Larry Gude
Strung Out
Ah look RR...
Professor Texas has arrived!
FromTexas said:
Professor Texas has arrived!
Tom DeLay
- Thread starter rraley
- Start date
FromTexas
This Space for Rent
Larry Gude said:
I'm just wondering how Byrd's preferred majority rule in the 70s is so different than now, or the Democrats cries of straight up or down votes being the democratic way during the Clinton years for nominees, or what about when it was okay to block the fillibuster because it was for civil rights legislation, or why 66 is better than 60 or 51 by the Constitution, or heck, what exactly leads to interpretation of "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" can be interpreted to be more than a majority vote or a 66 vote or a 60 vote; or why all of this is such a historical disaster over any other political move of the past 200+ years?
Am I wondering too much?
Last edited:
Larry Gude
Strung Out
No...
...you're not wondering too much.
the judiciary, with it's life time appointments, is THE modern battleground for the wings of both parties. It becomes more acute on the left with the fact that more often than not, in the modern era, the President is most likely going to be a Republican.
As you know this all began with Bork. After the war over his nomination, which never got a Senate vote BTW, the left started screaming 'you must send us judges we can ALL agree on'.
Now, that's not what the Constitution says but it sounds good. Pressed further, they wanted people with American Bar Association ratings of such a number or better signifying that if the Bar liked them then they'd be more broadly agreeable. There were also other group signings off they offered as evidence of an acceptable candidate.
Well, the what, 10 or so, Bush nominees who have not gotten their vote, including several women and minorities, ALL of them have sterling reputations and pass with flying colors all of the 'compromise' requirements the left has launched.
So now it's all personal and it's all playing to extremists on the left. These nominees are acceptable by just about everyone.
Frist should pull the trigger and toss the filibuster option on Judicial nominees. There is a Constitutional allowance for 'advice and consent' of the Senate which is expressed through a vote. The Constitution does not lay out a Super Majority requirement in the nomination of judges.
Simple.
FromTexas said:
...you're not wondering too much.
the judiciary, with it's life time appointments, is THE modern battleground for the wings of both parties. It becomes more acute on the left with the fact that more often than not, in the modern era, the President is most likely going to be a Republican.
As you know this all began with Bork. After the war over his nomination, which never got a Senate vote BTW, the left started screaming 'you must send us judges we can ALL agree on'.
Now, that's not what the Constitution says but it sounds good. Pressed further, they wanted people with American Bar Association ratings of such a number or better signifying that if the Bar liked them then they'd be more broadly agreeable. There were also other group signings off they offered as evidence of an acceptable candidate.
Well, the what, 10 or so, Bush nominees who have not gotten their vote, including several women and minorities, ALL of them have sterling reputations and pass with flying colors all of the 'compromise' requirements the left has launched.
So now it's all personal and it's all playing to extremists on the left. These nominees are acceptable by just about everyone.
Frist should pull the trigger and toss the filibuster option on Judicial nominees. There is a Constitutional allowance for 'advice and consent' of the Senate which is expressed through a vote. The Constitution does not lay out a Super Majority requirement in the nomination of judges.
Simple.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Rr...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601295.html
...is this a step in the right direction?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601295.html
...is this a step in the right direction?
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
The Post recently added "Prickly City" as a sop to conservatives. To my knowledge, this strip and "Mallard Fillmore" (which is not in the Post) are the only two right-leaning comic strips. Problem is, these comics are just not funny or clever. Their tone is very indignant and self-righteous, almost like conservative versions of Michael Moore.vraiblonde said:
On the left, "Boondocks" has the same problem these days. This comic started out with some good gags but quickly descended into stridency.
Vrai, other than "Doonesbury," what comics do you see as lefty? "Opus" and "Non Sequiter" make jokes about GWB, but I see these both as somewhat neutral politically. "Non Sequiter" makes some great observations about political correctness and modern litigiousness. Now, if the cartoonist would just get rid of Danae's damn pony...
A comics reader!Tonio said:
Doonesbury, in particular, incited my wrath when Alex was going to join the Army because he compared military service with having your kid do drugs, get pregnant and get a bunch of tattoos. He toned that storyline down after he got 6 bazillion objections from people like yours truly.
Boondocks is the be-all-end-all but they all have gone lib at one time or another. Even Cathy has taken the opportunity to bust on Bush's Social Security plan.
Prickly City isn't a conservative comic - they alternate back and forth. But they are the most fair in that they will actually present the conservative argument in a positive light.
It's just reinforcement, that's all. Mallard Fillmore is much funnier than either Garfield or Family Circus, but notice the Post doesn't carry it? The message throughout the whole WashPost is that Democrats are good and Republicans are evil. How anyone can fail to see that is beyond me.
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
Good point about Garfield and Family Circus. Family Circus used to be funnier and more true-to-life, with the kids actually getting angry at each other. Now the comic is the dead-tree version of glurge. I thnk the dead-grandparents stuff comes across as creepy. Liberty Meadows once compared it to The Sixth Sense.vraiblonde said:
If the Post was really interested in balance, it would pick up Fillmore and run all the political comics in a special box in the comics or on the editorial page.
66% of whom? What was the sample? Downtown Washingtonians and New Yorkers? Did anyone ask someone from Frederick? How about Leonardtown? Atlanta? Birmingham, AL? Nome, AK? It makes a big difference.rraley said:
Yeah, well......Tonio said:
I'm still waiting for some pro-filibuster person to come on and tell me why this is such a great and patriotic thing and what it accomplishes other than to obstruct the legislative process.
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
Before our time, Southern segregationists like Ol' Strom used the filibuster to prevent Congress from enacting civil rights legislation. Can you imagine if C-SPAN had been around in 1957?vraiblonde said:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90552,00.html
But what's the point? Speak your piece, then take the damn vote.Tonio said:
Congressmen are supposed to be there to represent us, not futz around with stupid crap like this. Their Congressional votes are supposed to reflect the best interests of their state and the people who elected them. It's annoying when Senators and Representatives get to Washington and start goofing around with party politics instead of doing their damn job - the job WE pay them for.
And Democrats are THE WORST offenders. Tom Daschle - great example of someone who got so caught up in party bullcrap rather than the will of his constituents that he got his walking papers in the next election. And then they have the nerve to bawl and pule about how Republicans should have to respect the minority party and meet them halfway - Hello, boneheads??? If we wanted it your way, you wouldn't be the minority party!!!
Absolutely, Speaker Hastert deserves some congrats on that.Larry Gude said:
Let's hope that the GOP and the Democratic Party never decide to circumvent the ethics process again.
I agree that the filibuster is an obstructionist tactic, but obstruction is the name of governmental action in America. The House's purpose is to represent the people to a t, the Senate's purpose is to be deliberative. The sixty-vote cloture motion should necessitate that members compromise and find real solutions rather than advance bankrupt political ideologies.
Sure, the majority rules...but that majority must act moderately and the filibuster ensures that.
FromTexas
This Space for Rent
rraley said:
Wrong. There is no need for a fillibuster since the already existing Constitutional framework sees that representation of the whole already exists... especially in legislation.
The Senate gives every state equal representation in one house. The Representative gives population representation (of a sort). The president may veto. Neither house can pass any legislation without both houses and the approval of the President (unless they have a super majority to override). Add in judicial review, executive power of the purse, mandated input from any interested party in all legislation (i.e. public hearings, etc...), concept of federalism, etc.... and all bases are covered to represent all groups. The framers of the Constitution were... genius!
The fillibuster is a tactic to delay until the wind blows your way.