first used the point of order option in 1975 to reduce the cloture requirement from two-thirds to three-fifths.

THEREFORE:

Senate Rule XXII, Second Section, paragraphs one and two hold:

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of rule II or rule IV or any other rule of the Senate, at any time a motion signed by sixteen Senators, to bring to a close the debate upon any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, is presented to the Senate, the Presiding Officer, or clerk at the direction of the Presiding Officer, shall at once state the motion to the Senate, and one hour after the Senate meets on the following calendar day but one, he shall lay the motion before the Senate and direct that the clerk call the roll, and upon the ascertainment that a quorum is present, the Presiding Officer shall, without debate, submit to the Senate by a yea-and-nay vote the question:

"Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.


It takes three-fifths of the quorum to end debate, and it takes two-thirds of the quorum to change Senate Rules.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 07:23 pm
RexRed wrote:
parados wrote:
Don't worry Rex, God is on the side of the winners.


God is on the side of fair and impartial news.

What happened to the American flags after 9/11?

The few on the far left (media) put up such a stink that people took them down out of fear of violence.

The dems hate the flag... the dems hate any type of old fashioned values.

So what is "left" to be proud of?


He looks just like a "robo poster". I'll say it again. L O S E R. Laughing
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 10:00 pm
As an aside, I ate dinner with Wavy Gravy and Richie Havens one time while in college with a few other friends. Two gentlemen that have some really great stories. Wavy Gravy is indeed a funny guy.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 10:07 pm
McGentrix wrote:
As an aside, I ate dinner with Wavy Gravy and Richie Havens one time while in college with a few other friends. Two gentlemen that have some really great stories. Wavy Gravy is indeed a funny guy.


You and Richie Havens, huh?

Was this before your conservative revelation? Richie Havens used to smoke dope and hang out with the hippies.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 10:27 pm
http://www.mendelsonarchives.com/Photos/Wavy-Gravy.jpg

Looks like McG's type, maybe he will even dump Karl for Wavy. LOL
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 10:43 pm
http://www.seva.org/specialevents/images/wavy70/wg70.jpg

I was invited to this but declined but no one told me Steve Earle was to perform.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 11:26 pm
snood wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
As an aside, I ate dinner with Wavy Gravy and Richie Havens one time while in college with a few other friends. Two gentlemen that have some really great stories. Wavy Gravy is indeed a funny guy.


You and Richie Havens, huh?

Was this before your conservative revelation? Richie Havens used to smoke dope and hang out with the hippies.


Yes, it was. McG used to be a dope-smoking, hippie liberal in college. Then he grew up.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 11:29 pm
McG is a grown-up?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Nov, 2006 06:45 am
Ticomaya wrote:
snood wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
As an aside, I ate dinner with Wavy Gravy and Richie Havens one time while in college with a few other friends. Two gentlemen that have some really great stories. Wavy Gravy is indeed a funny guy.


You and Richie Havens, huh?

Was this before your conservative revelation? Richie Havens used to smoke dope and hang out with the hippies.


Yes, it was. McG used to be a dope-smoking, hippie liberal in college. Then he grew up.

Well, then he is big enough to answer for himself now, isn't he?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Nov, 2006 06:54 am
Ticomaya wrote:
snood wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
As an aside, I ate dinner with Wavy Gravy and Richie Havens one time while in college with a few other friends. Two gentlemen that have some really great stories. Wavy Gravy is indeed a funny guy.


You and Richie Havens, huh?

Was this before your conservative revelation? Richie Havens used to smoke dope and hang out with the hippies.


Yes, it was. McG used to be a dope-smoking, hippie liberal in college. Then he grew up.


Should be obvious; his brain appears fried.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Nov, 2006 07:44 am
snood wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
snood wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
As an aside, I ate dinner with Wavy Gravy and Richie Havens one time while in college with a few other friends. Two gentlemen that have some really great stories. Wavy Gravy is indeed a funny guy.


You and Richie Havens, huh?

Was this before your conservative revelation? Richie Havens used to smoke dope and hang out with the hippies.


Yes, it was. McG used to be a dope-smoking, hippie liberal in college. Then he grew up.

Well, then he is big enough to answer for himself now, isn't he?


It's in my profile Snood, you should read it.

When i was in college, one of the things I did was get involved with the College Union Board. That's the org. that gets entertainment groups to come to the college and sing/speak/whatever. While I was there, we brought a number of people to the college and I got to meet them all.

We had Wavy Gravy, Richie Havens and John Sebastion come one time. We also had Dennis Miller, Dr. Dirty, some awful Ska band from Boston, a Genesis cover band, a couple of comedians, some game show things, and some other stuff I don't remember the details fully.

But, It was a great experience.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Nov, 2006 09:16 am
http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/B00004NHBO.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V1116106902_.jpg

http://www.rhino.com/fun/henrydiltz/dec04/8big_dec.jpg

http://www.acousticmusic.com/pfms/pastshows/havens01.jpg
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Nov, 2006 08:00 pm
Welcome to the erosion of America by the radical left ...

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/11/9/215218.shtml?s=al&promo_code=2872-1
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Nov, 2006 08:16 pm
RexRed wrote:
Welcome to the erosion of America by the radical left ...

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/11/9/215218.shtml?s=al&promo_code=2872-1

Jeez, dont these people have nothing better to do?

And with that, I mean both the students who banned the Pledge and the ones who are furious about it.

The world is burning and they focus their energies on whether a salute to the flag is made at board meetings or not?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 08:11:43