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

[-Cp]

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

 

[musicman]

Flipping through the channels the other day, I actually heard Lieberman say this - with a straight face, yet:

"Yes - but things are DIFFERENT now".

 

[manu1959]

Flipping through the channels the other day, I actually heard Lieberman say this - with a straight face, yet:

"Yes - but things are DIFFERENT now".

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?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Flipping through the channels the other day, I actually heard Lieberman say this - with a straight face, yet:

"Yes - but things are DIFFERENT now".

Yeah, different because the Republicans are in power now.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

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?

 

[5stringJeff]

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?

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?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Not sure who that is...

not sure who WHO is? Bill Frist?

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?

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

 

[5stringJeff]

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.

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.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

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.

sounds like you're saying that 'advise and consent' means rubberstamping the presidents nominations.

 

[no1tovote4]

sounds like you're saying that 'advise and consent' means rubberstamping the presidents nominations.

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.

 

[5stringJeff]

sounds like you're saying that 'advise and consent' means rubberstamping the presidents nominations.

No, I mean majority vote, not supermajority vote.

 

[USViking]

Somebody help me out here:

Is there any legislative body in the world which requires other than a simple majority for passage of any item, besides the US Senate?

Has there ever been?

Fillibustering is obstruction, pure and simple, and has been put to notorious use in the past, as when southern Senators fillibustered away anti-lynching legislation. Its potential for good is cancelled out, I think, by its potential for misuse.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

then wouldn't that make Bill Frist a hypocrite of the highest order according to his quote from 2000?

 

[Nienna]

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.

I think this is the key... No judicial nominee has ever been filibustered who has enough votes to be confirmed. Judicial nominees deserve an up-or-down vote, as is consistent with the Constitution. This does not mean that all nominees must be "rubber-stamped." They must still pass a vote in the full Senate.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Somebody help me out here:

Is there any legislative body in the world which requires other than a simple majority for passage of any item, besides the US Senate?

Has there ever been?

from the beginning of this country there has been the requirement of a supermajority from 3 bodies to amend the constitution.

 

[5stringJeff]

Somebody help me out here:

Is there any legislative body in the world which requires other than a simple majority for passage of any item, besides the US Senate?

Has there ever been?

The House of Representatives?

Every state legislature?

Sound familiar?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

I think this is the key... No judicial nominee has ever been filibustered who has enough votes to be confirmed. Judicial nominees deserve an up-or-down vote, as is consistent with the Constitution. This does not mean that all nominees must be "rubber-stamped." They must still pass a vote in the full Senate.

and back when senators had balls instead of submitting to the party leaders, like a puppy to its mother, that would work. Now though, its all us normal people can do from being overrun by a parties special interest and agenda.

 

[5stringJeff]

then wouldn't that make Bill Frist a hypocrite of the highest order according to his quote from 2000?

Apparently so... though I think he was wrong in 2000 and right now.

 

[USViking]

The House of Representatives?

Definitely not.

Every state legislature?

I don't believe so. Can you provide documentation for any?

Sound familiar?

Nope.

 

[USViking]

from the beginning of this country there has been the requirement of a supermajority from 3 bodies to amend the constitution.

There is also a 2/3 Senate-only majority Constitutional requirement for the passage of treaties.

Aside from these exceptions explicitly required by the US Constitution, are there any legislative bodies anywhere which require other than a simple majority for anything?