Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Today starts the fillibustering

by TONI H / May 17, 2005 8:57 PM PDT

regarding all the judicial possibilities that Bush has recommended.

Six senators from either party could determine it all according to a news report I heard last night just before falling asleep.

The last time this much opposition from the 'losing' side was happening was when the Reps went after Clinton from the swearing in ceremony. If I recall, the government actually closed it doors for a while in retaliation.

Do ANY of those elected officials really give a rat's about the people they represent or have they all inherited inflated egos and play God on the Hill on a regular basis now? They seem to be so busy finding things to fight OVER that they've lost the ability fight FOR the people.

I'm beginning to suspect that the answer lies with a civil war again......this time the people against the parties themselves.

TONI

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Today starts the fillibustering
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Today starts the fillibustering
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
starts here at 8:30 am,
by duckman / May 17, 2005 10:14 PM PDT

first insult will be thrown out by 8:33 am. Most used coordinated derogatory slur by Democrats ?Extreme/ist?

Collapse -
Reid and Kennedy ...
by Evie / May 17, 2005 11:48 PM PDT

... are making buffoons of themselves as we speak!

Kennedy actually started "debating" Owen as he tried to delay consideration of her nomination!

Gosh they look desperate.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
As I recall, this tactic is Teddy's brainchild. That doesn't
by Kiddpeat / May 18, 2005 12:32 AM PDT
In reply to: Reid and Kennedy ...

say much for it.

Collapse -
Let's hope its fillibusting this time. It's about time that
by Kiddpeat / May 18, 2005 12:31 AM PDT

the power to thwart the people's will be removed from the radical few.

Collapse -
I'm all for encouraging a REAL fillibuster ...
by Evie / May 18, 2005 12:42 AM PDT

... let the Democrats dig their own graves further by "debating" endlessly!!!

Reid said the American people aren't stupid, then several minutes later while arguing why Owen shouldn't get a vote, claimed she already had a vote. Sheesh!

Evie Happy

Collapse -
Do you believe that all
by Dan McC / May 18, 2005 1:12 AM PDT

presidential nominations should get a vote by the full Senate?

Dan

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) If that what the Constitution calls for
by duckman / May 18, 2005 1:16 AM PDT
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) It doesn't.
by Dan McC / May 18, 2005 1:26 AM PDT
Collapse -
Sen. Barbara Boxer thinks otherwise
by kmarchal / May 18, 2005 1:49 AM PDT
In reply to: (NT) It doesn't.

''According to the U.S. Constitution, the President nominates, and the Senate shall provide advice and consent. It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.'' ? Sen. Barbara Boxer, Congressional Record, May 14, 1997

Collapse -
She was just young and naive back then
by Evie / May 18, 2005 1:52 AM PDT
Devil
Collapse -
She's just wrong.
by Dan McC / May 18, 2005 2:58 AM PDT

It says advice and consent. There is not mention of the form of such.

Dan

Collapse -
So they need no vote at all ...
by Evie / May 18, 2005 3:01 AM PDT
In reply to: She's just wrong.

... simply a majority of Senators can send a letter to the President that they advise him of their consent.

Collapse -
For all the Constitution has to
by Dan McC / May 18, 2005 3:15 AM PDT

say about it, they could decide advice and consent with rock-paper-scissor. The Senate makes their own rules.

Dan

Collapse -
Glad you see it that way ...
by Evie / May 18, 2005 5:08 AM PDT

... so the so-called "nuclear option" is merely the Senate making its own rules.

Collapse -
Just because they can
by Dan McC / May 18, 2005 5:40 AM PDT

does not mean that they should. It would be a stupid thing to do.

Dan

Collapse -
So do enlighten us
by Evie / May 18, 2005 5:42 AM PDT
In reply to: Just because they can

What is your position?

Collapse -
The current rules are fine.
by Dan McC / May 18, 2005 6:11 AM PDT
In reply to: So do enlighten us

They ensure that appointees be acceptable to a large segment of the Senate and prevents some of the tyranny of the majority.

