In 1995, these three senators voted to end all filibusters in the Senate....

Discussion in 'Politics' started by -Cp, Apr 26, 2005.

  1. -Cp
    Offline

    -Cp Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,911
    Thanks Received:
    360
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Earth
    Ratings:
    +363
    In 1995, these three senators voted to end all filibusters in the Senate, but now are changing their tune... gee - what a shock...

    [​IMG]
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533
    Flipping through the channels the other day, I actually heard Lieberman say this - with a straight face, yet:

    "Yes - but things are DIFFERENT now".

    :wtf:
     
  3. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    yes they are....they didn't have the votes to get their way then but we do now....

    funny how they all say how stupid us neocons are but we keep beating them

    as i always say......do morons think stupid people are smart?
     
  4. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    12,887
    Thanks Received:
    1,610
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,159
    Yeah, different because the Republicans are in power now.

    :banana2:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. SmarterThanYou
    Online

    SmarterThanYou Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    But don't pontificate on the floor of the Senate and tell me that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States of America by blocking a judge or filibustering a judge that I don't think deserves to be on the circuit court because I am going to continue to do it at every opportunity I believe a judge should not be on that court. That is my responsibility. That is my advise and consent role, and I intend to exercise it. I don't appreciate being told that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States. I swore to uphold that Constitution, and I am doing it now by standing up and saying what I am saying." Bill Frist

    why are you all following the hypocritical preachings of the senator who said this on Mar 7, 2000?
     
  6. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    Not sure who that is... but, GOP or Dem, liberal or conservative, I think that all judicial votes in the Senate should be exempt from filibuster. Is that what you are looking for?
     
  7. SmarterThanYou
    Online

    SmarterThanYou Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    not sure who WHO is? Bill Frist?


    no, not actually. I still support the filibuster and think that its consistent with the advise and consent role, just like Frist said above.
     
  8. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    Sorry... missed the Bill Frist part.

    I'm fine with the advise and consent role - it's Constitutional. I'm not fine with filibustering, as I don't feel it's consistent with the "consenting" part of the Constitution.
     
  9. SmarterThanYou
    Online

    SmarterThanYou Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    sounds like you're saying that 'advise and consent' means rubberstamping the presidents nominations.
     
  10. no1tovote4
    Offline

    no1tovote4 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,294
    Thanks Received:
    616
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +616

    It means talking about then voting on them, not rubber-stamping. Sometimes it is even effective to simply take no action at all.

    In the past 29 SCOTUS nominations were not approved of them only 1 was filibustered and only 12 had votes. Most of the others were nominated near the end of the term of the President and the Senate elected to wait until after the election to determine if there would be a different nominee from the new President.

    Most of the rules that were used by the Senate to stop the nominees from being approved are no longer enforced by the Senate, in fact the only one left for any opposition is the Filibuster.
     

Share This Page