Are you cool with Republicans changing the law to get what they want? - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

woj · 05-18-2005, 06:25 PM

50 republicans...

GatorB · 05-18-2005, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

the checks and balances system as a whole is somewhat flawed.

say 55 of the 100 senetors are repubs. There is a democrat in the white house who, like clinton, got about 40% of the vote in a three way race but won the electoral college. The senate writes a bill and passes it 55 to 45 and sends it to the white house. the president vetos the bill. the senate can now override his veto with a 2/3 votes but can't get enough votes so the bill dies.

this is a great case of the minority ruling. the majority of the states elected a republican senator. Only 40% of the people in the country voted for the president, but that minority wins.

The checks and balances system is not in place to assure that the majority rules, it is there to make sure the process is fair and that no one branch can run roughshot over the government.

And Bush get less votes than Gore in 2000 so fucking what. So Gore should have been president because more people voted for him then.

Also if in your scenario since a bill got 55 votes it should be law no matter what the President wants? The why have a fucking President then? In your scenario the President may have only got 40% of the votes he got more votes than the other 2 guys. Besides as you know the President is elected by the electoral college not the people. And Clinton got WAY over 50% both times

Bird · 05-18-2005, 06:28 PM

they dio it anyway

GatorB · 05-18-2005, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FunForOne

Look back and get some quotes from the early 90s from the democrats wanting to do away with the fillabuster.

yes and...... so........? Did they? no. What you think a democrat? Nope never have been a registered dem. I have however been a registered republican before so I think I can speak for them.

Libertine · 05-18-2005, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FunForOne

Look back and get some quotes from the early 90s from the democrats wanting to do away with the fillabuster.

And that would have been just as bad.

MrJackMeHoff · 05-18-2005, 06:37 PM

Why bother.. You think you have any control on whats going to happen? I gave up long ago.

sperbonzo · 05-18-2005, 06:40 PM

Ok one more time for the people in the balconies....

Quote:

Originally Posted by FunForOne
Clinton?s eight-year appellate confirmation rate was 74%, in addition to getting two liberals confirmed to the Supreme Court.

He was able to have 377 of his nominees confirmed?five short of the all-time record. He lost one floor vote for a nominee to the district court. And when the Senate adjourned for the last time under his presidency, there were only 67 vacancies and only 41 nominations expired without action. Overall, that is a good record.

All very true. And another myth being perpitrated on this thread is that republicans used fillibusters to block nomination votes.....as a matter of fact, those nominations never got out of commitee.

This is the first time in 214 years that fillibusters have been used to block votes on judicial nominees.

The fact is that the Dems were so used to having control of congress for so many decades that they are now freaking out. They were ALWAYS the majority party since WWII, and when they finally lost it, they had Clinton. Because of that, they are now pulling out all the stops to block ANYTHING that the republican majority do. It's rather like spoiled children that are too used to getting their own way.

The funny thing is that Dems have no problem saying that the consitution is "lving and breathing" and can change with the times, but senatorial rules are absolute???

*sigh*

NoHassleSteve · 05-18-2005, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Besides as you know the President is elected by the electoral college not the people. And Clinton got WAY over 50% both times

http://presidentelect.org/e1992.html 43.0%
http://presidentelect.org/e1996.html 49.2%

The filibuster isn't in the Constitution, the actual checks and balances are.

The minority has the right to be heard, but not to get their way.
When Republicans blocked Clinton's nominations, it was probably when they
controlled the Senate. That's the advantage to winning elections, you end up with more power.

If people don't like the elected officials, vote against them.
and if you don't like the system, do what you can to change the system.

But way too many people on this thread are ignoring the real issues here:
Both Democrats and Republicans are still obeying the Constitution.
And the Constitution lets the Senate set its own rules, which means the
Senate, by a majority, can ditch the filibuster.
It's all legal. You might not like it. But it's perfectly legal and Constitutional.

The best answer for Democrats is to just stop losing elections so they won't have to complain about being pushed around by the majority party.

sperbonzo · 05-18-2005, 06:46 PM

Quote:

The best answer for Democrats is to just stop losing elections so they won't have to complain about being pushed around by the majority party.

