[maxelson]

I don't like how the game is going so I am going to change the rules.

According to the Senate majority, there is a " "confirmation crisis" at work as is evidenced by the opposition's filibustering of presidential judicial nominees.
Is there?
The confirmation of 127 out of 129 nominees is a crisis? So. 127 out of 129 is... lesse... carry the one... divide... uh... 99%?!?! I see. We did not get 100%, so we are less than happy. Exactly who is it thinks that the American people are going to agree with the President 100% of the time?

So. Let's just do this: ignore the rules that have been longstanding (last time this rule was altered was... 25 years back? More? Prior to that was the early 19th century, I think), change the rules so that a majority vote means a vote. Sounds harmless? Hm. Not really. It means pretty much either ALL nominees get through, or NONE. Ignore the intent of the original lawmakers (who, incidentally, gave the power to ONE senator to block a vote). Lets just hand ALL of the power over to the Executive Branch. Because that IS what this would mean. Republican, Democrat, no matter. It ensures that all of the confirmation power goes from the hands of the sentate to the hands of the President. And it is WRONG.
Checks and Balances, people. They ain't there for shyts and giggles.

The hypocirsy and retaliatory "blue slipping" fromk BOTH sides of the aisle is just plain objectionable.

Now. In the discussion- if you want to toss partisanism in- it is YOUR responsibility and YOUR problem... and YOUR invitation to flame. If you want to DISCUSS the matter, well, I'll be happy to join in. Wave your "LIES OF THE LEFT" or "FACISM OF THE RIGHT" flags in some other thread.

[Lerkfish]

I'm no fan of filibusters, I personally think they're a wierd vestigial organ from early democracy, but since they are and have been used by all sides of the aisle, I agree that attempting to limit them because they aren't getting 100% compliance is a grand mal republican temper tantrum.

It's the one thing that disgusts me about republicans: they're sore winners. Even when they get what they want, they still whine and b!tch and moan act all victimized. Its annoying.

oh, sorry, that was partisan of me.

to correct that: I think democrats are sore losers. When they don't get what they want, they whine and b!tch and moan.

The difference is, when they win, they just gloat.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
\It's the one thing that disgusts me about republicans: they're sore winners. Even when they get what they want, they still whine and b!tch and moan act all victimized. Its annoying.

You really crack me up sometimes Lerk. Give me a break.

[davesimondotcom]

The fillibuster (a real one) is a strange beast. Used by minorities to get attention and take some power from majorities, it's kind of neat.

If someone is going to fillibuster though, do it old school - 24 hour long speaches and such. Read the phone book. Whatever. Do it with STYLE...

The current "fillibuster" when it comes to confirming judges is weak, and it's not done with any style.

Changing the rules? I'm not sure if that's the answer. And I mean that for both sides. This "fillibuster" is pretty much an attempt to change the rules from 51 (a simple majority) votes to confirm a judge to 60 votes.

[boots]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Changing the rules? I'm not sure if that's the answer. And I mean that for both sides. This "fillibuster" is pretty much an attempt to change the rules from 51 (a simple majority) votes to confirm a judge to 60 votes.

More importantly, it is intended to save the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Which is why it ruffle so many feathers...who wants to be labeled tyranic?

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by boots:
More importantly, it is intended to save the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Which is why it ruffle so many feathers...who wants to be labeled tyranic?

I don't believe confirming a qualified judge is opening the door to tyrany.

They went along so willingly when it came to passing the Patriot Act, but draw the line when it comes to confirming a judge?

It has less to do with protecting the nation from tyrany and more to do with protecting their interests in the D.C. Circuit Court.

[boots]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
I don't believe confirming a qualified judge is opening the door to tyrany.

They went along so willingly when it came to passing the Patriot Act, but draw the line when it comes to confirming a judge?

It has less to do with protecting the nation from tyrany and more to do with protecting their interests in the D.C. Circuit Court.

I wasn't meaning to comment on the pettiness of it's use...just the implications of what it says. Yes/is, it was petty in this case. Yes, it is indirectly calling the the other side tyranical. The word may not have been used in the debates, but that is the implication of both the words and the act.

Though I will acknowledge that "qualified" has its subjective meanings.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I'm no fan of filibusters, I personally think they're a wierd vestigial organ from early democracy, but since they are and have been used by all sides of the aisle, I agree that attempting to limit them because they aren't getting 100% compliance is a grand mal republican temper tantrum.

I would argue that filibusters are a vital Senate tool, at least from a standpoint of what the Senate is designed for. I posted awhile back in a Senate thread about Thomas Jefferson, who explained it to George Washington in this way: the Senate is the saucer to cool the tea. It is the safeguard against legislation simply getting ramrodded through by the executive branch and a majority within itself. Having said that, while filibustering is a useful part of this design, it can be abused. A Senator can hold up an entire bill just to add a totally unrelated amendment to it. The power held by southern states decades ago was derived in large part by their use of the filibuster, which they used to hold up civil rights legislation.

In the '70s, the Senate voted to relax the requirements for cloture, which is the tool for overcoming a filibuster. The number of Senators needed to invoke cloture was reduced from 67 to 60.

Anyway, discussion of changing of such a fundamental component of the Senate is kind of scary. I think it's not such a wise thing to do, especially given the motivation behind it.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by boots:
Though I will acknowledge that "qualified" has its subjective meanings.

True. And we won't get into that in this thread - one exists already for it.

