Well duh!

[Bustem' Down]

It's the beauty of our system. It's called checks and balances. If we didn't have all this opposition it would be too easy for one person to just take control completely away. Your frustrated with it now, but when a Democrat is in office with a democratic congress, you'll be praising it.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

...I swear you're not hearing yourself.

I think that the minority should seek to exercise as great of political power as possible (within the law). Filibusters have been a tradition in the Senate

And conversely, the majority should strive to exercise as much power as possible, yes? And for the last time, filibustering judicial niominees is NOT a tradition, it is a new escalation of tensions, in this case the minority seeking to do as you suggest; exercise as much power as possible, tradition be damned.

AND the majority is going to do the same. A simple rules change is no more 'against the law' than filibustering judges. Your side is fighting outside of tradition, the other side is doing no worse.

The people being held up are completely acceptable by any and all measures normally associated with judicial nominees who've been accepted in the past. ABA scoring, peer review etc. AND would be voted for, consented to, by the Senate as a whole.

Next:

do you believe that George W. Bush was elected because of every single one of his campaign planks or do you think that he was elected because of weak opposition, the dynamics of a foreign war, and because of a recent military attack on the United States?

What gobbledegook. You now propose to analyze a President through the lens of every single voters mindset and thought process? You now propose to say he is President but only with these restrictions, as you see fit? No matter how desperately you try to parse the conditions and variables that lead to his re-election, one very simple fact remains; he was re-elected.

Alas, RR steps off the deep end:

Or do you think that he was elected because Americans want private accounts for Social Security benefits and because they conservative judges and because they oppose abortion, etc. etc.?

Social Security is a broken program. It no longer works. Simple demographics have put an end to it. When your side acknowledges this fact, we can move on to what the next step is. As far as abortion, now, not only can you read the minds of the electorate at large but you read the minds of judges as well? Because what you claim is not apparent in their records nor Senate testimony and if it was, is abortion, like filibusters, sacrosanct? Are some Constitutional rights open to interpretation and others not?


Laslty, just when the hell did you start cussing?

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by rraley

Let's keep this all in perspective...George Bush won because Americans do not bounce chief executives during wartime.

Then explain the Senators, Representatives and Governors, please.

They did not elect him to redefine the judiciary.

I think they did. I know that that's part of the reason I vote Republican - I know they won't appoint judges that make stupid rulings about young girls being able to get abortions without their parents' knowledge.

Or do you think that he was elected because Americans want private accounts for Social Security benefits and because they conservative judges and because they oppose abortion, etc. etc.?

Yes. Just because you don't want these things doesn't mean nobody does.

The only real "weight" that the majority/minority split has is it gives opposing politicians "courage" to cease opposing the majority on the grounds of perceived public opinion. With a 51/49 split, the Opposition feels safe opposing the Majority, where with say a 70/30 split they would feel "at risk" politically. All of this has to do with winning re-elections, not the law of the land.

I think Vrai summed up the nature of your argument quite nicely in just one line... "Just because you don't want these things doesn't mean nobody does." I feel that you either have a rule of law, which in the United States is that the majority rules unless a super majority is called for, and that's the case if there's a 50.5/49.5 split or a 99/1 split, or you don't. And if you don't have a majority (or super majority) rules vote, then you have anarchy as no one is really in control of anything and you end up in endless debate.
Your argument about the reasons for Bush's re-election are also groundless. As Larry pointed out, there's no way you can base an argument on your "understanding" of the motivations of voters. The only efficacious fact is that Bush won and the Republicans maintained control of the House and Senate. The issue of the degree of the win, or the motivations behind the win, are unreasoned and can't be substantiated outside of just wanting to have things your way, with "your" meaning anyone who disagrees with Bush and the Republicans.

I also have to disagree with your assessment of President Bush's re-election. Bush is the first and only President in my lifetime who's ever really delivered on just about everything he said he would do during his elections. In 2000 Bush said he was in favor of reforming Social Security and in favor of personalized accounts, which by the way, if people would actually listen to what Bush is saying they would understand why he feels that way. He knows that no matter what politicians of today say, guys like you are going to have your Social Security benefits cut in the future because the political price of raising payroll taxes is going to be too high to pay. Yes, personal accounts will not fix the solvency problem, but increasing the amount of return you receive will help overcome big cuts to your regular benefits down the road. Bush is thinking 30-40 years down the road, not to make SS better funded because he can't do that, but to help guys like yourself be better prepared for when whoever is President in 2040 announces he's forced to sign a bill cutting SS benefits. When was the last time you saw a President of the US, aside from maybe JFK, do that? But I digress.

I think that if the minority wished to fillibuster a bill or anything else, they should be able to fillibuster. Not threaten a fillibuster, not talk about a fillibuster, but actually do it. If Reid is not man enough to walk the walk, and take to the Senate floor for hours and hours, then he really isn't as committed as he talks.

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by Bruzilla

If Reid is not man enough to walk the walk, and take to the Senate floor for hours and hours, then he really isn't as committed as he talks.

Filibustering is a risky maneuver because I believe the voters see it as obstructionist bullcrap. You're scared to take the vote because you know you'll lose, so you play silly games in hopes of making everyone sick of the subject and killing the issue.

My question is, can a filibuster just go on and on and on, with no ending? Don't they have to take the vote at some point? Who calls it a day? Or does anyone call it a day? How does this work? Or is it so intricate that I should Google it and find out?

My understanding is that any Senator can take the fllor and hold it until he/she either relinquishes the floor or is unable to continue (passes out.) So if a vote is coming up that the Senator wishes to delay, he/she can hold the floor until either a compromise is reached or the fillibusterer (if that's a word) can no longer sustain the fillibuster. So if Reid actually walked the walk, he would have to take the floor of the Senate before the vote in question and hold it. Instead, for reasons that escape me, the Democrats are able to get away with the simple threat of a fillubuster to get their way, which I think makes Bill Frist look like a real political pansy.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Bruzilla

My understanding is that any Senator can take the fllor and hold it until he/she either relinquishes the floor or is unable to continue (passes out.) So if a vote is coming up that the Senator wishes to delay, he/she can hold the floor until either a compromise is reached or the fillibusterer (if that's a word) can no longer sustain the fillibuster. So if Reid actually walked the walk, he would have to take the floor of the Senate before the vote in question and hold it. Instead, for reasons that escape me, the Democrats are able to get away with the simple threat of a fillubuster to get their way, which I think makes Bill Frist look like a real political pansy.

I believe Strom Thurmond holds the fillibuster record. He jabbered for hours and even resorted to reading cookbooks aloud when he ran out of stuff to say.