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

[SmarterThanYou]

they don't call em "whips" for nothing-----one side ALWAYS crams thier stuff on the other side.

well thats certainly A-Fing-OK, isn't it.

 

[USViking]

merely allowing the opposition to have a voice, but still denying it any recourse or input is not a democracy, nor is it a republic. It is exactly as I stated, totalinarianism.

Not at all.

The "recourse" is to take their case to the people in the next election.

The "Input" is legislative debate.

Our Democracy provides ample opportunity for each.

A totalitarian government would provide neither.

All you are doing now is pasting labels.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Not at all.

The "recourse" is to take their case to the people in the next election.

The "Input" is legislative debate.

Our Democracy provides ample opportunity for each.

A totalitarian government would provide neither.

All you are doing now is pasting labels.

and telling the populace to get their electors to 'perform' better in the elections is a crock. you missed the entire basic point about the senate creation.

 

[no1tovote4]

I personally think that with a coin-operated government like ours, having something like the Filibuster is pretty important so that the worst judges are not put on the bench to satisfy the largest donation from a questionable source.

 

[no1tovote4]

and telling the populace to get their electors to 'perform' better in the elections is a crock. you missed the entire basic point about the senate creation.

The Senate was the voice for the States in the Federal Government, Amendment 17 turned it into a longer-lasting version of the Congress. The Senators in the original Constitution were not even voted for by the populace, they were appointed by the States to represent them. The people's voice is the Congress, the Senate was created to limit the power of Majority rule tyranny that can be present in total Democracy rather than a Representative Republic.

In the rush to remove State's powers the Senate has been turned into something that it was not intended that it should be.

 

[USViking]

and telling the populace to get their electors to 'perform' better in the elections is a crock.

My own point is not that the legislators perform better,
but that they be voted out of office for unsatisfactory performance.

you missed the entire basic point about the senate creation.

I see what you mean- the Senate was originally appointed by the state legislatures, and the reason for this was to insulate them from what the founders considered to be the possibility of excessive popular passions.

It being disclosed after about 110 years that the people were sufficiently dispassionate, the Senate has since been elected by popular vote, thus giving the people more power. What are you getting at here?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

I personally think that with a coin-operated government like ours, having something like the Filibuster is pretty important so that the worst judges are not put on the bench to satisfy the largest donation from a questionable source.

most definitely the truth.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

I see what you mean- the Senate was originally appointed by the state legislatures, and the reason for this was to insulate them from what the founders considered to be the possibility of excessive popular passions.

It being disclosed after about 110 years that the people were sufficiently dispassionate, the Senate has since been elected by popular vote, thus giving the people more power. What are you getting at here?

now you got it.

 

[BR-549]

In 1995, these three senators voted to end all filibusters in the Senate, but now are changing their tune... gee - what a shock...

So they seek to make us permanent slaves of a Judiciary gone mad. Screw them . Keep pushing liberals and the Second Civil War is at hand... And the federalists won't win this time...

 

[USViking]

now you got it.

I do not get it.

What does this have to do with the current fillibustering issue?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

I do not get it.

What does this have to do with the current fillibustering issue?

it doesn't, directly. I asked you about the role of the senate in regards to supermajority vote and its creation to protect the minority from the majority.

 

[Bonnie]

Filibusted
Posted by: Jon Henke on Sunday, March 06, 2005

I've been of two minds on the filibuster issue. On the one hand, I don't like the idea of changing the parliamentary rules to gain a political advantage. After all, the Republican won't always be the majority party, and precedent-setting steps like this can be used against them, will be used against them, and will also be the basis for even further erosion of standards.

On the other hand, I also find the ideological opposition to the (Republican or Democratic) President's appointees at complete odds with the "advise and consent" role of the Senate. A President should be able to appoint pretty much anybody he likes, with the Senate simply preventing the appointment of incompetents (i.e., you don't appoint an untrained layman to the Supreme Court), and criminals. The idea that one party can restrict a President to appointments with whom they substantially agree is a real subversion of the role of the President.

So, I'm troubled by the parliamentary games being played right now, but sympathetic to the Robert Byrd's argument that such rule changes would "callously trample on freedom of speech and debate".

However, Steven Taylor has done some research which indicates that I shouldn't feel quite so sorry for those poor, oppressed Democrats. As it turns out, Senator "Not in the Senate, you don't!" Byrd was the Majority Whip in 1975, when a bill was introduced to reduce "the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds (67) to three-fifths (60) of the 100-member Senate". A fact that he left unmentioned when he took the floor of the Senate to rail against "men with motives and a majority [who] can manipulate law to cruel and unjust ends".

Oh, and while he was speaking out against "pernicious, procedural maneuver to serve immediate partisan goals", he also neglected to mention that he'd previously been of the opinion that "Congress is not obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past", and—approvingly—that "rules have been changed from time to time".

What's more, he also neglected to mention that the originator of the 1975 bill to amend the cloture rules was.....er, Senator Robert Byrd.

And finally, while Senator Byrd argues that " nowhere in the Constitution is an up-or-down vote—or even a vote at all—guaranteed", Steven Taylor offers the fairly obvious rejoinder....there is also "nothing in the Constitution that guarantees the filibuster power".

Senator Byrd isn't upset that rules can be changed - he's just upset that he's losing.

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=1319

 

[Bonnie]

The Byrd Option
03/07/2005


The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page

West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd got into hot water last week for introducing Hitler into the Senate's already acrimonious debate on Democratic filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominations. Speaking of the Republicans' threatened "nuclear option," he said, "We, unlike Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy, have never stopped being a nation of laws, not of men."

