'Nuclear" Option now ticking in U.S. Senate  | | | 
May 18th, 2005, 12:05 PM
|
#1 (permalink)
| | Supporting our military
Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Bottom left of U.S.
Posts: 9,197
| 'Nuclear" Option now ticking in U.S. Senate
Well, debate over Bush's judicial nominees so far blocked by the Democratic minority via the filibuster has now started.
Looks like, at the moment, in the end, that there will be a "rule" change ending the filibuster.
BTW, I see nowhere in the Constitution that allows the filibuster in the first place.
That being said, the Dems have vowed to bring to a halt all work in the Senate as a result of the filibuster being ended. Psst! Go for it guys!!
Make my political day. 
Has Harry Reid checked his Nevada poll numbers lately?
Doesn't seem like it.
Bill
__________________
*****
It is easy to be conspicuously "compassionate" if others are being forced to pay the cost. – Murray N. Rothbard
| 
|  | |
May 18th, 2005, 12:11 PM
|
#2 (permalink)
| | Ultimate Member
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: South Jersey
Posts: 8,736
|
The filibuster is a senate rule. The constitution clearly states that the senate may establish their own rules for debate, procedure, etc. regarding legislative action. So it's a constitutional practice. However, the open question is whether the use of the filibuster for the senate's advice and consent function is legitimate. | |
| | |
May 18th, 2005, 12:19 PM
|
#3 (permalink)
| | Supporting our military
Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Bottom left of U.S.
Posts: 9,197
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by osprey4 The filibuster is a senate rule. The constitution clearly states that the senate may establish their own rules for debate, procedure, etc. regarding legislative action. So it's a constitutional practice. However, the open question is whether the use of the filibuster for the senate's advice and consent function is legitimate. | So, rules are meant to be changed.
Kinda like the much maligned 'designated hitter' rule in the American League.
Bill | |
| | |
May 18th, 2005, 12:23 PM
|
#4 (permalink)
| | Ultimate Member
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: South Jersey
Posts: 8,736
|
Obviously, any rule can be changed, but before they change the rule, I believe they need to consider the long-term implications. When the shoe is on the other foot (does anyone remember 12 years ago, because the NYT does not), the rules that today seem so inconvenient can come in real handy. | |
| | |
May 18th, 2005, 12:32 PM
|
#5 (permalink)
| | Supporting our military
Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Bottom left of U.S.
Posts: 9,197
|
Seems to me the Dems fear most of all that Bush's nominees, once confirmed, will legislate from the bench in much the same way their appointments have.
God forbid! 
Bill | |
| | |
May 18th, 2005, 12:35 PM
|
#6 (permalink)
| | Ultimate Member
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: South Jersey
Posts: 8,736
|
Actually, the fear is that they won't legislate from the bench, which is the only way the libs can move their agenda forward. | |
| | |
May 18th, 2005, 12:47 PM
|
#7 (permalink)
| | Light to Counter the Dim
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Long Island, NY, USA
Posts: 6,711
|
The current tactic is nothing more than the likes of spoiled children who want to change the rules when those rules don't favor them.
Although the Republicans claim that the filibuster was never used against judges, they were, and they used it. They used it against Lyndon Johnson and they used it against Bill Clinton. In fact, Bill Frist took part in the filibuster. Obviously, he's got amnesia or he thinks what's good for the goose isn't for the gander.
BTW, these are the most activist judges on record.
Here's the rule: http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule22.htm
__________________
"The Bill of Rights is my Patriot Act."
Last edited by MTAtech : May 18th, 2005 at 12:50 PM.
| |
| | |
May 18th, 2005, 12:55 PM
|
#8 (permalink)
| | Ultimate Member
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: South Jersey
Posts: 8,736
|
I'd be careful who you call "spoiled children".
The Johnson case was quite different (but few seem to remember the facts): Quote: |
Democrats point to a filibuster of Lyndon Baines Johnson’s 1968 attempt to elevate Abe Fortas from an associate justice to chief justice of the Supreme Court as a precedent. But it was different in kind from today’s filibusters. It was bipartisan. Twenty-four Republicans and 19 Democrats voted against ending the filibuster. Fortas almost certainly didn’t have the support to pass on an up-or-down vote in the Senate. Hurt by ethics charges, he soon withdrew his nomination, and ended up resigning from the court. The case was truly exceptional.
| | |
| | |
May 18th, 2005, 12:59 PM
|
#9 (permalink)
| | Ultimate Member
Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Del Rey Oaks, CA, US
Posts: 4,272
|
The Republicans bottled up 60-70 of Clinton's nominees in committee. I guess they didn't deserve an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate. Frist and his ilk are such hypocrites they make me nauseous. | |
| | |
May 18th, 2005, 01:07 PM
|
#10 (permalink)
| | Light to Counter the Dim
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Long Island, NY, USA
Posts: 6,711
| Quote: |
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. Paez had to wait more than four years for a final vote, a record delay. Ultimately, the Republican stalling tactics failed, and both jurists now sit on the appellate court. http://www.tdn.com/articles/2003/11/...rld/news03.txt | The hypocrisy is sickening. Of course, now osprey will say "that was different." | |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | | | | Most Active Discussions  | | | | |   Recent Discussions  | | | | |
 |
hardware
prices 