....FINALLY.....SOMEBODY GOT TO THE POINT!

kane · 05-18-2005, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

And Bush get less votes than Gore in 2000 so fucking what. So Gore should have been president because more people voted for him then.

Also if in your scenario since a bill got 55 votes it should be law no matter what the President wants? The why have a fucking President then? In your scenario the President may have only got 40% of the votes he got more votes than the other 2 guys. Besides as you know the President is elected by the electoral college not the people. And Clinton got WAY over 50% both times

actually yes Gore should have been elected the electoral college is outdated and should be done away with, in my opinion.

as fo the second part, my point is that the checks and balances system is in place to allow for everyone to have a voice and so that one group/person/party cannont run roughshot over the country and do as they please.

rambler · 05-18-2005, 06:54 PM

This is obviously what the majority of Americans (like FunForOne) want. So you guys should be happy and celebrate.

sperbonzo · 05-18-2005, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

actually yes Gore should have been elected the electoral college is outdated and should be done away with, in my opinion.

You may not understand why the electoral college is there. Without it, the population centers on the coasts would completely overrule states in the center that they have nothing in common with and do not share issues with. What is important to people in montana is not important to people in NY, and so forth. Issues for everybody need to be represented, that's the only fair representation, and it was set up that way by the founders so that just because people in big cities don't think that what happens in Oregon (eg) is important, the people in oregon still have some kind of say in the matter...

GatorB · 05-18-2005, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoHassleSteve

http://presidentelect.org/e1992.html 43.0%
http://presidentelect.org/e1996.html 49.2%

Can you not read. The president is elected by the electoral college and I can you Clinton got OVER 50% in those elections. But using YOUR stats explain this

Gore 50,996,116
Bush 50,456,169

So why didn't we have a President Gore?

Quote:

The filibuster isn't in the Constitution, the actual checks and balances are.

And the fact that a vetoed bill needs a 60% vote to become law is in the Constitution yet the same person is bitching about that too. Don't use the "fillibuster isn't in the Constituion so it should be used" crap then whine about something that is in the Constitution.

Quote:

But way too many people on this thread are ignoring the real issues here:
Both Democrats and Republicans are still obeying the Constitution.
And the Constitution lets the Senate set its own rules, which means the
Senate, by a majority, can ditch the filibuster.
It's all legal. You might not like it. But it's perfectly legal and Constitutional.

Yes and I said is when the republican do this one day the tables will be turned and they will regret it. then that will be thier problem not mine and I won't feel a bit sorry for them. The republican are being very hypocritcal when they think all of Bush's nominees should be becomes judges because he wants then to when if Kerry was President they'd be voting against most of his nominations left and right.

Look if you have a opinion or belief or ideology that's different than mine we don't have to agree and I can repsect your views as long as you aren't a hypocrite. republican are hypocrites. yes dems are too but they have no power. Repubs control everything look it up. I say fight the power. Dems have none. They are inconsequential.

President - Repub
House - Repub
Senate - Repub
Supreme Court - Repub
Governors - Repub
State Legislators - Repub

Quote:

The best answer for Democrats is to just stop losing elections so they won't have to complain about being pushed around by the majority party.

Easier said than done. All a repub has to say to the ignorant masses is "He wants to take away your guns, make your daughters get abortions and make you kids become gay and have them get married" and BOOM instant win for republican.

GatorB · 05-18-2005, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

as fo the second part, my point is that the checks and balances system is in place to allow for everyone to have a voice and so that one group/person/party cannont run roughshot over the country and do as they please.

So why haven't the checks and balances work for the last 4 years then. The fact that Bush has not vetoed ONE bill in his 4+ years as President is pretty much proof he is geting whatever he wants.

Libertine · 05-18-2005, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

You may not understand why the electoral college is there. Without it, the population centers on the coasts would completely overrule states in the center that they have nothing in common with and do not share issues with. What is important to people in montana is not important to people in NY, and so forth. Issues for everybody need to be represented, that's the only fair representation, and it was set up that way by the founders so that just because people in big cities don't think that what happens in Oregon (eg) is important, the people in oregon still have some kind of say in the matter...

