Well duh!
- Thread starter FromTexas
- Start date
FromTexas...it's "broad support" eh? 51% means you are the absolute winner? Winning the electoral votes of one state means you have an amazing mandate? Meanwhile, this is done against a whacked out fella from Massachusetts who hasn't talked to a real person in 20 years or more. This means that 100% of your agenda should be passed without dissent?
I think not.
I think not.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
rr....
...what's your take on this article?
http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20050430-103255-4107r.htm
...what's your take on this article?
http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20050430-103255-4107r.htm
FromTexas
This Space for Rent
rraley said:
Broad support.. Take a look at America and how much is red and how much is blue by county! Our legislative process is being held captive by a few densely packed bastions of liberalization. Republicans have been gaining ground the past few elections in dramatic fashion.
When are democrats going to stop whining? "He didn't really win, Gore won!" "Oh! Fine! He won now but its not a mandate!" "You must listen to us even though we keep losing ground in elections!"
Fine, we listen. Bush's change to the social security plan is a sign of that, but, when Republicans have listened and the Dems still can't take the stick out of their collective arses that they don't have the power they wish they had, then we should have the right for a straight up and down vote to represent the elected mandate we were given.
This is nothing major. Eliminiating the fillibuster isn't "nuclear" or much more or less than any of the hundreds of other rule changes over the years.
So, in short, its a mandate... and a growing one at that.
First to comment on Larry's article....
First of all
Wow, this is a terrible overstatement based on hysteria and anti-liberal positioning. It has nothing to do with facts. President Bush has nominated over 200 federal judges, and only ten (that's right ten) have been filibustered. That's a confirmation rate of over 95%. I guess that since it isn't 100%, liberals and Senate Democrats are "standing in the way of nearly every nominee the president sends over."
This is a terrible piece of logic here. The USA trades with Red China, which Richard Nixon recognized, and did so with stronger support from Republicans than Democrats. Furthermore, for Mr. Kudlow to claim (earlier in the article) that Democrats would filibuster CAFTA is just plain wrong. The Democratic Party is no longer anti-free trade and liberalism does not hold anti-free trade positions as a tenet. That cuts more across party lines than many other issues.
Because Colin Powell does not see him as fit to serve in that capacity and three Foreign Relations Committee Republicans have severe enough reservations to hold his nomination while a fourth is also cautious. Has nothing to do with Democrats.
Republicans won six new Senate seats, all in deeply red states. There are more red states than blue states, but they have less people. Democratic senators actually represent more people population wise.
MOre later...
First of all
Wow, this is a terrible overstatement based on hysteria and anti-liberal positioning. It has nothing to do with facts. President Bush has nominated over 200 federal judges, and only ten (that's right ten) have been filibustered. That's a confirmation rate of over 95%. I guess that since it isn't 100%, liberals and Senate Democrats are "standing in the way of nearly every nominee the president sends over."
This is a terrible piece of logic here. The USA trades with Red China, which Richard Nixon recognized, and did so with stronger support from Republicans than Democrats. Furthermore, for Mr. Kudlow to claim (earlier in the article) that Democrats would filibuster CAFTA is just plain wrong. The Democratic Party is no longer anti-free trade and liberalism does not hold anti-free trade positions as a tenet. That cuts more across party lines than many other issues.
Because Colin Powell does not see him as fit to serve in that capacity and three Foreign Relations Committee Republicans have severe enough reservations to hold his nomination while a fourth is also cautious. Has nothing to do with Democrats.
Republicans won six new Senate seats, all in deeply red states. There are more red states than blue states, but they have less people. Democratic senators actually represent more people population wise.
MOre later...
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Did we read the same article?
You say:
The article says:
One in the ENTIRE 20th century vs. 10 in the last 5 years. 1 in a 100 vs. 10 in 5. What don't you get about this?
Further...
Damn, where is my copy of the Constitution? I must have missed the Powell requirement. Could you direct me to it? I had thought that the requirement was 'advice and consent' of the Senate, which, correct me if I have this wrong as well, would be established by a floor vote, yes? Or does it say 'unanimous consent' and I just missed that one to?
Maybe it simply says "the President shall, with the advice and unanimous consent of the minority party who shall then be afforded unanimous consent of the majority party..."
And then, what's this?
