Look Who Wants 'Compromise' Now

[freeandfun1]

I understand that, but civil rights issues were fixed without removing the filibuster. The same can be done about judicial nominees.

True, but only because LBJ convinced his Southern Democrats to "give it up". Also, don't forget, back then, they REALLY had to filibuster. Now they call it a filibuster, but noboby stays there all night and nights on end debating. They just refuse to let it go to vote. If they want to filibuster, then do it right. Like the system was meant to be worked.

 

[dilloduck]

I understand that, but civil rights issues were fixed without removing the filibuster. The same can be done about judicial nominees.

you know how?----by voting in a super majority----yes mob rule--- !!!!

 

[Bonnie]

Karl Marx's advice to the Republicans.....

DON'T compromise

Be unapologetically conservative

Be unapologetically patriotic

Realize that we are in the majority and it's payback time in the Big City, baby! Time to kick those Demo-rats' asses all the way from here to the South Pole.

Realize that the Democrats are our enemy and treat them as such, relegate them to no power committees such as "Capital Hill sanitation" (especially that Hillary Rat Fink Clinton --- if possible make her clean all the toilets on Capitol Hill too. Not that I'm being vindictive, but a good dose of humility is good for the soul!).

President Bush --- you're a nice man, and that's your problem ---- don't be nice, resist the urge to have Ted Kennedy over to watch movies and ask Bill Clinton for foreign policy advice. It just makes you look weak and indecisive and makes them look like they know something you don't and the will use that to their advantage ..... I'd say f*** those m************s, kick their ass, make them kiss yours and stand on their necks... that is what a conquerer does to the vanquished, that's what they'd do to you. Once you and the Republicans get your major goals accomplished, then show some token mercies that don't cost you anything.

Carry out the same campaign of smear tactics, demonization as the Democrats and turn the tables on them. Call them what they are .... a bunch of Neo-Communist, Dictator loving, elitist snobs that have a contempt for the average American. A thieving bunch of liars that will sell out national security (play up the Clinton and the Sandy Berger thing really big!), their mothers and the Lord Jesus Christ himself for a campaign contribution. After doing that, then focus on their bad qualities (if you didn't get it, that's supposed to be a joke -- ok, ok, can't be funny all the time!)

After 40 years of servitude to these bastards, why did we vote you into office? To be Democrat lite? No! To reverse the blind policies of these hooligans! To bring back decency and morality and responsible government to the American people! To kick out and eviscerate the special interests, the Labor Unions, the NOW, the ACLU and their tyranny of oppression against us the working people of this country! Bring down those judges who hold Judeo-Christian values in contempt! Impeach them! Throw those neo-socialist-commie intellectuals into prison! Show the rest of the world that no one is above the law!


There! I feel better already!

Not much I can add to that Karl!!!!!!!!!

 

[no1tovote4]

that doesn't 'solve' anything MM. If the minority party then becomes the majority, we still have a minority that gets oppressed. All it does is change the sides. Where does that equal a solution?

FYI, its only sufficed for the extremists and radicals, its always been a problem for the mainstream in the middle.

I have to agree with DK here.

First of all it should be known that this is not the first rule that has been taken away in order to get judges approved by the Senate. The Republicans used rules that would kill many of B. Clinton's Judges in the Committees, even when they were in the minority. It is the reason that filibuster of judges was so rare before now, there rarely was a need for it because certain Senate rules would be used to block those judges before it got to that point. However by removing those rules they made it so the only objection the minority can make is by using the filibuster. This gave a fast track to approving judges and Bush has actually had a higher percentage of judges approved than almost every single President before him.

Now the only way to block judges for a minority party is the filibuster and that is used relatively rarely, yet Republicans are willing to remove that rule as well for short term gain. Mark my words this will bite the Republicans in the butt when there is a Dem Majority with a Dem Executive branch which will happen in the future. The pendulum swings, and swinging to the left again is something that will happen in the future no matter how successful Republicans think they are right now.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

you know how?----by voting in a super majority----yes mob rule--- !!!!

so if judicial nominees are that much of an issue to americans, they will vote in enough senators to make that work, right?

 

[dilloduck]

so if judicial nominees are that much of an issue to americans, they will vote in enough senators to make that work, right?

ya--then what happens to the minority?

 

[musicman]

so if judicial nominees are that much of an issue to americans, they will vote in enough senators to make that work, right?

That's what we THOUGHT we'd done already; the ballot box, and all that.

You're saying "majority rules", or, more accurately, "supermajority rules"?