That's absolute nonsense, which is quite clear from the fact that Bush got more votes than Kerry, even though Kerry did better on the coasts and Bush did better in the center.

Without the electoral college, every vote would count equally, and since there are quite a few people living in the center of the US, any politician hoping to win the presidency would also have to pay attention to those states.

The main difference, however, would be that conservative voices on the coasts and progressive/liberal voices in the center would also be heard. One could argue that that would be a good thing.

mardigras · 05-18-2005, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Easier said than done. All a repub has to say to the ignorant masses is "He wants to take away your guns, make your daughters get abortions and make you kids become gay and have them get married" and BOOM instant win for republican.

I received 3 mailings during the last election saying that the Democrats planned to ban the Bible and force acceptance of gay marriages, amongst other "scare the gullible" claims.

FunForOne · 05-18-2005, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

actually yes Gore should have been elected the electoral college is outdated and should be done away with, in my opinion.

You cant say it like that.

If the electoral college would not have been in place, the campaigns would have been different.

This works both ways.

Gore stayed out of texas and Bush stayed out of New York. If it was a popular vote, the candidates would have spent their time in those states.

Heck, even the political parties might have chosen different candidates that performed better in those states.

In my opinion, thats why we have the electoral college.

FunForOne · 05-18-2005, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mardigras

I received 3 mailings during the last election saying that the Democrats planned to ban the Bible and force acceptance of gay marriages, amongst other "scare the gullible" claims.

I got emails saying that Bush had secret plans to reinstate the draft and some repulican soldiers in Iraq were against Bush.

Even Kerry made up some fictional soldiers that he met in wendys that told him they "needed him."

As far as the biblical stuff and gay marriage. That showed how hijacked the democratic party was.

They should know that the south is predominatly Democrat and no democrat can get elected without winning the south.

What do they do the year of the election? Activitist judges start changing the pledge of alliegence and performing gay weddings.
The republicans couldn't have bought better campaign adds to play in the southern states, and the liberals were doing it on behalf of the democratic party.

I'm a young guy in the South. Our parents and their parents were registered democrats. They called themselves conservative democrats. (Like Billy Clinton)

They have a new name for those southern conservative democrats now, they call them "republicans".

reynold · 05-18-2005, 07:18 PM

Both republicans and Democrats are playing the same game men!

Libertine · 05-18-2005, 07:24 PM

Now, back to the issue at hand.

Changing the rules to fit your direct political needs rather than because of the actual merits of those rules is ad hoc rulemaking, something which is almost always detrimental to both political balance and to democracy.

Just because something goes by the rules does not mean it is right, nor does it mean it follows the spirit of those rules. For example, if in democratic elections one group gets an 80% majority, it can prohibit those who don't support that group from voting. Perfectly legal, yet not right at all.
Likewise, a much smaller majority could gain long-term political power by, say, changing voting districts' boundaries (sound familiar?). Or, it could strongly limit large majorities' rights to be heard.

The point is that changing rules for the sole purpose of increasing one's own political power is an undemocratic and extremely dangerous practice. Yes, it can be done within the constitution and within the existing rules, but every lawbook, every constitution can be undermined from within.

FunForOne · 05-18-2005, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by punkworld

Now, back to the issue at hand.

Changing the rules to fit your direct political needs rather than because of the actual merits of those rules is ad hoc rulemaking, something which is almost always detrimental to both political balance and to democracy.

Just because something goes by the rules does not mean it is right, nor does it mean it follows the spirit of those rules. For example, if in democratic elections one group gets an 80% majority, it can prohibit those who don't support that group from voting. Perfectly legal, yet not right at all.
Likewise, a much smaller majority could gain long-term political power by, say, changing voting districts' boundaries (sound familiar?). Or, it could strongly limit large majorities' rights to be heard.

The point is that changing rules for the sole purpose of increasing one's own political power is an undemocratic and extremely dangerous practice. Yes, it can be done within the constitution and within the existing rules, but every lawbook, every constitution can be undermined from within.

