Filibuster needed? or Not?

[Alias 0]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-19-filibuster_x.htm

Using the filibuster to delay or block legislative action has a long history. The term filibuster -- from a Dutch word meaning "pirate" -- became popular in the 1850s, when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent a vote on a bill.

In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could filibuster. As the House of Representatives grew in numbers, however, revisions to the House rules limited debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued on the grounds that any senator should have the right to speak as long as necessary on any issue.

So, whats the feeling about the filibuster conflict. It seems even with the majority, the Repubs are pushing for quicker resolve on issues. They're issues ofcourse. Which are pretty hefty

Is this a good thing to keep Govt moving? Or does it prevent the minorities the opportunity to keep the majority in check by prolonging debate?

Two sides of this one for sure

Carpe Diem

[Ron 10]

The filibuster is stupid...If you don't want something, just vote "no" and move along.

It just wastes time and energy.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Alias 0]

During the 1930s, Senator Huey P. Long effectively used the filibuster against bills that he thought favored the rich over the poor. The Louisiana senator frustrated his colleagues while entertaining spectators with his recitations of Shakespeare and his reading of recipes for "pot-likkers." Long once held the Senate floor for fifteen hours.

The record for the longest individual speech goes to South Carolina's J. Strom Thurmond who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

It does have an interesting history

Carpe Diem

[Ron 10]

Quote

During the 1930s, Senator Huey P. Long effectively used the filibuster against bills that he thought favored the rich over the poor. The Louisiana senator frustrated his colleagues while entertaining spectators with his recitations of Shakespeare and his reading of recipes for "pot-likkers." Long once held the Senate floor for fifteen hours.

The record for the longest individual speech goes to South Carolina's J. Strom Thurmond who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

It does have an interesting history

Interesing history...But still stupid.

Just vote no and move along. How much time has been wasted just delaying the vote? I'd rather they vote and move on.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[rehmwa 2]

It's nuts - it's a way to work around the rules when a special interest segment in congress doesn't like something (ok, it's part of the current rules, but it's a soft rule not as well defined). If it's an issue, then just change the rules instead of being sneaky. If the congress wants to change the acceptance criteria for judges, they should just change the requirement from 50%+ to some other number.

(It's nuts when either side does it).

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Alias 0]

Quote

Quote

During the 1930s, Senator Huey P. Long effectively used the filibuster against bills that he thought favored the rich over the poor. The Louisiana senator frustrated his colleagues while entertaining spectators with his recitations of Shakespeare and his reading of recipes for "pot-likkers." Long once held the Senate floor for fifteen hours.

The record for the longest individual speech goes to South Carolina's J. Strom Thurmond who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

It does have an interesting history

Interesing history...But still stupid.

Just vote no and move along. How much time has been wasted just delaying the vote? I'd rather they vote and move on.

Don't hold to much faith in polls, but by a 2 to 1 ratio, according to a ABC News poll, the public rejected easing Senate rules in a way that would make it harder for Democratic senators to prevent final action on Bush's nominees.

Even many Republicans were reluctant to abandon current Senate confirmation procedures: Nearly half opposed any rule changes, joining eight in 10 Democrats and seven in 10 political independents, the poll found.

So other then just the Dems, according to many republicans and most independents, it's a bad idea.

Carpe Diem

[Ron 10]

Quote

Don't hold to much faith in polls, but by a 2 to 1 ratio, according to a ABC News poll, the public rejected easing Senate rules in a way that would make it harder for Democratic senators to prevent final action on Bush's nominees.

Even many Republicans were reluctant to abandon current Senate confirmation procedures: Nearly half opposed any rule changes, joining eight in 10 Democrats and seven in 10 political independents, the poll found.

So other then just the Dems, according to many republicans and most independents, it's a bad idea.

I'm not a fan of the "Nuclear Option". But I am even less of a fan to a minority that instead of just voting "No" waste time.

