| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/23 |
| 2005/5/18 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:37727 Activity:high |
5/17 The L.A. Times editorial board sure is weird on the filibuster issue
http://csua.org/u/c3q
\_ "Because the filibuster is at heart a conservative's weapon"
!?!?
\_ When you filibuster, you are by definition, blocking change
and preserving the status quo. It comes from the older
definition of Conservative, one who tends to resist change
and prefers to keep tradition.
\_ It's an interesting argument. They're arguing that the demise of
the filibuster promotes a liberal agenda in the long term. That,
throughout history, the filibuster has been used primarily by
conservatives to block liberal legislation. They do have a point.
Republicans blocked more of Clinton's nominees via filibuster than
Democrats have blocked of Bush's nominees. The LA editorial board
is actually pushing the argument that the filibuster should be
disallowed on all Senatorial bills, and that the filibuster causes
a 51% majority requirement on bills to become a 61% super-majority.
\_ The cloture rules, as written, make it obvious that you need
61% to pass bills in the Senate. It is reasonable to assume
that the people who wrote the rules wanted it that way for a
reason. -tom
\_ I see your point, but I wonder if a 51% majority is really a
healthy number for passing laws that affect our entire nation.
\_ That's another debate altogether. The founding fathers
thought that it was. Otoh, some interpret the founding
fathers' wishes as wanting the Constitution to be a much
more fluid, living document of laws, and thus, perhaps
the present acrimony means that a comfortable majority of 51%
is no longer enough. But this is all speculation.
\_ None of Clinton's judges were blocked by filibuster.
\_ Now now. No fair actually using facts. These people redefine
filibuster to support their argument. They can have their
reality.
\_ And the R's don't redefine terms constantly? The over-
riding story they've been pitching is that nominees deserve
an up or down vote. As many of them participated in deny-
ing such votes in the past when the balance of power was
reversed, they are hypocrits, pure and simple. I believe
that it's excellent to have the filibuster available for
appointments because it encourages compromise. You want
your people through, you convince more than just your side.
And it's a very notable point that the vast majority of
the nominees have been confirmed already.
\_ By "these people" I didn't mean D's. I meant people who
don't give a damn about truth or consistency, but only
care about the R or the D. Are there people like that
with R's? Yes.
\_ They used another procedure which allowed them to block
appointees. A procedure which has seen been changed so
that can no longer be used. Even many Republicans called
it a "filibuster" so you can understand the confusion.
And there were attempted filibusters of Clinton nominees,
just unsuccessful ones. Or is it only wrong if you
are successful?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200503160004
\_ Ah yes, that left-wing http://mm.org
\_ Ah yes, the shoot the messenger approach. When you
can't deny the facts, tar the presenter.
\_ Hey I learned this from the best liberals.
\_ Most liberals I know are more than willing to
change their mind when presented with
verifiable facts, myself included. The same
cannot be said for most conservatives I know.
As intelligence increases, this distinction
breaks down.
\_ Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha!
\_ Hint, your bumper sticker arguments are
probably neither verifiable nor based
on facts.
\_ Most liberals I know are the same way.
The very definition of the word liberal
includes openness to change. Perhaps
you hang out with the wrong liberals,
or perhaps the only "liberals" you are
familiar with are the ones you hear
about on Fox News and Michael Savage.
\_ "When people think, Democrats win" -Bubba
\_ e.g.?
\_ WorldNetDaily, freepers, etc.
\_ Ha ha ha, liberals, right.
\_ Is there anything in that article or my statement
that is incorrect as opposed to inconvenient
to your interpretation of the world?
\_ "In fact, Republicans filibustered several of
then-President Clinton's ambassadorial and
Justice Department appointments in the 1990s and
attempted to filibuster Clinton's judicial
nominees." Patently false.
\_ Did you read the whole article? Do you doubt
the Washington Post's and New York Times'
reporting on Senate dealings?
\_ You mean the 85-12 vote to cut off an
"attempted" filibuster? Doesn't sound like
a filibuster to me. No, I don't trust this
site to accurately quote the sources, and I
don't trust the NY Times period. The Post
is iffy.
\_ You're really not worth talking to.
\_ Name a Clinton appointee who was
filibustered. Go for it.
\_ Did you read the article? Sam Brown.
For judicial nominees, as the article
says, there were a number of attempts
at fillibustering his nominees. There
were also a number of others that never
went to a committee hearing because they
blocked them procedurally.
\_ I'm unable to confirm Sam Brown
anywhere else. Can you?
\_ How 'bout the congressional
record?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r103:E08JN4-62
\_ Nope. The house is not the
senate, and considering how
people seem to redefine
filibuster, this isn't
acceptable.
\_ You're a fucking imbecile.
\_ You've got to be kidding
me. Wait...does the next
line go "I know you are
but what am I"?
\_ To believe that the
sources offered are
tricking you, you
would have to be
dangerously unbalanced
or mind-bogglingly
stupid. Either way,
you're not worth
talking to.
\_ I don't believe
they're "tricking"
me. The quote I
found yesterday had
a R senator saying
that stopping
someone in
committee is a
filibuster. Just
having the word
'filibuster' isn't
enough.
Also Henry Foster for Surgeon
General in 1995. Let's see
if your researching skills are
better on him.