You know, you sound like you are describing the first fillabuster.

GatorB · 05-18-2005, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by punkworld

That's absolute nonsense, which is quite clear from the fact that Bush got more votes than Kerry, even though Kerry did better on the coasts and Bush did better in the center.

Without the electoral college, every vote would count equally, and since there are quite a few people living in the center of the US, any politician hoping to win the presidency would also have to pay attention to those states.

The main difference, however, would be that conservative voices on the coasts and progressive/liberal voices in the center would also be heard. One could argue that that would be a good thing.

Exactly. Do you think a republican in Mass or a Democrat in Wyoming feel his vote counts? Of course not. The electoral college makes some votes more important than others. N Dakota, S Dakota, Wyoming, Idaho, Alaska, Nebraska and Montana have a combined population 1/2 than that of Illinois combined but have the more electoral votes comdined. That's just not fair. And we all know who those 7 small states are voting for. They'd vote republican if Hilter was the nominee and Bin Laden was the VP candidate just because they had Rs next to their names.

Wyoming has 1 electoral vote per 167K citizens while California has 1 one electoral vote per every 655K citizens. So a vote in Wyoming is almost 4 times more valuable than a vote in California. Yeah what a fair system.

The fact is that since a dem knows he's not winning the 7 small states I mentioned and a reublican knows he will win NEITHER candiadte is going to put any time or money or visit any of those states. Now wasn't that the point of the electoral college in the first place? To make the small states feel important? How improtant are you if you are IGNORED?

Libertine · 05-18-2005, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FunForOne

You know, you sound like you are describing the first fillabuster.

If the filibuster is a bad practice and the rules should be changed to make it impossible, that should happen outside of a single issue like the one at hand, and it most certainly should not happen to further a single party's political power at a specific point in time.

GatorB · 05-18-2005, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FunForOne

They should know that the south is predominatly Democrat and no democrat can get elected without winning the south.

Bullshit. I've lived in Tennessee for 12 fucking years the south is REPUBLICAN controlled.

kane · 05-18-2005, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

You may not understand why the electoral college is there. Without it, the population centers on the coasts would completely overrule states in the center that they have nothing in common with and do not share issues with. What is important to people in montana is not important to people in NY, and so forth. Issues for everybody need to be represented, that's the only fair representation, and it was set up that way by the founders so that just because people in big cities don't think that what happens in Oregon (eg) is important, the people in oregon still have some kind of say in the matter...

the electoral college is ment to give everyone an equal voice which, if it were the case, is not a bad idea. but the way it is the value of peoples votes is skewed. Here's a great site http://civilliberty.about.com/od/sta...sFacts0626.htm it shows you, based on population and # of electoral votes, what the actual value of a persons vote is state by state. So if you live in california your vote is actually worth about .85 votes if you live in wyoming your vote is worth 3.2 votes that's not an equal voice. Also look at it from a one vote standpoint. If the election for oregon comes down to one vote and it's my vote whomever I vote for gets all 7 electoral votes. so my vote really is worht 7 electoral votes. If the same thing happens in california that one vote is now worth 55 votes.

The population centers of this country always have and always will run this country. You can win the electoral college by only winning about 30% of the states if you win the big states. With every other election in the nation we go with majority rules, whoever gets the most votes wins. the founding fathers had a great idea and in it's day i'm sure it worked great, but today it is outdated and only serves to cause more divide in the country.

mardigras · 05-18-2005, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by punkworld

If the filibuster is a bad practice and the rules should be changed to make it impossible, that should happen outside of a single issue like the one at hand, and it most certainly should not happen to further a single party's political power at a specific point in time.

Touche'

kane · 05-18-2005, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FunForOne

You cant say it like that.

If the electoral college would not have been in place, the campaigns would have been different.

This works both ways.

Gore stayed out of texas and Bush stayed out of New York. If it was a popular vote, the candidates would have spent their time in those states.

Heck, even the political parties might have chosen different candidates that performed better in those states.