Dan

Collapse -
Reply to Dan
by Evie / May 18, 2005 6:20 AM PDT
In reply to: So do enlighten us

As I see it, using the rules to institute a supermajority requirement which is NOT in the normal rules for Senate votes is not a good idea. Minorities in the past have been respectful in not using this "legal" maneuver, the Desperatecrats have no such respect. To return the approval process to the historic majority vote, if the Dems give no other alternative, the rules need to be changed. I do believe a better alternative is to force REAL filibusters and expose the racist agenda of the Democcrats for what it is.

Collapse -
You ask for enlightenment but
by Dan McC / May 18, 2005 6:30 AM PDT
In reply to: So do enlighten us

do not receive it when offered. It is ever such.

The rules were changed, Evie. They were changed in such a way that the old hold rules that the republicans used under Clinton to block 60 (yes, sixty!) nominations they found unacceptable were no longer available. When the Democrats use the remaining rules to block nominees that they find unacceptable the republicans start to whine about rules and votes and the constitution. Remember, Evie? This was not that long ago.

Minorities in the past did not have to use this tactic because there were others available. Respect for one party by the other was not the issue then, nor is it now.

The desire to block unacceptable nominees by this Senate is exactly the same as the desire to block candidates under Clinton. It is just that simple, Evie. If you condemn one you must condemn the other. Then look at the issue of 4 blocked nominations verses 60.

The system should not be setup so that the majority can push through any measure, any rule, any law, or any candidate that it desires. That is the road to ruin. Surely you can see that.

Dan

Collapse -
You are simply mistaken
by Evie / May 18, 2005 7:41 AM PDT
In reply to: So do enlighten us

The rules have NOT been changed from the Clinton era. No nominee voted out of committee was ever filibustered on the Senate floor. FACT.

Play with numbers all you want. The numbers do not speak favorably of the Democrats. They ARE changing how the rules are applied. They are so desperate after loss upon loss at the ballot box they are getting ridiculous now.

Play on!

Collapse -
Read your own link
by Evie / May 19, 2005 12:09 AM PDT
In reply to: So do enlighten us

I didn't see anywhere in there that filibusters have been employed to prevent confirming judges that have been through committee that have MAJORITY support of the full Senate.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

So sad that Democrats can't win at the ballot box so are forced to resort to such desperation. If the Democrats ideas were really so *mainstream*, how come they can't win by campaigning on them??

Collapse -
You're stuck, Evie.
by Dan McC / May 19, 2005 12:28 AM PDT
In reply to: So do enlighten us

Open your eyes and see that blocking a nominee is the same action regardless of where in the process it happens.

Dan

Collapse -
That is simply not reality
by Evie / May 19, 2005 12:45 AM PDT
In reply to: So do enlighten us

There is a reason for the committee process. Yes it can and has been abused by BOTH sides, but it actually IS as close a process as we have to Schumer's favorite "cooling saucer" that we have. Blocking a fully vetted nominee that has majority support of the committee is nowhere near analagous to blocking a nominee earlier in the process. Open your own eyes.

Collapse -
It is exactly the same, Evie.
by Dan McC / May 19, 2005 12:48 AM PDT
In reply to: So do enlighten us

That you cannot see it says much about you.

Dan

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) It doesn't give the Senate the option of doing nothing.
by Kiddpeat / May 18, 2005 8:24 AM PDT
In reply to: She's just wrong.
Collapse -
The provision is nothing if not
by Dan McC / May 18, 2005 11:44 PM PDT

lacking in detail.

What is your opinion of the blocking of 60 Clinton nominees by republicans using various means? Surely that was an even greater example of doing nothing.

Dan

Collapse -
Do you think the Senate should vote on Janice Rogers Brown?
by Kiddpeat / May 19, 2005 1:41 PM PDT

If not, why not?

Collapse -
If a nominee cannot
by Dan McC / May 19, 2005 10:53 PM PDT

garner sufficient support to end debate, then no.

The current rules achieve a balance.

Dan

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Why? Balance means no black, conservative judges?
by Kiddpeat / May 21, 2005 2:34 PM PDT
In reply to: If a nominee cannot

Popular Forums

icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

FALL TV PREMIERES

Your favorite shows are back!

Don’t miss your dramas, sitcoms and reality shows. Find out when and where they’re airing!