By your logic, that shouldn't matter one wit. You're arguing that the minority party should have every right to get the candidates they want, Constitution be damned, yet then you go on to argue, that in complete defiance of every inch of our democratic system, that, somehow, whomever represents the most people based on population of their states, nevermind the people in those states who voted against them, should be in charge?
What's happened to you here of late? I've never seem you toss out so much non-sense before.
You say:
The article says:
One in the ENTIRE 20th century vs. 10 in the last 5 years. 1 in a 100 vs. 10 in 5. What don't you get about this?
Further...
Damn, where is my copy of the Constitution? I must have missed the Powell requirement. Could you direct me to it? I had thought that the requirement was 'advice and consent' of the Senate, which, correct me if I have this wrong as well, would be established by a floor vote, yes? Or does it say 'unanimous consent' and I just missed that one to?
Maybe it simply says "the President shall, with the advice and unanimous consent of the minority party who shall then be afforded unanimous consent of the majority party..."
And then, what's this?
By your logic, that shouldn't matter one wit. You're arguing that the minority party should have every right to get the candidates they want, Constitution be damned, yet then you go on to argue, that in complete defiance of every inch of our democratic system, that, somehow, whomever represents the most people based on population of their states, nevermind the people in those states who voted against them, should be in charge?
What's happened to you here of late? I've never seem you toss out so much non-sense before.
Larry, you didn't wait for me to finish...I started this post in school today...
To rebut your second points (not the article), I was not commenting on the historical precedence of filibustering nominees. I was commenting on the statement that "Democratic senators stand in the way of every nominee the President sends over." That is just an out and out exaggeration and I daresay a lie...like I said 95% confirmation rate of President Bush's judicial nominees. This 95% confirmation rate crushes Bill Clinton's 81% confirmation rate...the GOP decided to leave nominees in committee rather than have them come to the full Senate chamber. I "get" the historical precedence concept, but so what? There's a first time for everything.
As for the Bolton confirmation, I'm not saying that the Constitution requires Colin Powell's support. I don't think that you were thinking when you went off on me about this one. The Constitution requires the "advice and consent of the Senate." One line. The Senate works through a committee system and a full chamber. In order for legislation to pass the Senate, a bill must pass through a committee and pass on the floor; nominations are the same thing. If Republicans can bottle up nominations in committee, then they can be defeated in committee as well.
And nowhere am I saying that there needs to be unanimous consent. Once again, you are way overboard here, sir. Sometimes I wonder if you are serious/balanced when you go off the deep end like this. I am saying that he needs a majority of the votes. There are nine Republicans and eight Democrats on the Foreign Relations committee; eight Democrats oppose, three Republicans do now and a fourth may...that's 11 or 12 senators who oppose this man's nomination. There are allegations about his handeling of subordinates and his actions with foreign leaders in the past are highly questionable. So, why is it so bad to hold back on this? Especially when Republicans, including the chairman of the committee, are helping?
Now back to my point regarding the Senate and its make-up. Democrats don't do well in smaller states anymore, but these states have disproporionate power in the Senate (where representation is equal). Because of that, Republicans enjoy a natural advantage in the Senate, which is more representative of political dynamics rather than a concrete "mandate." We need to take that into consideration whenever we discuss these matters.
Now, Larry, I am not saying that the minority needs to be bowed to, but I am not going to suggest, as you, that the majority's complete will needs to be met fully. There is a thing called dissent and opposition in this nation. The opposition, whether it is Democratic or Republican, should not lay down and just say go ahead do it. Our system is not meant for that (this isn't a parliamentary form of government), and I don't think that going nuclear is going to help our nation. The minority must have a say in government, and getting rid of the filibuster will keep that from happening.
In any event, if Republicans do go "nuclear," I hope that Democrats reinstate the right to filibuster when they take back power in the Senate.
To rebut your second points (not the article), I was not commenting on the historical precedence of filibustering nominees. I was commenting on the statement that "Democratic senators stand in the way of every nominee the President sends over." That is just an out and out exaggeration and I daresay a lie...like I said 95% confirmation rate of President Bush's judicial nominees. This 95% confirmation rate crushes Bill Clinton's 81% confirmation rate...the GOP decided to leave nominees in committee rather than have them come to the full Senate chamber. I "get" the historical precedence concept, but so what? There's a first time for everything.