In my opinion, thats why we have the electoral college.

this is exactly why we should not have the electoral college. If I'm a democrate and I live in texas I know that my guy has not chance in hell of winning that state so why bother voting, my vote will not have any effect on the election. If it were a general election my vote would at least then count.

NoHassleSteve · 05-18-2005, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Can you not read.

Yes, but from what you wrote, I thought you were rewriting history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

The president is elected by the electoral college and I can you Clinton got OVER 50% in those elections. But using YOUR stats explain this

Gore 50,996,116
Bush 50,456,169

So why didn't we have a President Gore?

Because of the Electoral College which, unlike 99% of GFY you appear to understand.

Ever since November 2000, especially in November 2004, it has been
apparent that most Americans don't understand how the Electoral College
works. And VERY few understand why it exists. So I do tend to get bent
out of shape when it looks like people aren't understanding.

Sure, we can all debate and disagree over whether it should continue to exist.
But the reasons behind its existence and the legality of its functioning aren't very debatable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

And the fact that a vetoed bill needs a 60% vote to become law is in the Constitution yet the same person is bitching about that too. Don't use the "fillibuster isn't in the Constituion so it should be used" crap then whine about something that is in the Constitution.

Actually, it's 2/3. But no matter what the number, you won't catch me bitching when the veto or anything else in the Constitution is used.
I might say I think something should be changed.. or not changed.
But I won't complain if, by a miracle, the government follows its own rules.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Look if you have a opinion or belief or ideology that's different than mine we don't have to agree and I can repsect your views as long as you aren't a hypocrite. republican are hypocrites. yes dems are too but they have no power.

Except the filibuster for now...

theking · 05-18-2005, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bignasty

what pisses me off about it is how the republicans were using these same filibusters a few years back to block some of bill clinton's nominees, but now they don't think it's right to use them. fucking hypocrits.

You are guilty of posting misinformation.

theking · 05-18-2005, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrFierce

Removing the fillibuster would seriously damage any minority party's ability to block legislation they find particularly objectionable, allowing for simple majority rule voting. The drawbacks are that a simple majority would be able to seize power by the removal of this check and balance procedure, the founding fathers made rules of checks and balances to prevent just this sort of one party domination of the country, by allowing a minor majority party to use their minor majority to rewrite the rules of procedure at any time to suit their own liking willresult in the consolidation of power only to the ruling party and giving the ruling party the ability to write laws and legislation that could then be used to favor only the ruling party. This is very dangerous territory since one party will always have a one vote majority or better in the senate

This is not about removing the fillibuster per se. This is about using the fillibuster against a President's nominees...a singular area of the use of the fillibuster.

FunForOne · 05-18-2005, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Bullshit. I've lived in Tennessee for 12 fucking years the south is REPUBLICAN controlled.

I dont have time to get the numbers, but look at local elections in the south. Even texas elects democrats as governors.

AmateurFlix · 05-18-2005, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

You may not understand why the electoral college is there. Without it, the population centers on the coasts would completely overrule states in the center that they have nothing in common with and do not share issues with. What is important to people in montana is not important to people in NY, and so forth. Issues for everybody need to be represented, that's the only fair representation, and it was set up that way by the founders so that just because people in big cities don't think that what happens in Oregon (eg) is important, the people in oregon still have some kind of say in the matter...

Not trying to be sarcastic here at all, but I was under the impression the electoral college was created because at the time the public was considered to be too ignorant and illiterate to be relied upon to make an educated decision as to their representatives. Keep in mind this was a time when the only form of mass communication was the newspaper and most citizens couldn't read.

SuckOnThis · 05-18-2005, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FunForOne

As a result, one party is slowing loosing credibility with the public on various issues. So much so, that party has found itself in the minority and heading the wrong way.

You finally said something correct.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7899754/
Voters dissatisfied with Bush, Congress

'Just 33 percent of the respondents approve of Congress? job. That?s down 6 points since a poll in April and 8 points since January.'

'Overall, according to the NBC/Journal poll, 52 percent believe the nation is headed in the wrong direction, while 35 percent think it?s on the right track.'

theking · 05-18-2005, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by punkworld

Do you believe a small majority should have absolute power?