[finboy]

Sure, the count is 127 out of 129 at this point, but how long did it take to get to that count? The Dems really pulled a good stonewall on this when they held the leadership of the Senate, no wonder that Republicans are tired of hearing it. There's a lot of backstory there, courtesy of the heavy hand of Daschle and the other Dems who were running the show.

[maxelson]

Fin. I'll remind you of the true partisan element here: The previous administration saw BUTTLOADS of Blue Slipping by the party currently holding the majority. Please don't even attempt to put this into a partisan light. Goose, gander and all that. Hypocrisy is what I hear coming out of the mouths of the majority now (at least SOME will admit it is retaliation) and hypocrisy was what I heard coming out of the mouths of the other side of the aisle when THEY were the majority.

127 out of 129 is what we have since the start of it. And you push the criticism onto the amount of TIME it took? C'mon. That is a little thin. I can tell you EXACTLY how much time it took. When did GW first begin putting forth nominees? No matter HOW you want to spin it, it is STILL 99% of the nominees confirmed and you cannot dispute that. The Heavy Hands are held by the majority. ALWAYS. It is left to the minority to fight those hands.

I was interested- very interested- to see how this would be justified by our friends here.

So. Your answer here is this: retaliation. Well, at least on that point some of the members of the majority are at least being honest.
It could be said that the filibusters are in retaliation, but in order to make that case hold better, one would think there would be MORE filibusters or at LEAST long holds. But there have NOT been. The sticking point is TWO nominees who are objectionable to the minority. Your opinion or mine on whether or not they are is irrelevant. The minority does not like them and will not confirm them. 2 out of the entire lot. 2. And that is not good enough for the opposition?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
In the '70s, the Senate voted to relax the requirements for cloture, which is the tool for overcoming a filibuster. The number of Senators needed to invoke cloture was reduced from 67 to 60.

Yeah, and before then, when Jimmy Stewart was in the Senate, it only took 1 senator to have a filibuster.

I posted awhile back in a Senate thread about Thomas Jefferson, who explained it to George Washington in this way: the Senate is the saucer to cool the tea.

Does the saucer cool the tea? I thought it prevented the drips from getting on the table.

[boots]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Yeah, and before then, when Jimmy Stewart was in the Senate, it only took 1 senator to have a filibuster.Does the saucer cool the tea? I thought it prevented the drips from getting on the table.

A lot of people used to pour from the cup into the saucer and dring from the saucer. Not a lot of people in high social circles, but it freaked me out the first time I say it. (No, I don't think that's what he meant, just feeling goofy today.)

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Yeah, and before then, when Jimmy Stewart was in the Senate, it only took 1 senator to have a filibuster.Does the saucer cool the tea? I thought it prevented the drips from getting on the table.

No, their is no secret technology in the saucer. Unlike a thermos, which I still don't know how it knows when you want something to stay hot or stay cold. How does it know?

Instead of holding it in your hand, you set the tea cup in the saucer, where it cools. Smart @ss.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by boots:
A lot of people used to pour from the cup into the saucer and dring from the saucer. Not a lot of people in high social circles, but it freaked me out the first time I say it. (No, I don't think that's what he meant, just feeling goofy today.)

Is this in retaliation for my silliness in the cliche thread?

[OreoCookie]

I don't like Filibusters, no matter which party does it. It's annoying.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
I don't like Filibusters, no matter which party does it. It's annoying.

Of course they are. They annoy the majority who would otherwise have their way without thought to the minority.

[davesimondotcom]

Has there ever been a band called The Fillibusters? Seems like it would be a good name for one that plays really long renditions of Dueling Banjos.

[finboy]

Originally posted by maxelson:


So. Your answer here is this: retaliation.

No, I'm not pulling for retaliation, I'm asking for consistency in criticism. If folks are going to criticize the Republicans for damning the Democrats, then they should remember the obstructionist cries of the recent past as well.

Personally, I'm disappointed with the current snail's pace in the Senate and the House. And I'm disappointed with both parties, but more so with the Republicans because I EXPECT the Dems to drag their feets. I'm not sure I'd trust ANY of the bastards to wash my truck, either party.

[maxelson]

Wait. There was a time in the last 25 years where snails pace WASN'T the norm?

Sorry, fin. It seemed to me that you might have been pointing out a justification for the proposed rule changes.

I expect POLITICIANS to drag the feet when the outcome is not what they want. True bipartisanism and, you know, I wish there were a way I could address the Senate on this issue because it is just plain offensive. It was offensive before and it is now. What is MORE offensive is listening to these goons spin their side of the situation. It would be comic if it were not so serious.

But changing the rules? GIFTING the Executive branch with MORE power? They do that and they damned well better remember two things- a) They won't get it back and
b) they WILL regret the day they decided to make it a tactic. They WILL.
And so will WE.

Heh. Maybe that should be filibustered as well.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I think democrats are sore losers. When they don't get what they want, they whine and b!tch and moan.

And then they sneak across the border and refuse to show up for legislative duty.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
And then they sneak across the border and refuse to show up for legislative duty.

Yep. No GOP legislator misses a session.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
And then they sneak across the border and refuse to show up for legislative duty.

And while they are gone, the opposition changes the rules.
And who's better, I ask?
Nevermind. I know what you would say.
But remember- an change in those rules will only TEMPORARILY make your party happy. What will they do when it backfires? Try to change the rules back? And then blame THEIR opposition for making them do it?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
And then they sneak across the border and refuse to show up for legislative duty.

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Yep. No GOP legislator misses a session.