As for the Bolton confirmation, I'm not saying that the Constitution requires Colin Powell's support. I don't think that you were thinking when you went off on me about this one. The Constitution requires the "advice and consent of the Senate." One line. The Senate works through a committee system and a full chamber. In order for legislation to pass the Senate, a bill must pass through a committee and pass on the floor; nominations are the same thing. If Republicans can bottle up nominations in committee, then they can be defeated in committee as well.
And nowhere am I saying that there needs to be unanimous consent. Once again, you are way overboard here, sir. Sometimes I wonder if you are serious/balanced when you go off the deep end like this. I am saying that he needs a majority of the votes. There are nine Republicans and eight Democrats on the Foreign Relations committee; eight Democrats oppose, three Republicans do now and a fourth may...that's 11 or 12 senators who oppose this man's nomination. There are allegations about his handeling of subordinates and his actions with foreign leaders in the past are highly questionable. So, why is it so bad to hold back on this? Especially when Republicans, including the chairman of the committee, are helping?
Now back to my point regarding the Senate and its make-up. Democrats don't do well in smaller states anymore, but these states have disproporionate power in the Senate (where representation is equal). Because of that, Republicans enjoy a natural advantage in the Senate, which is more representative of political dynamics rather than a concrete "mandate." We need to take that into consideration whenever we discuss these matters.
Now, Larry, I am not saying that the minority needs to be bowed to, but I am not going to suggest, as you, that the majority's complete will needs to be met fully. There is a thing called dissent and opposition in this nation. The opposition, whether it is Democratic or Republican, should not lay down and just say go ahead do it. Our system is not meant for that (this isn't a parliamentary form of government), and I don't think that going nuclear is going to help our nation. The minority must have a say in government, and getting rid of the filibuster will keep that from happening.
In any event, if Republicans do go "nuclear," I hope that Democrats reinstate the right to filibuster when they take back power in the Senate.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
You made my day...
It's been a kinda tough one but, now I'm smiling.
Thank you!
It's been a kinda tough one but, now I'm smiling.
Thank you!
B
Bruzilla
Guest
rraley said:
That's a great point RR, but it raises a question that I think should be given some consideration. You make the case that a majority group of 51% should not be able to dictate to a minority group of 49%. I am assuming that you feel this is an important issue because the minority 49% should not be forced to accept the edicts of the 51% majority because the numbers are so close. So I would ask, at what level does it become acceptable for a minority to be forced to accept the edicts of the majority? If the split were 70%/30%, could the majority be expected to exercise "majority rules" rights? How about 60%/40% or 99%/1%?
So I would ask you first, at what level of majority/minority divide does the acceptance of edicts and mandates become acceptable for the minority?
Second, at what point of divide does it become acceptable for the minority to refuse to accept the edicts/mandates and take illegal or inappropriate action to combat the majority?
And lastly, if you feel that there is a legitimate level of divide where the minority need not be compelled to follow the majority, then should we just ignore the process of majority rule?
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 it should be utilized by Democrats on agenda items where there is great passion and a great controversy in America. Bruzilla, 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? 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.?
Let's keep this all in perspective...George Bush won because Americans do not bounce chief executives during wartime. They did not elect him to redefine the judiciary. So, in essence, in regards to your first question: the minority should accept the dictates of the majority in most instances, except in rare cases in which the majority is truly out of step and truly acting out of arrogance and the belief in absolute mandates. Filibustering 10 out of over 200 judicial nominees is an example of not taking things to an extreme. 95%, people, where the hell is the crisis?
As to your second question, I believe that the minority should refrain from taking violent action unless serious, violent acts are executed against the minority.
Let's keep this all in perspective...George Bush won because Americans do not bounce chief executives during wartime. They did not elect him to redefine the judiciary. So, in essence, in regards to your first question: the minority should accept the dictates of the majority in most instances, except in rare cases in which the majority is truly out of step and truly acting out of arrogance and the belief in absolute mandates. Filibustering 10 out of over 200 judicial nominees is an example of not taking things to an extreme. 95%, people, where the hell is the crisis?
As to your second question, I believe that the minority should refrain from taking violent action unless serious, violent acts are executed against the minority.
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
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
Strung Out
rr...
...I swear you're not hearing yourself.
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:
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:
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?
...I swear you're not hearing yourself.
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:
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:
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?
Then explain the Senators, Representatives and Governors, please.rraley said:
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.
Yes. Just because you don't want these things doesn't mean nobody does.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
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.
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.
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.Bruzilla said:
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?
B
Bruzilla
Guest
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.