A majority is a majority. Every two years for the House...every four years for the Presidency...every six years for the Senate the American voters can change who is in the majority...if they so choose. Past history dictates that the voters normally vote for the opposite party that is in the Presidency...when it comes to voting for members of the House and Senate. Admittedly this is not the current situation but will probably go back to the norm at some point.

theking · 05-18-2005, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

this whole thing is just a big mess waiting to happen. First off bush has put up 218 judges for appointment. 208 of them have been approved. 10 were not. After his reelection he put those same 10 back up and they were again stopped. By comparison the reubs blocked about 60 of clintons nominees. But that is not the case ( who had more blocked ) the repubs are pissed they are getting thier way so they want to change the rules. If they do this the dems have already said they will flood the congress with thier agenda. In the past congress has always worked on a certian system when it comes to setting the agenda on what will be voted on. That is that the party in the majority sets the agenda. There are many rules and things that will allow the minority group to force thier agenda. That is what the dems will do. They have already said that they will use all the rules and fine print to slow down commitees and force thier agenda on the congress. So if the repubs do this, they will get thier vote on these 10 judges but in the end they will start a much bigger fight that will all but bring congress to a hault.

"bring congress to a hault"...what you mean to say is SNAFU.

Mr.Fiction · 05-18-2005, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmateurFlix

Not trying to be sarcastic here at all, but I was under the impression the electoral college was created because at the time the public was considered to be too ignorant and illiterate to be relied upon to make an educated decision as to their representatives. Keep in mind this was a time when the only form of mass communication was the newspaper and most citizens couldn't read.

If it wasn't on Fox or Rush, the person you replied to will not believe it.

If it is on Fox or Rush, he will believe it no matter how wrong it is.

They are called sheep and they are brainwashed.

FunForOne · 05-18-2005, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

If it wasn't on Fox or Rush, the person you replied to will not believe it.

If it is on Fox or Rush, he will believe it no matter how wrong it is.

They are called sheep and they are brainwashed.

A guy named "mr fiction" uses an overused political sterotype to call someone else a brainwashed sheep.

I had to point out the irony.

Mr.Fiction · 05-18-2005, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

This is the first time in 214 years that fillibusters have been used to block votes on judicial nominees.

Falsehood #1: Democrats' filibuster of Bush nominees is "unprecedented"

The most prevalent talking point put forth by advocates of the "nuclear option" is that Democratic filibusters of 10 of President Bush's judicial nominees are "unprecedented" in American history.

But Republicans initiated a filibuster against a judicial nominee in 1968, forcing Democratic president Lyndon Johnson to withdraw the nomination of Associate Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas to be chief justice. Then-Sen. Robert Griffin (R-MI) recognized at the time that denying nominees a vote was already an established practice. "It is important to realize that it has not been unusual for the Senate to indicate its lack of approval for a nomination by just making sure that it never came to a vote on the merits. As I said, 21 nominations to the court have failed to win Senate approval. But only nine of that number were rejected on a direct, up-and-down vote," Griffin said, according to a May 10 New York Times op-ed by former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (D-ME).

Cloture votes were also necessary to obtain floor votes on Clinton judicial nominees Richard A. Paez and Marsha L. Berzon in 2000, and Republicans attempted to filibuster the nomination of U.S. District Judge H. Lee Sarokin to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1994. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), who is leading the Republican opposition to Democratic filibusters, voted against cloture for the Paez nomination.

And these are merely instances when Republicans filibustered Democratic presidents' judicial nominees. The Republican-controlled Senate blocked approximately 60 Clinton nominees through other means. This included strict enforcement under Clinton of the "blue slip" policy, which at the time allowed a senator from a nominee's home state to block a nominee simply by failing to turn in the blue-colored approval papers required for the nomination process. While Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) strictly adhered to the "blue slip" policy to allow Republicans to block Clinton nominees, he relaxed the policy nearly to the point of elimination in his efforts to push through Bush's nominees.