See in this case they could just vote "No" and then the appointment does not happen. All they are doing now is wasting time, then voting it down..

Just vote the damn thing down and move along.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[TheAnvil 0]

I want the Dims to filibuster. I want them to filibuster the hell out of it. I want the public to see them filibuster while issues like Social Security sit in the doldrums. Let the Dims make fools of themselves publicly - no difficult task; most merely need to speak - so we conservatives can use it against them. Let them shut down Senate business like little baby two year olds throwing temper tantrums. Good. We'll use that against them too.

The Republicans should have forced the issue long ago. They are also being far too passive about the issue. Were I in charge I would run a compare and contrast type campaign. How about this one:

'John Aschroft, who does not support programs that racially discriminate, opposed elevating Judge White to the Appellate Bench. For this, he was branded a racist by the Dims and their sycophant media. Harry Reid, who strongly supports programs that racially discriminate, is against elevating Janeyce Rogers Brown to the Appellate bench AND voted against the confirmation of Clarence Thomas as a Supreme Court Justice. What does that make him? Well Dims? Well CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN?'

One might substitute a # of names in for Harry Reid's in the above. I'd also be running video tapes of Leahy, Bonior, et al pontificating about the need for an up or down Senate vote in the early '90s. I'd run them over and over again.

This filibuster is stupid. Give the judges a vote and get on with it.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[kallend 2,146]

Since you are into exposing hypocrisy, you could mention that Frist's voting record includes support of Republican filibuster against Clinton's nominees.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[TheAnvil 0]

Threat of filibuster. Not a filibuster.

And yes, it was dumb then and now. Compare and contrast the reasons for opposition if you like. Remember Abe Fortis from waaaay back when as well?

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The Republicans should have forced the issue long ago.

Like in the 90s when they were blocking small time ambassadorships to countries like Luxembourg because the guy was gay?

[TheAnvil 0]

If the Dims felt as strongly about the ambassadorship as they Republicans do about these judges, they would have forced the issue as well. Again, then it was the THREAT of a filibuster and not a filibuster, though in truth there is little difference.

I remain happy that the republicans are forcing the issue and making the Dims look like morons. I heard Harry Reid speak yesterday afternoon and the lies coming out of his mouth were sickening.

Keep it up Dims! Just a little early for the '06 campaign season. What a way to kick it off for the Republican Party!

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

I want the Dims to filibuster. I want them to filibuster the hell out of it. I want the public to see them filibuster while issues like Social Security sit in the doldrums. Let the Dims make fools of themselves publicly - no difficult task; most merely need to speak - so we conservatives can use it against them. Let them shut down Senate business like little baby two year olds throwing temper tantrums. Good. We'll use that against them too.

The Republicans should have forced the issue long ago. They are also being far too passive about the issue. Were I in charge I would run a compare and contrast type campaign. How about this one:

'John Aschroft, who does not support programs that racially discriminate, opposed elevating Judge White to the Appellate Bench. For this, he was branded a racist by the Dims and their sycophant media. Harry Reid, who strongly supports programs that racially discriminate, is against elevating Janeyce Rogers Brown to the Appellate bench AND voted against the confirmation of Clarence Thomas as a Supreme Court Justice. What does that make him? Well Dims? Well CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN?'

One might substitute a # of names in for Harry Reid's in the above. I'd also be running video tapes of Leahy, Bonior, et al pontificating about the need for an up or down Senate vote in the early '90s. I'd run them over and over again.

This filibuster is stupid. Give the judges a vote and get on with it.

Absolutely. Who needs the Democrats to make big goverment? With Republicans we have more Big Government AND a desire for more government influence in our personal lives.

Its win-win in my book.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Absolutely. Who needs the Democrats to make big goverment? With Republicans we have more Big Government AND a desire for more government influence in our personal lives.

Its win-win in my book.

Yup, it's all those nasty Republicans, huh?

Quote

"When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans... And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities."

