Are you cool with Republicans changing the law to get what they want?

[mardigras]

They want to significantly reduce the number of votes required in the Senate to pass things to a number closer to that which they have so they won't have to deal with disagreeing Democrats. This is essential to give George Bush everything he wants.

Check out CSPAN2 for the arguments currently going on from both sides. If you're away from a TV it's streaming on http://www.cspan.org

[mardigras]

Guess I'm the only one around here not cool with this

They come back from a recess to continue the debate in about 15 minutes.

[Libertine]

Republican math:
51% should be 100%

[MickeyG]

its inevitable, they have the majority and now they're using it. I just like how they're trying to make it sound so simple. .. we just want a simple "up and down vote", when in reality they're really rewritting the rules to work in their favor.

[FunForOne]

Filibuster and Cloture

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.

In 1841, when the Democratic minority hoped to block a bank bill promoted by Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, he threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton rebuked Clay for trying to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate.

Three quarters of a century later, in 1917, senators adopted a rule (Rule 22), at the urging President Woodrow Wilson, that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote, a device known as "cloture." The new Senate rule was first put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Even with the new cloture rule, filibusters remained an effective means to block legislation, since a two-thirds vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next five decades, the Senate occasionally tried to invoke cloture, but usually failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, until cloture was invoked after a fifty-seven day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or sixty of the current one hundred senators.

Many Americans are familiar with the filibuster conducted by Jimmy Stewart, playing Senator Jefferson Smith in Frank Capra's film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but there have been some famous filibusters in the real-life Senate as well. 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.

[mardigras]

Originally Posted by MickeyG

its inevitable, they have the majority and now they're using it. I just like how they're trying to make it sound so simple. .. we just want a simple "up and down vote", when in reality they're really rewritting the rules to work in their favor.

Yeah, they say they will only use the simple majority when it comes to judicial nominations, not anything else... I believe that is the Republican senatorial version of "I won't cum in your mouth, I promise"

[SleazyDream]

law is that the people you vote in say it is.

that's why elected political positions have real POWER.


duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

[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.

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by SleazyDream

law is that the people you vote in say it is.

that's why elected political positions have real POWER.


duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

Idiot.

[FunForOne]

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.

Well, you thought it was bad then and you think is ok now.

[bignasty]

Originally Posted by FunForOne

Well, you thought it was bad then and you think is ok now.

I didn't think it was bad then and good now. I don't have a problem with them being able to block it regardless of who it is. My problem is the fucking hyposcracy of it.

[AmateurFlix]

2257 may be the top concern of the moment for the adult industry, but there's really a lot going on lately in the US that's simply not good for democracy - it's really disturbing to watch people like this try to tear down the systems of checks and balances that keep the branches of government in align with one another, and even more disturbing is that most people don't even understand what it is they're trying to do, or the danger that could come from it.

[FunForOne]

Originally Posted by AmateurFlix

2257 may be the top concern of the moment for the adult industry, but there's really a lot going on lately in the US that's simply not good for democracy - it's really disturbing to watch people like this try to tear down the systems of checks and balances that keep the branches of government in align with one another, and even more disturbing is that most people don't even understand what it is they're trying to do, or the danger that could come from it.

While I agree that a good system of checks and balances in imperative in our government, I probably disagree with you on what is happening now.

I think that information has become more readily available and consumed by the citizens that were not partaking in the political process in the past. 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.

It is because people understand MORE that the changes are happening, not becuase they dont understand at all.

I do see a future system of checks and balances being in place, I just predict more of a division in one current party that brings the checks and balances than the two parties that we know now.

[cambaby]

[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

[mardigras]

Originally Posted by cambaby

I take it that means YES, you are cool with it

[FunForOne]

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

First of all, we are using the term checks and balances wrong.

The system of checks and balances is not supposed to allow minority senators to get their way and oppose the majority. The system of checks and balances refers to the different branches of government.

The checks and balances system that keeps one branch, ie. the president from "ruling" in a way that is not in the best interest of the people is for the people to vote on and elect senators to represent them.

