Compromise on the Filibuster.

Squawker · 05-23-05, 08:14 PM

There was a “bipartisan” (barf) agreement to resolve the filibuster of judges. Good grief, what a show of grandstanding. You would think they just did something that has never been done before. Their job! They will vote for cloture for three controversial judges, Brown, Owens and Pryor. Democrats agree not to filibuster except in extreme circumstances, and Republicans can retain the nuclear option. No big surprise here, they talked about it all last week. Whatever makes them "feel good".

akyron · 05-23-05, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squawker

There was a “bipartisan” (barf) agreement to resolve the filibuster of judges. Good grief, what a show of grandstanding. You would think they just did something that has never been done before. Their job! They will vote for cloture for three controversial judges, Brown, Owens and Pryor. Democrats agree not to filibuster except in extreme circumstances, and Republicans can retain the nuclear option. No big surprise here, they talked about it all last week. Whatever makes them "feel good".

It was a big chance for McCaine to bathe in the limelight. He was all over the radio just now saying how great it was that both parties "trusted" each other enough to come together on this. I do not see what has changed. Dems can still filibuster if they see the need and Reps can still nuke them.

walrus · 05-23-05, 08:36 PM

I think with the death of the filibuster we have seen the death of a great tradition in American politics. I don't mean this faux-filibusters we have had recently - I mean the good ol' filibuster where you had to eat, sleep, and continue speaking on the floor of the House in order to keep the floor. I recall anecdotally a state legislator around the turn of the century who filibustered for a continuous 48 hours - speaking mainly about his dead bull Orizimbo. The legendary Strom Thurmond once filibustered for 24 hours 18 minutes (I believe he spoke continuously the entire time - it concerned civil rights). Al D'Amato filibustered for 15 hours and 14 minutes, again speaking continuously. Harry Reid filibustered on behalf of filibustering for 8 hours 30 minutes just two years ago (isn't that ironic). However, most filibusters today are confined to business hours, with the participants going home at night, taking turns speaking, and other pansy type changes. We give these people enough power - they should have to work a little for it occasionally.

Squawker · 05-23-05, 08:52 PM

Quote:

I think with the death of the filibuster we have seen the death of a great tradition in American politics.

This was just for judges, walrus. The filibuster was seldom used until recently. Judges usually got a straight up or down vote.

Quote:

It was a big chance for McCaine to bathe in the limelight.

Got that right, akyron. No change, but they sure acted like it was a big deal. Susan Collins had a big old grin on her face.

The Democrats had to give them the judges that had the votes for. Oh well, they got their ten minutes of fame for the voters who haven't been paying attention.

Republican · 05-23-05, 09:37 PM

I feel really let down by this. I'm ashamed that these Republicans jumped ship and didn't fight until the end for whats right! All judges should always get up or down votes. Horrible news for the USA, I feel betrayed as a citizen.

ShamMol · 05-23-05, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Republican

I feel really let down by this. I'm ashamed that these Republicans jumped ship and didn't fight until the end for whats right! All judges should always get up or down votes. Horrible news for the USA, I feel betrayed as a citizen.

You may feel betrayed, but I garuntee you this is a great thing for the country.

The Republicans you speak off didn't jump ship, they preserved the tradition that is the Senate of working together. When senators die, they don't say I was a Democrat or a Republican, they say they were a United States Senator. There is pride in that tradition. How would ending fillibusters on judicial nominations been right as you put?

Did not the majority Republicans use similar tatics to deny up or down votes when they were in power when Clinton was nominating to great judges like Paez? Darn right they did. It may not have been the fillibuster, but they used the means that they had in front of them to secure the fact that these people wouldn't get votes by holding them up in committee and procedural matters-is that not the same as a fillibuster by denying a vote to a candidate? I contend it is and while I didn't like it, I accept it because that is the way the Senate has always worked.

Feel let down all you want, but this insures that there will be a check on the majority that is so sorely needed, no matter who is in control of the Senate.

Madhatter · 05-25-05, 12:50 AM

My word! Just three judges the dems have to agree with, and for that the republicans are taking the removal of the judicial filibuster off the table.

Wow!, what do we get for a case of beer -- Bush stopping his agenda of privitizating social security.

Maybe for a notebook we (the dems) can push through some government subsidized stem cell research programs.

In all seriousness though, it feels good to see our government uphold democracy and the processes that makes our country so great. I dont see this as a vicotry for the dems or even for the US, but a victory in upholding the values of the system against the cheap, disgraceful and quite frankly unAmerican series of tactics used in getting judges through the system....

~Human beings should never be used as bargining chips for democracy

stump · 05-25-05, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShamMol

Did not the majority Republicans use similar tatics to deny up or down votes when they were in power when Clinton was nominating to great judges like Paez? Darn right they did. It may not have been the fillibuster, but they used the means that they had in front of them to secure the fact that these people wouldn't get votes by holding them up in committee and procedural matters-is that not the same as a fillibuster by denying a vote to a candidate? I contend it is and while I didn't like it, I accept it because that is the way the Senate has always worked.

I agree with the Republicans who "jumped ship" but this is not the same thing as during the Clinton years. Back then the Republicans had the majority and it was the majority that kept the votes from happening. Now it's a minority that's doing it. That isn't the way America is supposed to work.

The filibuster is a safeguard for when senators feel passionate about something. Not a means of controlling from the minority position.

ShamMol · 05-25-05, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stump

I agree with the Republicans who "jumped ship" but this is not the same thing as during the Clinton years. Back then the Republicans had the majority and it was the majority that kept the votes from happening. Now it's a minority that's doing it. That isn't the way America is supposed to work.

The filibuster is a safeguard for when senators feel passionate about something. Not a means of controlling from the minority position.

Not the same, similar tatics. They were in control for the majority of Clinton's terms and thus did not have to use a fillibuster to get their way. What the Republicans did then was hold people up in committee (which as a majority they could), put more and more procedural tatics to use to stop or slow their nominations. Good people were held up then, as they would be now according to Republicans. How is the holding up of people any different? Just because they use different tatics? Different tatics do not equal a different intent.

It is the right of the minority or even majority to fillibuster anything and it has been that way since the beginning of the Congress. It is, I am sorry to say, the way America has worked for over 200 years. As a Republican or conservative, isn't it your wish to keep things as much the same as usual? Why the sudden change? Do you wish to take even more power away from your political enemies at the expense of tradition and democracy? I think that is it.

Oh, and on another note, Owens had psoosibly the worst rating of a judge in Texas, with over 45% saying she was a bad judge....hmm...lifetime appointment for someone that only received little more than half that said she was good to just ok...brilliant.

Squawker · 05-25-05, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Good people were held up then, as they would be now according to Republicans. How is the holding up of people any different? Just because they use different tatics? Different tatics do not equal a different intent.

It is the right of the minority or even majority to fillibuster anything and it has been that way since the beginning of the Congress.

Judges deserve an up or down vote. Clinton's judges got one. Bush's judges didn't, that is the difference. When Democrats held the majority during the Reagan Administration, they voted for the judges they wanted to vote for. The minority didn't filibuster to prevent an up or down vote. That is another difference. The right to filibuster does not pertain to judges.