For example, Hatch held committee votes on the nominations of 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Carolyn B. Kuhl over the objections of Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), as well as four 6th Circuit nominees over their home state senators' objections.

Because of these numerous responses to Falsehood #1, proponents have honed their message in order to continue arguing that the present Democratic effort is "unprecedented." The argument has now been reduced to: It is unprecedented for a nominee to be blocked who 1) has clear majority support in the Senate; 2) has actually reached the Senate floor for an up-or-down vote; and 3) did not ultimately get confirmed after being filibustered.

The "clear majority" qualifier is designed to discount Fortas, even though "[i]t is impossible to gauge the exact support for Fortas because 12 senators were absent for the 'cloture' or 'closure' vote, which failed to halt the filibuster," as the Washington Post noted on March 18. The qualifier that a nominee reach the Senate floor disregards the approximately 60 Clinton nominees whom the Republican-led Senate blocked in committee. The qualifier that the filibuster be ultimately successful gets around Republican efforts to filibuster Paez and Berzon, who eventually won Senate confirmation.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200505180004

theking · 05-18-2005, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

sorry but you are mostly wrong.

yes the congress is there to check the president so that he can't just sign whatever he wants into law. But when the majority of the congress is repub and the president is repub then basically that makes this check non-existant. The check is in place to allow that the minority has a voice. if there are 99 repubs and 1 dem ( or reversed ) and that 1 lone senetor fillibusters so that he can be heard, then he must be heard and some kind of a concession must be at least approached. That is what happened here. The dems have offered to basically approve 3 of these judges in exchange for the some give on the repub side. But the repubs what it all or none.

We are allowing the senetors we elected to do thier job. I'm from a state that elected democrats. That would mean they are representing a more liberal constiuancy and by fighting against the current majority they are doing exactly what we elected them to do..

Just because you are the minority does not mean you should be voiceless.

Of course the minority is far from voiceless...they not only can deliberate on the Select Committees...they also can deliberate on the floor...they also can make their voices heard via free mailings to their constituents urging them to make their voices heard...in addition they have the ear of the press...to make their voices nationally heard.

Mr.Fiction · 05-18-2005, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FunForOne

A guy named "mr fiction" uses an overused political sterotype to call someone else a brainwashed sheep.

I had to point out the irony.

Ironic? Look at the post I made before this one. The brainwashed user I was talking about was repeating right wing talking points that were false.

He will still believe lies after seeing facts, because he was told to.

Libertine · 05-18-2005, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

A majority is a majority. Every two years for the House...every four years for the Presidency...every six years for the Senate the American voters can change who is in the majority...if they so choose. Past history dictates that the voters normally vote for the opposite party that is in the Presidency...when it comes to voting for members of the House and Senate. Admittedly this is not the current situation but will probably go back to the norm at some point.

A majority is a majority? I'd beg to differ. A majority of 60 can stop a filibuster, while a majority of 55 can not. A majority of two thirds can change the constitution, while a majority of three fifths can not.

Changing the rules to change which majority can do what merely because you happen to belong to that majority seems like a rather bad practice to me, even if the rules do allow it.

theking · 05-18-2005, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

so if you have 100 senetors and 51 of them are white and 49 are black and the whites voted that all black people should return to being slaves and we make slavery legal again, then this is okay?

this is an extreme situation but is that a majority, no matter how small, having absolute power?

Not a good analogy...in addition you seem to have forgotten about the checks of the courts...and particularly the Supreme Court.

Mr.Fiction · 05-18-2005, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

You are guilty of posting misinformation.

Republicans initiated a filibuster against a judicial nominee in 1968

http://mediamatters.org/items/200505180004

Mr.Fiction · 05-18-2005, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

Not a good analogy...in addition you seem to have forgotten about the checks of the courts...and particularly the Supreme Court.

That is circular logic - if there are no checks on who appoints judges, there are no checks by the judges, because they are appointed by the people who they are supposed to be checking.

