forum Politics and Society ›› Senate Filibuster ›› new reply Post Reply
Kadesh

Kadesh
37,478 Posts
33/M/PA

offline     (26)
May 21 2005 4:03 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
What are your takes on this senate filibuster thing? My take is that for 200 years no one has ever filibustered judicial nominees, and according to the constitution the senate is only supposed to give consent and advice.
Although it has evolved into a majority deciding. What are your takes on this thing?
crunkmoose
Fuck Nazis.
24,521 Posts
60/M/MA


offline   (9)
May 21 2005 12:36 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
They gave advice the FIRST time these people were nominated. I find it very telling that Bill Frist and the rest can't tell the truth... that these people have been re-nominated because Bush wants a legislature that is a rubber stamp for him despite the fact that 200 of his 210 nominees for judicial appointments have been approved.

As usual, the Bush game is "give me what I want, or I'll just change the rules to get it".

Republicans had to try to get rid of their own ethics rules when they took power, and I am sure when they eventually lose power they will be begging to have this one repealed very quickly.
Guitar Kid
Take The Power Bac
197 Posts
31/M/NY


offline   (2)
May 21 2005 12:47 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
exactly
Kadesh
Kadesh
37,478 Posts
33/M/PA


offline     (26)
May 21 2005 4:37 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
No you guys are stupid. The only ones changing the rules are the guys filibustering nominees because they are pissed they lost the majority in the senate because of THE PEOPLE. It has never been done with nominees. That is it. The majority rules and should always rule for as long as they are majority in U.S. politics. If they didn't what is the point of the majority?

crunkmoose
Fuck Nazis.
24,521 Posts
60/M/MA


offline   (9)
May 21 2005 7:16 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
"The only ones changing the rules are the guys filibustering nominees"

No, they aren't. That is utterly untrue... It has always taken more than a simple majority to stop a fillibuster. So, you are calling us stupid, but you don't even know the fucking facts. Typical for you.

"because they are pissed they lost the majority in the senate because of THE PEOPLE."

The fact that the motive you accredit to them is so asinine, juvenile, and frankly unrealistic just lends more weight to the idea that you have no clue what is even going on.

"It has never been done with nominees. That is it."

And no president has ever renominated the 10 people out of 210 he did not get approved in his first term.

"The majority rules and should always rule for as long as they are majority in U.S. politics."

Then Al Gore should have been our president from 2000 to 2004... but you've carped about that as well... so which time were you lying???

"If they didn't what is the point of the majority?"

To truly support this argument you are making now, you MUST necessarily reject Bush's first term as being utterly illigitimate... we all know you don't... so once again... which is the lie?

Kadesh
Kadesh
37,478 Posts
33/M/PA


offline     (26)
May 21 2005 7:23 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
crunkmoose
Fuck Nazis.
24,521 Posts
60/M/MA


offline   (9)
May 21 2005 7:29 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
^you drawing a blank is hardly surprising.
Kadesh
Kadesh
37,478 Posts
33/M/PA


offline     (26)
May 21 2005 7:30 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
Originally posted by:crunkmoose

"The only ones changing the rules are the guys filibustering nominees"

No, they aren't. That is utterly untrue... It has always taken more than a simple majority to stop a fillibuster. So, you are calling us stupid, but you don't even know the fucking facts. Typical for you.

"because they are pissed they lost the majority in the senate because of THE PEOPLE."

The fact that the motive you accredit to them is so asinine, juvenile, and frankly unrealistic just lends more weight to the idea that you have no clue what is even going on.

And no president has ever renominated the 10 people out of 210 he did not get approved in his first term.

"The majority rules and should always rule for as long as they are majority in U.S. politics."

Then Al Gore should have been our president from 2000 to 2004... but you've carped about that as well... so which time were you lying???

"If they didn't what is the point of the majority?"

To truly support this argument you are making now, you MUST necessarily reject Bush's first term as being utterly illigitimate... we all know you don't... so once again... which is the lie?




"No, they aren't. That is utterly untrue... It has always taken more than a simple majority to stop a fillibuster. So, you are calling us stupid, but you don't even know the fucking facts. Typical for you."

>>>Why? Please tell us why that is untrue.

"And no president has ever renominated the 10 people out of 210 he did not get approved in his first term."

>>>They were held for 4 years dude. That hasn't been done either. Unless you can site an example.

"Then Al Gore should have been our president from 2000 to 2004... but you've carped about that as well... so which time were you lying???"