Herr Byrd does get carried away, but more revealing than his rhetoric was the substance of his remarks, on which he elaborated in an op-ed article in Friday's Washington Post. Somehow in his excoriation of a tactic that would deny Senators "their right to free speech on judicial nominations," Mr. Byrd forgot to mention that he pioneered the practice.

The "nuclear option" is the scary-sounding name for a simple Senate rule change to stop the filibuster of appeals-court nominees. Ending a filibuster requires 60 votes -- rather than the simple majority of 51 that was sufficient to confirm judges for all of Senate history until this Presidency. The idea is that if the Democrats filibuster another nominee, Majority Leader Bill Frist would ask for a ruling from the Senate's presiding officer that under Rule XXII only a simple majority vote is needed to end debate on judicial nominations. Assuming 51 Members concur -- and GOP nose-counters say they have the votes -- the Senate would then move to an up-or-down floor vote.

Changing Senate precedents by majority vote would be nothing new to Mr. Byrd, who used the tactic to change Senate precedents on filibusters and other delaying tactics when he was Majority Leader in 1977, 1979, 1980 and 1987. This history is detailed by Martin Gold and Dimple Gupta in the current issue of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy.

The example most closely analogous occurred in March 1980, when Mr. Byrd mounted a charge to eliminate the possibility of a double filibuster -- first on a motion to proceed to a nomination and then on a nomination itself. He wanted to push through the confirmation of Robert White as ambassador to El Salvador and, as Mr. Gold and Ms. Gupta explain, "this well established procedure presented potential difficulties."

And so Mr. Byrd moved to get rid of the first filibuster opportunity -- debate on motions to proceed to nominations. GOP Senator Jesse Helms objected and the presiding officer ruled in Mr. Helms's favor. Mr. Byrd appealed, and the Senate voted 54-38 to overturn the chair. The rule change went into effect.

Also closely analogous to today is Mr. Byrd's threat a year earlier to deploy the nuclear option if a change he had proposed to Rule XXII was filibustered. "I want to change the rules in an orderly fashion ..." he said. But, "if I have to be forced into a corner to try for a majority vote, I will do it because I am going to do my duty as I see my duty." In the end, the threat of going nuclear was enough to break the opposition.

http://www.progressforamerica.com/1101-361.1101-030705F.html

 

[ScreamingEagle]

it doesn't, directly. I asked you about the role of the senate in regards to supermajority vote and its creation to protect the minority from the majority.

1) So you think that any Senate vote should always have a super majority?

2) Taking your argument a step further: so what happens to the poor minority if the super majority gets their way in that case too? What about the "protection" of the poor minority then?

Next I suppose you'll want a 3/4 vote to pass anything in order to "protect" the minority...pretty soon it will not mean anything to gain seats in the Senate...the minority will be running everything. This argument is bogus.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

1) So you think that any Senate vote should always have a super majority?

With just about everything except cabinet appointees. The executive branch should have a relatively easy time being able to hire who they feel is best for the position.

2) Taking your argument a step further: so what happens to the poor minority if the super majority gets their way in that case too? What about the "protection" of the poor minority then?

By this statement I see you couldn't care less about any 'minority' so why bother trying to answer you? I hope it doesn't bother you too badly when you're on the losing end of the minority in a few years.

Next I suppose you'll want a 3/4 vote to pass anything in order to "protect" the minority...pretty soon it will not mean anything to gain seats in the Senate...the minority will be running everything. This argument is bogus.

no, 60 votes does nicely in my mind. It's more than just a single vote majority and not too much to be insurmountably accomplished. It's only bogus because it blocks your objective at the moment.

 

[musicman]

no, 60 votes does nicely in my mind. It's more than just a single vote majority and not too much to be insurmountably accomplished. It's only bogus because it blocks your objective at the moment.

Is that a fair statement, though, Smarter? Certainly a plausible case could be made that 60 votes only SERVES your objective at the moment - and Lieberman's, and Kennedy's, and Pelosi's.

 

[5stringJeff]

With just about everything except cabinet appointees. The executive branch should have a relatively easy time being able to hire who they feel is best for the position.

...

no, 60 votes does nicely in my mind. It's more than just a single vote majority and not too much to be insurmountably accomplished. It's only bogus because it blocks your objective at the moment.

I still see no constitutional justification for filibustering. If the Senate decides that they want to conduct business that way, great. But if the Senate decides they don't want to conduct business this way any more, why all the fuss?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Is that a fair statement, though, Smarter? Certainly a plausible case could be made that 60 votes only SERVES your objective at the moment - and Lieberman's, and Kennedy's, and Pelosi's.

Just as 1 objection served Lott's, or 60 votes served the republicans in clintons last two years, or the filibuster for Frist in 2000. it all comes out fair and even in the end.

 

[dilloduck]

With just about everything except cabinet appointees. The executive branch should have a relatively easy time being able to hire who they feel is best for the position.

By this statement I see you couldn't care less about any 'minority' so why bother trying to answer you? I hope it doesn't bother you too badly when you're on the losing end of the minority in a few years.

no, 60 votes does nicely in my mind. It's more than just a single vote majority and not too much to be insurmountably accomplished. It's only bogus because it blocks your objective at the moment.

What's the problem here. If a judge gets appointed and confirmed and then makes a decision that is clearly out of line with his job description is there not a process in place to punish him. Why is it that 2 branches of government fear the power of the other branch? Why not address the real issue? Make to much sense or will it expose personal power agendas ? Look at it ! We have 3 branches of government-----Why are 2 of them so intimidated by the other??

 

[freeandfun1]

Just as 1 objection served Lott's, or 60 votes served the republicans in clintons last two years, or the filibuster for Frist in 2000. it all comes out fair and even in the end.

Really? Point to this. When did the GOP use 60 votes to block Clinton's judicial appointments? Please provide a