Plus, if you look at the whole story of the changes made in the 1970s on the filibuster, there were more details to that than what the GOP has sent out in its "talking points." I think that it was smart to reduce the number needed for a filibuster from 66 to 60. Look, if Bush wants his judges approved (all but 10 have been), then nominate more moderate ones, simple.
Tom DeLay
- Thread starter rraley
- Start date
vraiblonde said:
That line of reasoning doesn't make sense...plain and simple. What does make sense is to state that the filibuster is an institution that protects the ability of the minority to have a greater say in the legislative process. The Senate is a deliberative body, and it should be maintained that way. Furthermore, voting for a filibuster just for the sake of a filibuster is misguided and Reid does indeed do that (he's pro-life, but he votes against anti-abortion jurists). A filibuster should be used only when a jurist's views are seen as far too outside of the mainstream and for many of the ten judge nominees at hand, that is the case.
ylexot
Super Genius
It Didn't Start With Tom DeLay
I think they need to disallow any privately funded trips. Have them do travel like any other government employee including per diem allowances for food and lodging. If it's for official government business, I have no problem with taxpayers paying for the trip under those rules. If it's not for government business, pay for it yourself.
I think they need to disallow any privately funded trips. Have them do travel like any other government employee including per diem allowances for food and lodging. If it's for official government business, I have no problem with taxpayers paying for the trip under those rules. If it's not for government business, pay for it yourself.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
I see that the network spin miesters are hard at work again. They were reporting how the trips that were in question for DeLay were paid for by using the credit card of a registered lobbyist, which is against House rules. Further study shows that the lobbyist in question is an officer of the non-profit group that DeLay said funded the trip, and that house rules allow the lobbyist to use his credit card as he is an officer of the non-profit. Funny how that additional information seemed to have gotten lost in the translations.
You miss the point. Many of the majority voted the way they did in the election because they want more conservative judges. I for one and very tired of judicial legislation. It is not in the judicial branch's purview to legislate but they do it all the time.rraley said:
Bush's nominees deserve an up or down vote. If I were in the Republican leadership, I would hold the Democrats to strict filibuster rules. You want to filibuster? Great. Do it 24/7 because as soon as you give up the floor, we are having a vote on the nominee. Nothing else will get done? Too bad. Quit filibustering. The government will come to a halt. That is probably a good thing.
2A, people voted for their senators because they wanted conservative judges? That's a new one to me. I suppose you didn't see the Washington Post poll that showed 66% of the people opposing a rules change in the Senate on this matter. If the Senate was just meant to reflect popular opinion, then I suppose they shouldn't change the filibuster?
Furthermore, 2A, why don't you stand with the NRA on this issue. They called the filibuster the "greatest aid in the defense of gun rights." Also, if you believe that judicial nominees deserve an up or down vote then why did so many Clinton judiical appointees not even receive a committee hearing? Inquiring minds want to know.
And do not confuse activist with liberal. There are plenty of conservative jurists on the bench who take an activist approach to decision-making.
Furthermore, 2A, why don't you stand with the NRA on this issue. They called the filibuster the "greatest aid in the defense of gun rights." Also, if you believe that judicial nominees deserve an up or down vote then why did so many Clinton judiical appointees not even receive a committee hearing? Inquiring minds want to know.
And do not confuse activist with liberal. There are plenty of conservative jurists on the bench who take an activist approach to decision-making.
They don't teach you who confirms judges in school anymore????rraley said:
I have a question (that I may have already asked before):
What is the purpose of a filibuster?
It seems to me that an issue goes on the table, members have a set amount of time to plead their case, then you take a vote. Simple. What's the point of dragging it on and on and on and on? That is simply obstruction and shouldn't be allowed in a legislative session - if some lawyer tried that in a courtroom, the judge would hand him his hat.
What is the purpose of a filibuster?
It seems to me that an issue goes on the table, members have a set amount of time to plead their case, then you take a vote. Simple. What's the point of dragging it on and on and on and on? That is simply obstruction and shouldn't be allowed in a legislative session - if some lawyer tried that in a courtroom, the judge would hand him his hat.
I can't find a damned thing wrong with any of the stuff mentioned earlier. If I have a complaint about DeLay, it's probably about the money paid to his wife and daughter. Nepotism aside, there's gotta be something that forbids that kind of thing.
But heck - one of the points raised was that associates of DeLay were indicted. WTF? By that measure, Clinton's butt should have been in jail for 6 years by now. A man isn't guilty, or even suspected of guilt, by the company they keep.
Lately, the raising of spurious allegation seems to be the favorite tactic of Democrats, and I'm damned sick of it. As of this moment, they don't actually have to PROVE a damned thing, just so long as they give the appearance of foul play - character assassination is an effective political ploy.