Don't believe everything that you see on Fox!

theking · 05-18-2005, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

You may not understand why the electoral college is there. Without it, the population centers on the coasts would completely overrule states in the center that they have nothing in common with and do not share issues with. What is important to people in montana is not important to people in NY, and so forth. Issues for everybody need to be represented, that's the only fair representation, and it was set up that way by the founders so that just because people in big cities don't think that what happens in Oregon (eg) is important, the people in oregon still have some kind of say in the matter...

And you win the "golden ring"!

Mr.Fiction · 05-18-2005, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

You may not understand why the electoral college is there. Without it, the population centers on the coasts would completely overrule states in the center that they have nothing in common with and do not share issues with. What is important to people in montana is not important to people in NY, and so forth. Issues for everybody need to be represented, that's the only fair representation, and it was set up that way by the founders so that just because people in big cities don't think that what happens in Oregon (eg) is important, the people in oregon still have some kind of say in the matter...

So you are against allowing a simple majority to make decisions on behalf of all Americans?

theking · 05-18-2005, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

Republicans initiated a filibuster against a judicial nominee in 1968

http://mediamatters.org/items/200505180004

Quote:

Originally Posted by bignasty
what pisses me off about it is how the republicans were using these same filibusters a few years back to block some of bill clinton's nominees, but now they don't think it's right to use them. fucking hypocrits.

And I repeat...he is guilty of posting misinformation...thank you very much.

Libertine · 05-18-2005, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

And I repeat...he is guilty of posting misinformation...thank you very much.

Well, Lyndon kinda sounds like Bill, doesn't it?

GatorB · 05-18-2005, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FunForOne

I dont have time to get the numbers, but look at local elections in the south. Even texas elects democrats as governors.

Yeah. A Republican has been the governor of Texas for the last 10 years.

1994 Bush
1998 Bush
2002 Perry

In my state a republican was elected twice in 1994 and 1998. We did elect a Democrat in 2002 but the state senate is now controlled the republicans.

mardigras · 05-18-2005, 09:20 PM

Most southern states have republican governors now.

05-18-2005, 06:25 PM	#51
woj <&(©¿©)&> Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 47,882	50 republicans... __________________ Custom Software Development, email: woj#at#wojfun#.#com to discuss details or skype: wojl2000 or gchat: wojfun or telegram: wojl2000 Affiliate program tools: Hosted Galleries Manager Banner Manager Video Manager Wordpress Affiliate Plugin Pic/Movie of the Day Fansign Generator Zip Manager

05-18-2005, 06:28 PM	#53
Bird Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Stockton Posts: 4,365	control they dio it anyway __________________ ICQ:268731675

05-18-2005, 06:37 PM	#56
MrJackMeHoff Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: LOLLIPOP ISLAND =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Posts: 4,569	Why bother.. You think you have any control on whats going to happen? I gave up long ago. __________________

05-18-2005, 07:24 PM	#70
Libertine sex dwarf Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 17,860	Now, back to the issue at hand. Changing the rules to fit your direct political needs rather than because of the actual merits of those rules is ad hoc rulemaking, something which is almost always detrimental to both political balance and to democracy. Just because something goes by the rules does not mean it is right, nor does it mean it follows the spirit of those rules. For example, if in democratic elections one group gets an 80% majority, it can prohibit those who don't support that group from voting. Perfectly legal, yet not right at all. Likewise, a much smaller majority could gain long-term political power by, say, changing voting districts' boundaries (sound familiar?). Or, it could strongly limit large majorities' rights to be heard. The point is that changing rules for the sole purpose of increasing one's own political power is an undemocratic and extremely dangerous practice. Yes, it can be done within the constitution and within the existing rules, but every lawbook, every constitution can be undermined from within. __________________ /(bb\|[^b]{2})/

05-18-2005, 09:20 PM	#100
mardigras Bon temps! Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: down yonder Posts: 14,194	Most southern states have republican governors now. __________________ .

05-18-2005, 06:54 PM	#61
rambler Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: vancouver Posts: 745	This is obviously what the majority of Americans (like FunForOne) want. So you guys should be happy and celebrate.

05-18-2005, 07:18 PM	#69
reynold Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Global Traveler Posts: 51,271	Both republicans and Democrats are playing the same game men!