The senate vote is the check and balance of another branch of government.

What if their were 99 senators from one party and 1 from the opposing party? Should that one senator be allowed to stop the progress of the other 99 senators?
The same thing is happening, just that the numbers are different.


However we want to say it, what is happening is that a minority of Americans are holding the government hostage and not allowing the senators we elected to do their jobs we elected them to do.

[smack]

i haven't been cool with anything republicans have done for a couple decades now.

[FunForOne]

Originally Posted by smack

i haven't been cool with anything republicans have done for a couple decades now.

Yea, the fucked up that cold war thing bigtime!

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by FunForOne

However we want to say it, what is happening is that a minority of Americans are holding the government hostage and not allowing the senators we elected to do their jobs we elected them to do.

Do you believe a small majority should have absolute power?

[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.

[uno]

Originally Posted by punkworld

Do you believe a small majority should have absolute power?

As long as its his small majority, of course.

[kane]

Originally Posted by FunForOne

First of all, we are using the term checks and balances wrong.

The system of checks and balances is not supposed to allow minority senators to get their way and oppose the majority. The system of checks and balances refers to the different branches of government.

The checks and balances system that keeps one branch, ie. the president from "ruling" in a way that is not in the best interest of the people is for the people to vote on and elect senators to represent them.

The senate vote is the check and balance of another branch of government.

What if their were 99 senators from one party and 1 from the opposing party? Should that one senator be allowed to stop the progress of the other 99 senators?
The same thing is happening, just that the numbers are different.


However we want to say it, what is happening is that a minority of Americans are holding the government hostage and not allowing the senators we elected to do their jobs we elected them to do.

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.

[AmateurFlix]

Originally Posted by FunForOne

I think that information has become more readily available and consumed by the citizens that were not partaking in the political process in the past.

Hmm, I agree with you to an extent there; but I suspect what alot of people are "consuming" are headlines and sound bytes, without really having a good understanding of what is being discussed. More people read headlines than articles.

[mardigras]

Originally Posted by FunForOne

The checks and balances system that keeps one branch, ie. the president from "ruling" in a way that is not in the best interest of the people is for the people to vote on and elect senators to represent them.

If they pass this, those checks and balances will be thrown out the window. Bush will be able to appoint anyone he wishes to lifetime positions and there will be no "checks and balances".

Originally Posted by FunForOne

What if their were 99 senators from one party and 1 from the opposing party? Should that one senator be allowed to stop the progress of the other 99 senators?

If the 1 senator is the only one with common sense he should

Originally Posted by FunForOne

However we want to say it, what is happening is that a minority of Americans are holding the government hostage and not allowing the senators we elected to do their jobs we elected them to do.

Small minority not approving 3 activist judges is not holding the country hostage.

[kane]

Originally Posted by uno

As long as its his small majority, of course.

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?

[Libertine]

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?

He was being sarcastic.

[mardigras]

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.

Not just blocked. They held off on even having hearings or votes on some of Clinton's nominations in the hope a Republican president would be elected in 2000 and those positions sat vacant until GWB was elected.

[FunForOne]

Originally Posted by mardigras

Not just blocked. They held off on even having hearings or votes on some of Clinton's nominations in the hope a Republican president would be elected in 2000 and those positions sat vacant until GWB was elected.

I think you would be surprised at the success rate of clinton nomiations relative to historical rates.

Also do some research on the democratic response to some of the failures.

[Mr.Fiction]

Originally Posted by FunForOne

I think you would be surprised at the success rate of clinton nomiations relative to historical rates.

Also do some research on the democratic response to some of the failures.

Educate yourself:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200505180004

[FunForOne]

I'm not arguing republican or democrat on this one, I just think you guys are not understanding the system of checks and balances.


Assuming checks and balances pertained to the political affiliations inside the senate instead of the branches of goverment, you guys are taking away that checks and balances system by giving power to a minority.

You are giving power to someone who opposes the majority of the people in the country and making the majority of elected officials powerless. Thats not in the best interest of the people.