(Quite honestly, tracking a plane where a bunch of state senators illegally bailed out of Dodge to avoid a vote they didn't want ought to warrant expulsion from the Texas legislature).
But heck - one of the points raised was that associates of DeLay were indicted. WTF? By that measure, Clinton's butt should have been in jail for 6 years by now. A man isn't guilty, or even suspected of guilt, by the company they keep.
Lately, the raising of spurious allegation seems to be the favorite tactic of Democrats, and I'm damned sick of it. As of this moment, they don't actually have to PROVE a damned thing, just so long as they give the appearance of foul play - character assassination is an effective political ploy.
(Quite honestly, tracking a plane where a bunch of state senators illegally bailed out of Dodge to avoid a vote they didn't want ought to warrant expulsion from the Texas legislature).
There are lots of issues I don't stand with the NRA on. Often their position is too wimpy for me. I prefer the GOA.rraley said:
I should believe a Washington Post poll?
It is one of the most liberal rags in the entire country. I think not.As for Clinton nominees, two wrongs do not make a right. I don't care if it is a liberal or conservative that is abusing the power of government, it is wrong.
Well, 2A since you throw away the Washington Post's (a paper, despite its left leaning editorial page, has a sterling reputation for journalistic excellence, a major part of which is objectivity of coverage) poll that was conducted by an outside polling organization...here are some others. The Wall Street Journal, a conservative rag, ran a poll that showed opposition to doing away with the filibuster at a margin of 50-40 while Newsweek puts it at 57 to 32.
At least you are consistent, 2A. I, myself, agree with the filibuster no matter who the minority is.
At least you are consistent, 2A. I, myself, agree with the filibuster no matter who the minority is.
You are brainwashed. They don't even pretend to be objective - their Ombudsman says so every week, practically. Every single headline - liberal slant. Every single editorial - liberal slant. A good 90% of thier columnists - liberal slant. Their friggin' comics page, for God's sake - liberal slant.rraley said:
Where are you seeing objectivity?????
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Do you actually READ...
...the Post?
Today, front page, Top:
Filibuster Rule Change Opposed: 66% in Poll Reject Senate GOP Plan to Ease Confirmation of Bushs judicial Nominee
Then we read the story, 'a STRONG percentage of AMERICANS oppose changing rules that would make it easier for Bush to get his way.'
Then we read it's a Wash Post/ABC poll.
There's no mention of the word 'filibuster' in the poll question. Now, we can move on to A5, Col 1 for perhaps some more detail goop or we can breeze the front page as the vast majority of people do and accept the FACT that the VAST majority of AMERICANS reject changing the Senate filibuster rules.
So, we also know this is VERY important because it is at the TOP of the FRONT page.
Now, does the poll ask what percetage of these 'Americans' know what the word 'filibuster' means? Does the poll ask how this vast majority of Americans felt about 'filibusters' when the GOP was using them to thwart Clinton?
Who is this VAST majority of Americans who so STRONGLY agree on one arcane issue in this suppossed 'purple' land?
Then Young RR, in dawns on you that the Washington Post, in all their journalistic glory and reporters dogged desire to get out the 'truth' have chosen to give the reader this front page, top, story about....A POLL.
THEIR POLL.
News? Reporting?
Further Front Page Integrity:
DeLay Woes Prompt Rush to Refile Forms; Law makers Fear Ripples Over Ethics
Law makers fear ripple over ethics? What the hell does that mean? Oh, that ethics challenged guy, DeLay, that must be it!
On we go: 'members of Congress are RUSHING to amend their travel and campaign records FEARING that the CONTROVERSY over TOM DESATAN will trigger and ethics WAR that will bring greater scrutiny over their own travel and official activities.'
So there we have MORE FRONT PAGE NEWS! What Tom DeLay DID is SO BAD nobody even wants a whiff of inpropriety to come their way.
Or could it have read 'Fumbing DeLay witch hunt now has Congress at a standstill invloved in a 'Holier Than Thou' race over things they all do that are all legal and all not a very big deal. Members are also trying to brush up on their 'filibuster' knowledge as VAST MAJORITIES OF AMERICANS are entrhalled with the minutiae of Senate rules."
Shall we go to yesterday?
RR, do you think you'd know 'bias', really, if it jumped up and bit you in the azz?
rraley said:
...the Post?
Today, front page, Top:
Filibuster Rule Change Opposed: 66% in Poll Reject Senate GOP Plan to Ease Confirmation of Bushs judicial Nominee
Then we read the story, 'a STRONG percentage of AMERICANS oppose changing rules that would make it easier for Bush to get his way.'