\_ Okay, I can verify that. Which
explains the R's limiting the
claim to judges.
\_ After they applied the claim
in general...
\_ So, as the person says
below, are these filibusters
only "wrong" when they
succeed?
\_ So your position is that it is moral to
attempt a filibuster as long as you
don't succeed? Only successful filibusters
are immoral and unconstitutional?
\_ It's seriously fun watching Frist try
to make this maneuver.
\_ I've no position on the "morality" of a
filibuster. I'm for getting rid of it
entirely.
\_ So you admit the Republicans are
hypocrites, but you support them
anyway.
anyway. Did you have the same
opinion about the filibuster when
Clinton was in office?
\_ So.. you want the senate to be the
house with fewer people...
\_ The filibuster and size aren't the
only differences between the house
and senate. And if you distrust
the house, should we eliminate it? |
| 11/23 |
|
| csua.org/u/c3q -> www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-filibuster18may18,0,4593651.story Count this page on the side of conservative social activists who are pushing Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to " nuke" the filibuster. We don't share these activists' enthusiasm for the White House judicial n ominees triggering the current showdown. But we do believe that nominees are entitled to a vote on the floor of the Senate. The filibuster, an a rcane if venerable parliamentary tactic that empowers a minority of 41 s enators to block a vote, goes above and beyond those checks on majority power legitimately written into the Constitution. ADVERTISEMENT The filibuster is an inherently reactionary instrument most famously used to block civil rights legislation for a generation. Democratic senators themselves decried the filibuster not long ago when they were in the ma jority and President Clinton's judicial nominees were being blocked. Frist is on the verge of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. He plans to bring the nomination of Priscilla R Owen, a Texas Supreme Cour t justice, before the full Senate today. Democrats have blocked her nomi nation in the past, and Frist is now threatening to force a change in ru les to prohibit filibusters of judicial nominees. It would be an even greater triumph if the Senate were to destroy the filibuster altogether. Alas, we shouldn't uncork the champagne bottles just yet. Because the fil ibuster is at heart a conservative's weapon, and because Frist is essent ially asking senators (regardless of their ideology) to relinquish some of their individual power, we're fearful that the centrists may yet prev ail. That would be one judicious compromise that would deny the American people a worthwhile victory. |
| mediamatters.org/items/200503160004 In advocating the so-called "nuclear option" to bar Senate filibusters ag ainst judicial nominees, Fox News host Sean Hannity and Roll Call execut ive editor Morton M Kondracke gave misleading accounts of historical ef forts to block nominees. On the March 15 edition of Hannity & Colmes, Ha nnity declared that "this is the first time in history that this has bee n used against nominees that would be confirmed." The same day on Fox Ne ws' Special Report with Brit Hume, Kondracke said that "there's never be en a judicial nomination that actually went to a filibuster, and the Dem ocrats have filibustered a number of President Bush's nominees." In fact , Republicans filibustered several of then-President Clinton's ambassado rial and Justice Department appointments in the 1990s and attempted to f ilibuster Clinton's judicial nominees. blocked approximately 60 Clinton judicial nominees, denying them votes on the Senate floor and d enying most even a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. In addition to the approximately 60 judicial nominees that the Republican -led Senate blocked without resorting to a filibuster, several Republica n senators, including current Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), unsucce ssfully attempted to filibuster other Clinton judicial nominees. reported on November 13, 2003: "As recently as March 2000, several Republicans voted to filibuster two Californians whom Pres ident Clinton had named to the 9th Circuit appellate court: Richard A P aez and Marsha L Berzon. Ultimately, the Republican stalling tactic s failed, and both jurists now sit on the appellate court." The Washingt on Post documented a third attempted filibuster of a Clinton judicial no minee on October 5, 1994: The Senate "voted 85 to 12 to cut off a filibu ster against confirmation of US District Judge H Lee Sarokin as a mem ber of the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals. noted in the March 3 issue of The Nation, Frist distorted the facts to defend his participation in the filibuster of the Paez nomination: When confronted about his vote late last year, Frist claimed he filibust ered Paez for "scheduling" purposes. A press release by forme r Senator Bob Smith titled "Smith Leads Effort to Block Activist Judici al Nominees" plainly states that the intent of the filibuster was to "b lock" the Paez nomination. In the first several years of Clinton's presidency, Republicans in the Se nate also used the filibuster to block several non-judicial nominees. Dellinger to become Assistant Attorney General for the office of legal counsel." Sim ilarly, the Washington Post reported on May 25, 1994, that the Senate "f ailed by six votes to break a GOP-led filibuster against the ambassadori al nomination of one-time anti-Vietnam War activist Sam Brown." Finally, Republicans did sustain a filibuster against the promotion of a Democratic president's judicial appointee in 1968. reported on December 13, 2004: "In 1968, Republicans filibustered Pre sident Lyndon B Johnson's choice of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas to be chief justice, but Johnson withdrew the nomination in the face of Fo rtas's likely rejection by the Senate." |
| mm.org If y ou choose to continue using your current browser however, all of our con tent will continue to be accessible. Matchmaker - by the time you meet, you know * Already a member? If you choose to continue with th e use of your current browser however, all of our content will continue to be accessible to all versions of every browser. |