It seems lately that people want to change the meaning of majority. When a group of people make a decision based on a majority vote, it would be nice if all agreed and the vote was unanimous, but the fact is that in a majority vote, 51% = the same result as 99%. We dont let John Kerry make presidental decisions becuase he got alot of votes.

[kernelpanic]

I expected another 2257 thread

[mardigras]

Originally Posted by FunForOne

I think you would be surprised at the success rate of clinton nomiations relative to historical rates.

During the years Republicans controlled the Senate, 45.3 percent of President Clinton's nominations to the courts of appeals were returned to the White House, a rate 72 percent higher than the 26.3 percent return rate for Presidents Reagan and Bush when Democrats controlled the Senate. (None of the returned Clinton appellate court nominees were voted down - not a single one of them was allowed to come up for a vote.)

During the final two years of Clinton's term, the blockade was even tighter, with less than half of Clinton's appeals courts nominees being confirmed. More specifically, during the 106th Congress, 56 percent of President Clinton's nominations to the courts of appeals were blocked. This failure rate for President Clinton's appeals court nominees was 60 percent higher than for Presidents Reagan or George H.W. Bush, each of whom saw only 35 percent of his appeals court nominees go unconfirmed in the 100th and 102nd Congresses, respectively.

President Clinton's nominees were nearly shut out altogether during his final year in office. In his last year, 89 percent of appeals court nominees were stopped, with only one out of nine nominees being confirmed. At the end of the 106th Congress in 2000, 16 circuit court of appeals nominees made by the President were returned without a vote. In President Bush's final year, only 36 percent of his appeals court nominees were blocked.

If numbers are calculated so as to eliminate the effect of multiple nominations of individual nominees, serious discrepancies remain. Nominees were blocked during the six years Republicans controlled the Senate under President Clinton at a rate nearly 40 percent higher than during the six years Democrats controlled the Senate under Presidents Reagan and Bush - 35 percent under Clinton vs. 25 percent under Reagan and Bush.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/def...=yes&units=all

[FunForOne]

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

Educate yourself:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200505180004

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.

[mardigras]

Originally Posted by kernelpanic

I expected another 2257 thread

LOL
This is much more important

[FunForOne]

We are actually comparing apples to oranges.


Remember, Clinton didn't have a majority for most of his terms and knew that going into the nomination process.

[kane]

Originally Posted by FunForOne

I'm not arguing republican or democrat on this one, I just think you guys are not understanding the system of checks and balances.


Assuming checks and balances pertained to the political affiliations inside the senate instead of the branches of goverment, you guys are taking away that checks and balances system by giving power to a minority.

You are giving power to someone who opposes the majority of the people in the country and making the majority of elected officials powerless. Thats not in the best interest of the people.


It seems lately that people want to change the meaning of majority. When a group of people make a decision based on a majority vote, it would be nice if all agreed and the vote was unanimous, but the fact is that in a majority vote, 51% = the same result as 99%. We dont let John Kerry make presidental decisions becuase he got alot of votes.

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.

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by FunForOne

I'm not arguing republican or democrat on this one, I just think you guys are not understanding the system of checks and balances.

Indeed you aren't arguing republican or democrat, you're arguing uninformed.

Originally Posted by FunForOne

Assuming checks and balances pertained to the political affiliations inside the senate instead of the branches of goverment, you guys are taking away that checks and balances system by giving power to a minority.

How does requiring a fairly broad majority instead of a tiny one take away checks and balances?

Originally Posted by FunForOne

You are giving power to someone who opposes the majority of the people in the country and making the majority of elected officials powerless. Thats not in the best interest of the people.

Wrong. It makes sure that certain important decisions can't be effortlessly made unless supported by a broad majority. If anything, it is vital for the system of checks and balances that only judges with broad support get appointed.

Originally Posted by FunForOne

It seems lately that people want to change the meaning of majority. When a group of people make a decision based on a majority vote, it would be nice if all agreed and the vote was unanimous, but the fact is that in a majority vote, 51% = the same result as 99%. We dont let John Kerry make presidental decisions becuase he got alot of votes.