Don't we, then, have an even MORE oppressed minority - since they are more of a minority? Where does this all end?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

there is a HUGE difference between 55 and 60 when it comes to the senate. The only thing that some people are trying to do now is obfuscate the issue between numbers.

 

[dilloduck]

there is a HUGE difference between 55 and 60 when it comes to the senate. The only thing that some people are trying to do now is obfuscate the issue between numbers.

Not at all---you are arguing for minority rights (the rights of people with less numbers). There will always be a minority. Do we just stop the show because the minority says so? If that's so---NOTHING will ever get accomplished--absolutely nothing.

 

[musicman]

there is a HUGE difference between 55 and 60 when it comes to the senate.

Or 51 and 60, for that matter.

The only thing that some people are trying to do now is obfuscate the issue between numbers.

Indeed they are. None of this is carved in stone, anyhow - no less a slack-jawed conservative tyrant than Ted Kennedy himself said so in 1975. The founding fathers never contemplated any such thing.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Indeed they are. None of this is carved in stone, anyhow - no less a slack-jawed conservative tyrant than Ted Kennedy himself said so in 1975. The founding fathers never contemplated any such thing.

I'm sure that in the beginning the founders considered that a single party would eventually make a grab at totatitarianism, which is why there are elections every two years. I also imagine that they never thought it would start as early as andrew jackson.

 

[musicman]

I'm sure that in the beginning the founders considered that a single party would eventually make a grab at totatitarianism, which is why there are elections every two years. I also imagine that they never thought it would start as early as andrew jackson.

None of which makes the filibuster or the supermajority any more worthy of the hushed, reverent tones now - and only now - imparted upon them by Democrats.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

None of which makes the filibuster or the supermajority any more worthy of the hushed, reverent tones now - and only now - imparted upon them by Democrats.

lest we forget, it isn't just the democrats that like to hold the filibuster process in high regard when they are the minority.

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." (March 7, 2000) Bill Frist

 

[musicman]

lest we forget, it isn't just the democrats that like to hold the filibuster process in high regard when they are the minority.

Ah, but the requirement of a supermajority to break a filibuster on a judicial nominee is a bit of a new wrinkle, wouldn't you agree?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Ah, but the requirement of a supermajority to break a filibuster on a judicial nominee is a bit of a new wrinkle, wouldn't you agree?

only because the filibuster is so close to being removed. the dems had little chance of doing it when they suggested it and we all knew it.

 

[musicman]

only because the filibuster is so close to being removed. the dems had little chance of doing it when they suggested it

I don't know why you say that. All they had to do was do it - they had the votes. Who was going to stop them - an outraged Dan Rather?

and we all knew it.

Not I.

 

[freeandfun1]

It would be nice to take in to account the number of nominees the republicans held up in committe during clintons term

Just looked it up - 4

Also, just heard on the radio....

Clinton had 71% of his nominees approved. Bush, so far, approximately 50%.

 

[no1tovote4]

Just looked it up - 4

Also, just heard on the radio....

Clinton had 71% of his nominees approved. Bush, so far, approximately 50%.

Looked it up where? I may change my mind of this is a true percentage.

 

[Bonnie]

I have to agree with DK here.

First of all it should be known that this is not the first rule that has been taken away in order to get judges approved by the Senate. The Republicans used rules that would kill many of B. Clinton's Judges in the Committees, even when they were in the minority. It is the reason that filibuster of judges was so rare before now, there rarely was a need for it because certain Senate rules would be used to block those judges before it got to that point. However by removing those rules they made it so the only objection the minority can make is by using the filibuster. This gave a fast track to approving judges and Bush has actually had a higher percentage of judges approved than almost every single President before him.

Now the only way to block judges for a minority party is the filibuster and that is used relatively rarely, yet Republicans are willing to remove that rule as well for short term gain. Mark my words this will bite the Republicans in the butt when there is a Dem Majority with a Dem Executive branch which will happen in the future. The pendulum swings, and swinging to the left again is something that will happen in the future no matter how successful Republicans think they are right now.

It's also a dangerous idea to be so paralyzed with fear of retaliation that nothing ever gets done. We have many very liberal activist judges on the bench at the federal level as it is. Maybe it is time for Republicans to actually do something gutsy while they are in power and when they are not then they will find a way to deal with it just as you said the pendulum does always swing back and forth , so while you are in power best to make hay.

 

[freeandfun1]

No1 -

I may have erred. The piece I was reading was speaking of circuit court judges. I am not sure how that fits with all nominees. I didn't realize that at first. I am still digging though.