-President Bill Clinton, MTV's "Enough is Enough," April 19, 1994

Quote

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans."

-President Bill Clinton, March 1, 1993, during a press conference in Piscataway , NJ. USA TODAY, March 11, 1993

Quote

"The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people"

-President Bill Clinton, MTV interview, 1993

Quote

"You know the one thing that's wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say."

-President Bill Clinton, May 28, 1993 speech in the city hall courtyard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

your quotes change nothing.

Bush has proven the GOP to be the cut taxes yet spend lots anyway party. And he had lead both parties into greater intrusions into our lives, though I suspect either party would have done that.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

If the Dims felt as strongly about the ambassadorship as they Republicans do about these judges, they would have forced the issue as well. Again, then it was the THREAT of a filibuster and not a filibuster, though in truth there is little difference.

So which is it? Their fault for not pressing - 60 Clinton nominees were never confirmed - or the GOP because there was 'little difference,' Maybe he should be applauded for getting other stuff done instead, like balancing the budget.

Given the history of this over the past 3 regimes, it's pretty clear that the voters don't punish the minority party for doing this shit. It's more like fraternity hazing - when the pledges become the ones in power, they are sure to perpetuate the process. Or if you prefer, a never ending game of tit for tat.

[GTAVercetti 0]

In case you did not understand, I dislike Republicans at the same level as Democrats. But thanks for all the quotes. Let me write them down.

Quote

"You know the one thing that's wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say."

-President Bill Clinton, May 28, 1993 speech in the city hall courtyard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

And I am sure this quote was taking out of context. I don't know the speech but I bet he was saying that to make some other point. And if he was not? WEll that just enforces my opinions of the two major parties of this country.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[billvon 3,107]

Phew! I was worried there might be a political thread on Speaker's Corner that did not contain a gratuitous Clinton slam. Thanks for adding those comments from every republican's favorite politician.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Phew! I was worried there might be a political thread on Speaker's Corner that did not contain a gratuitous Clinton slam. Thanks for adding those comments from every republican's favorite politician.

That was a pretty quick reply with those quotes wasn't it? I think he has macros set up.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[billvon 3,107]

>I think he has macros set up.

Or just a lot of Explorer shortcuts to "Bad Stuff 'Bout Clinton."

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Phew! I was worried there might be a political thread on Speaker's Corner that did not contain a gratuitous Clinton slam. Thanks for adding those comments from every republican's favorite politician.

Well, someone has to counter the gratuitous Bush slams, now don't they?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

Phew! I was worried there might be a political thread on Speaker's Corner that did not contain a gratuitous Clinton slam. Thanks for adding those comments from every republican's favorite politician.

Well, someone has to counter the gratuitous Bush slams, now don't they?

I would like you to point out where I slammed Bush so I know your Clinton quotes are validated.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[TheAnvil 0]

Both. Apparently the Dims didn't feel as strongly about gay rights as GOPers feel about getting qualified judges onto the appellate bench. 60 of El Jefe Clintonista's nominees were never voted upon. If the Dims chose to tolerate that - that's their choice. The GOP has chosen not to tolerate a mid 50's % of GWB's appellate court nominees getting an floor vote on the senate and decided to do something about it. Good for them.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Phew! I was worried there might be a political thread on Speaker's Corner that did not contain a gratuitous Clinton slam. Thanks for adding those comments from every republican's favorite politician.

Well, someone has to counter the gratuitous Bush slams, now don't they?

I would like you to point out where I slammed Bush so I know your Clinton quotes are validated.

That comment wasn't directed toward you.... merely a response to Bill's post. I'll bet if a search was made, you'd see Bill's comment is 180 out...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,107]

>The GOP has chosen not to tolerate a mid 50's % of GWB's appellate court nominees . . .

So far, not counting this contested round of nominations, 168 of Bush's nominees have been confirmed and 4 have not. Are you using the new Kansas educational department math to get that "mid 50's" number?