And a filibuster can be ended with 60 votes... that doesn't suit the republicans, so they want to change it. Now, quite obviously, that's a very dangerous attitude... if you blindly change the fundamentals of the system wherever they limit your power, you are creating the very real danger that you will cripple the system.

When groups start changing the system itself to expand their power or to win on specific issues, the stability that is the aim of a system of balance is threatened.

[FunForOne]

Originally Posted by punkworld

Indeed you aren't arguing republican or democrat, you're arguing uninformed.



How does requiring a fairly broad majority instead of a tiny one take away checks and balances?



Wrong. It makes sure that certain important decisions can't be effortlessly made unless supported by a broad majority. If anything, it is vital for the system of checks and balances that only judges with broad support get appointed.



And a filibuster can be ended with 60 votes... that doesn't suit the republicans, so they want to change it. Now, quite obviously, that's a very dangerous attitude... if you blindly change the fundamentals of the system wherever they limit your power, you are creating the very real danger that you will cripple the system.

When groups start changing the system itself to expand their power or to win on specific issues, the stability that is the aim of a system of balance is threatened.

A summary of your response would be the change the definition of "majority".

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by FunForOne

A summary of your response would be the change the definition of "majority".

A summary of your response seems to be "I didn't get it".

[FunForOne]

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.

thats a very good post. You certainly understand the process.


I think we agree on what the system of checks and balances is, even if we think it is flawed. You are looking at it from a different perspective.

You stated:

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.


I believe that is correct. The checks and balances system has nothing to do with party affiliation.

It is not there to give minority parties the ability to overrule.

[FunForOne]

Originally Posted by punkworld

A summary of your response seems to be "I didn't get it".

Please dont argue that a fillabuster is a part of the checks and balances system of our government and then call me uninformed.

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by FunForOne

Please dont argue that a fillabuster is a part of the checks and balances system of our government and then call me uninformed.

Fillabuster you say? I think I have good reason to call you uninformed.

I am not, however, arguing what you seem to think I am arguing. Read my post again, and this time pay attention to what it actually says. One point to help you on the way:
- I am not saying the filibuster is a part of "checks and balances". I am, however, saying it does not take it away, as you were claiming.

Now, go read the rest, and try to read the other points too.

[kane]

Originally Posted by FunForOne

thats a very good post. You certainly understand the process.


I think we agree on what the system of checks and balances is, even if we think it is flawed. You are looking at it from a different perspective.

You stated:

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.


I believe that is correct. The checks and balances system has nothing to do with party affiliation.

It is not there to give minority parties the ability to overrule.

I agree the checks and balance system has no party affiliation, it is in place to make sure the system is fair, no matter who is the majority and who is the minority.

[simple simon]

[FunForOne]

Originally Posted by punkworld

Fillabuster you say? I think I have good reason to call you uninformed.

I am not, however, arguing what you seem to think I am arguing. Read my post again, and this time pay attention to what it actually says. One point to help you on the way:
- I am not saying the filibuster is a part of "checks and balances". I am, however, saying it does not take it away, as you were claiming.

Now, go read the rest, and try to read the other points too.

Sorry, I'm doing 3 things at once, maybe I confused your post with another one.

[FunForOne]

Originally Posted by kane

I agree the checks and balance system has no party affiliation, it is in place to make sure the system is fair, no matter who is the majority and who is the minority.

Your definition was dead on. I was using your definintion to expalin to others what I was trying to say.

[sperbonzo]

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*

[GatorB]

The republica nare going to regret this because one day there wil be a Dem in the White House and Democratic controled congress and they are going to want that fillibuster power then. So fuck them karma is a bitch I say.

[FunForOne]

Originally Posted by GatorB

The republica nare going to regret this because one day there wil be a Dem in the White House and Democratic controled congress and they are going to want that fillibuster power then. So fuck them karma is a bitch I say.

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