>>>That is the first good point you have made in a while. I can only say that those have always been the rules. The electoral college has always been set up to decide and no one has really disagreed. On a minor note i kind of disagree with it but i am faithful that the founding fathers were more wise then myself and had a reason.
CruJones
is my hero
1,055 Posts
35/M/NJ


offline 
May 21 2005 7:31 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
advantage crunkmoose
Kadesh
Kadesh
37,478 Posts
33/M/PA


offline     (26)
May 21 2005 7:32 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
disadvatage crunkmoose, he's been visiting moveon.org again.
crunkmoose
Fuck Nazis.
24,521 Posts
60/M/MA


offline   (9)
May 21 2005 7:40 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
">>>Why? Please tell us why that is untrue."

Because, dipshit... Senate rules have to be CHANGED to allow a simple majority to over-ride a fillibuster. I made that pretty fucking clear the first time around.

">>>They were held for 4 years dude. That hasn't been done either. Unless you can site an example."

So fucking what! Bush got 200 of his nominees approved BEFORE Republicans had control of the house and senate. Find me another example of THAT.

">>>That is the first good point you have made in a while. I can only say that those have always been the rules. "

Then you cannot endorse changing the rules of the congress to allow a simple majority to stop a fillibuster.

"The electoral college has always been set up to decide and no one has really disagreed."

Many have disagreed, and many more now disagree.

"On a minor note i kind of disagree with it but i am faithful that the founding fathers were more wise then myself and had a reason."

Then either you are too lazy, too stupid, or too brainwashed to have ever looked up why the electoral college was put in place and made up your own fucking mind on the issue. But, of course, you seem to completely lack the ability to question authority in any way.




Kadesh
Kadesh
37,478 Posts
33/M/PA


offline     (26)
May 21 2005 7:43 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
Originally posted by:crunkmoose

">>>Why? Please tell us why that is untrue."

Because, dipshit... Senate rules have to be CHANGED to allow a simple majority to over-ride a fillibuster. I made that pretty fucking clear the first time around.

">>>They were held for 4 years dude. That hasn't been done either. Unless you can site an example."

So fucking what! Bush got 200 of his nominees approved BEFORE Republicans had control of the house and senate. Find me another example of THAT.

">>>That is the first good point you have made in a while. I can only say that those have always been the rules. "

Then you cannot endorse changing the rules of the congress to allow a simple majority to stop a fillibuster.

"The electoral college has always been set up to decide and no one has really disagreed."

Many have disagreed, and many more now disagree.

"On a minor note i kind of disagree with it but i am faithful that the founding fathers were more wise then myself and had a reason."

Then either you are too lazy, too stupid, or too brainwashed to have ever looked up why the electoral college was put in place and made up your own fucking mind on the issue. But, of course, you seem to completely lack the ability to question authority in any way.







Bottom line maniac, filibusters aren't supposed to be used against nominees. They never have, and the democrates are pissed off that they lost majority at the polls so they decided to employ a tactic that has never been used in this situation before to get what they want.
Kadesh
Kadesh
37,478 Posts
33/M/PA


offline     (26)
May 21 2005 7:46 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
For those of you who feel we should abide by the constitution instead of make up play ground rules here you are....

"Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. "
crunkmoose
Fuck Nazis.
24,521 Posts
60/M/MA


offline   (9)
May 21 2005 7:53 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
"filibusters aren't supposed to be used against nominees. They never have"

And leaders in a democratic society that requires the advice and CONSENT of the legislature to approve nominees are not supposed to renominate a tiny number of nominees they did not get approved the first time to try to get their way on everything and freeze the minority out of the decision making process completely.

"and the democrates are pissed off that they lost majority at the polls so they decided to employ a tactic that has never been used in this situation before to get what they want. "

Sort of like a President renominating 10 people he didn't get approved the first time because he wants to get his way or else???

Like I said... your concept of the motivation of the minority is asinine and juvenile.

"provided two thirds of the Senators present concur"

AHEM....

Kadesh
Kadesh
37,478 Posts
33/M/PA


offline     (26)
May 21 2005 7:56 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur"

and in full context ahem...
Kadesh
Kadesh
37,478 Posts
33/M/PA


offline     (26)
May 21 2005 7:57 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
But it evolved into a simple majority deciding over time. No filibuster has ever been used. If it's allowed, what is the point of a majority?
forum Politics and Society ›› Senate Filibuster ›› new reply Post Reply

Quick Reply - RE: Senate Filibuster

Connect with Facebook to comment: Login w/FB

or Sign up free! - or login:







Subject


wrap selection with italics
wrap selection with bold
insert less than symbol
insert greater than symbol


google image Insert Google Images
Share a Band



Your ad here?