Then we read it's a Wash Post/ABC poll.
There's no mention of the word 'filibuster' in the poll question. Now, we can move on to A5, Col 1 for perhaps some more detail goop or we can breeze the front page as the vast majority of people do and accept the FACT that the VAST majority of AMERICANS reject changing the Senate filibuster rules.
So, we also know this is VERY important because it is at the TOP of the FRONT page.
Now, does the poll ask what percetage of these 'Americans' know what the word 'filibuster' means? Does the poll ask how this vast majority of Americans felt about 'filibusters' when the GOP was using them to thwart Clinton?
Who is this VAST majority of Americans who so STRONGLY agree on one arcane issue in this suppossed 'purple' land?
Then Young RR, in dawns on you that the Washington Post, in all their journalistic glory and reporters dogged desire to get out the 'truth' have chosen to give the reader this front page, top, story about....A POLL.
THEIR POLL.
News? Reporting?
Further Front Page Integrity:
DeLay Woes Prompt Rush to Refile Forms; Law makers Fear Ripples Over Ethics
Law makers fear ripple over ethics? What the hell does that mean? Oh, that ethics challenged guy, DeLay, that must be it!
On we go: 'members of Congress are RUSHING to amend their travel and campaign records FEARING that the CONTROVERSY over TOM DESATAN will trigger and ethics WAR that will bring greater scrutiny over their own travel and official activities.'
So there we have MORE FRONT PAGE NEWS! What Tom DeLay DID is SO BAD nobody even wants a whiff of inpropriety to come their way.
Or could it have read 'Fumbing DeLay witch hunt now has Congress at a standstill invloved in a 'Holier Than Thou' race over things they all do that are all legal and all not a very big deal. Members are also trying to brush up on their 'filibuster' knowledge as VAST MAJORITIES OF AMERICANS are entrhalled with the minutiae of Senate rules."
Shall we go to yesterday?
RR, do you think you'd know 'bias', really, if it jumped up and bit you in the azz?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Cop out!
As one of your professors entrusted with your development, I am not about to let you off with that sort of lame, ham handed dreck.
Someone said:
Well, my examples are NOT the editorial page. You want to tell me that the person(s) who crafted those stories and those who approved them and those like them, day after day, wanna tell me they don't have a dog in the race?
rraley said:
As one of your professors entrusted with your development, I am not about to let you off with that sort of lame, ham handed dreck.
Someone said:
Well, my examples are NOT the editorial page. You want to tell me that the person(s) who crafted those stories and those who approved them and those like them, day after day, wanna tell me they don't have a dog in the race?
The DeLay story doesn't fit with your argument...Capitol Hill is covering their tracks...they did a piece on InsidePolitics about it.
As for the poll...66% seems to me that a vast majority oppose ending the filibuster. What's wrong with saying that? Plus, this is the biggest political event in the nation right now, it should be in the upper right hand corner of the paper.
The Post is known for its political coverage and that shows just why it holds such prestige. It actually covers it.
As for the poll...66% seems to me that a vast majority oppose ending the filibuster. What's wrong with saying that? Plus, this is the biggest political event in the nation right now, it should be in the upper right hand corner of the paper.
The Post is known for its political coverage and that shows just why it holds such prestige. It actually covers it.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
You are in danger of failing this class...
Let me see...hmmm...OK. Here, let's try this:
What IS my argument in regards to DeLay?
Next:
And why, do you suppose, they oppose? Did they feel the same way 7 years ago? What changed their mind?
Go hang out in "Chit Chat' (the equivalent of a Post/ABC group) and ask what 'filibuster' means. Condict a poll.
Yes, yes, dinner tables across American (at least according to a Post/ABC poll) are abuzz with the great 'filibuster' debate.
Not Social Security? Not Iraq? Not MJ? Not the cool spring that gave DC the greatest Cherry Blossoms in recent memory? Not all these kids dissapearing here lately? Filibuster???
If I was Catholic I'd crack your knuckles with my ruler.
Let me see...hmmm...OK. Here, let's try this:
What IS my argument in regards to DeLay?
Next:
And why, do you suppose, they oppose? Did they feel the same way 7 years ago? What changed their mind?
Go hang out in "Chit Chat' (the equivalent of a Post/ABC group) and ask what 'filibuster' means. Condict a poll.
Yes, yes, dinner tables across American (at least according to a Post/ABC poll) are abuzz with the great 'filibuster' debate.
Not Social Security? Not Iraq? Not MJ? Not the cool spring that gave DC the greatest Cherry Blossoms in recent memory? Not all these kids dissapearing here lately? Filibuster???
If I was Catholic I'd crack your knuckles with my ruler.
