Learn More - Click Here!

Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Thread Options
#362006 - 05/20/05 08:05 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Anonymous
Unregistered

I'm probably as old or older than you (judging by your use of the term "dude").

Return to Top
Chat! - BOL Watercooler
#362007 - 05/20/05 08:07 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
zaibatsu Offline
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
Quote:

If a liberal judge that was as far left as she is far right was brought before the Senate, that judge would be shot down as well.




You miss the whole point of this argument; she has not been given the chance to be shot down by the Senate. She has only been given the chance to be shot down by the judiciary committee and they did not.
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city

Return to Top
#362008 - 05/20/05 08:08 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
zaibatsu Offline
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
Quote:

I'm probably as old or older than you (judging by your use of the term "dude").




Then why are you talking about philosophy classes as if they have any value to this discussion or to anything in the real world? Do you teach a philosophy class?
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city

Return to Top
#362009 - 05/20/05 09:26 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Zamboni Driver Offline
Platinum Poster
Zamboni Driver
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 776
Going round and round
When I was in college, Philosophy class was where you floated ideas or theories. Most professors praised arguments that were "outside the realm of normal thinking", and bashed logic (insert conservative) thinking. If it was BS, it was good. If it was based in reality, it wasn't.

If you wanted a real exchange of ideas, it normally happened in a debate or speech class.

So, Obi Wan, I think this anon might take you in his own little world/philosophy class, but in a real debate - the force would be with you.
_________________________
Everything is possible with time and motivation

Return to Top
#362010 - 05/20/05 09:32 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
dare2dream Offline
100 Club
dare2dream
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 128
California
uh... so now the word "dude" can be used as a gauge of age? hummmmmmmmm *contemplates the age of the turtle in finding Nemo*.... wasn't he like 914 years old??
_________________________
The trouble with real life is that there is no danger music.

Return to Top
#362011 - 05/20/05 10:06 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
QCL Offline

Power Poster
QCL
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 6,259
NW IL
No...150 years young dude .
Sorry I live at the top of Mt. Wannahockalugie (the volcano in the fish tank in the dentist's office in Finding Nemo.)
Last edited by Momofnataliebear; 05/20/05 10:08 PM.
_________________________

Return to Top
#362012 - 05/20/05 11:52 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Anonymous
Unregistered

Quote:

I don't give a rat's hind end about what happened to Abe Fortus or Abe Vigoda. I don't care how the Democrats, the Republicans, or the Whigs acted years ago. Forget discussing ancient history and the use of filibuster. The question still has not been answered as to why judicial nominees who are now out of committee should be denied an up or down vote.




You may not care, but there were posters claiming that the Republicans had not filibustered Democratic nominees. The information on the Fortas and Paez nominations was to show that those claims were false.

As for your last sentence, there should be some procedure for getting a vote on nominees, but the wording of your question shows why that is difficult. Why should it be OK to deny a nominee an up-or-down vote in committee either????

Republicans having denied votes to large numbers of Clinton nominees now expect all Bush nominees to get a vote. What goes around comes around. If you want nominees to get a vote it's going to have to be fair for both sides.

Return to Top
#362013 - 05/21/05 12:05 AM Re: Senate Filibuster
straw Offline
Power Poster
straw
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
Quote:

Quote:

Chief Justice Rhenquist (chief justice appointment)
Antonin Scalia
Clarence Thomas
Sandra Day O'Connor

I don't think even you can argue that these are flaming liberal justices who favor abortion on demand, affirmative action, gay marriage (although they have not opined on this yet, my guess is they disfavor).




Actually, I could argue that about O'Connor (at least as it regards abortion and AA).




I'll give you AA, but she is a pragmatist on abortion. She has written two opinions upholding retreats from Roe, but she will not overturn Roe. She certainly doesn't support an absolute abortion right.

Return to Top
#362014 - 05/21/05 01:54 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Anonymous
Unregistered

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Chief Justice Rhenquist (chief justice appointment)
Antonin Scalia
Clarence Thomas
Sandra Day O'Connor

I don't think even you can argue that these are flaming liberal justices who favor abortion on demand, affirmative action, gay marriage (although they have not opined on this yet, my guess is they disfavor).




Actually, I could argue that about O'Connor (at least as it regards abortion and AA).




I'll give you AA, but she is a pragmatist on abortion. She has written two opinions upholding retreats from Roe, but she will not overturn Roe. She certainly doesn't support an absolute abortion right.




Roe should be overturned. Not because it supports abortion (it actually is more restrictive than what many states would enact), but because it is legislation, not a judicial decision. Overturning it would also free us somewhat from this litmus test--on both sides--for judicial nominees. Imagine presidential campaigns free from this issue. Imagine judicial nomination processes free from this issue.

Return to Top
#362015 - 05/21/05 02:57 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Anonymous
Unregistered

So would you overturn the whole Constitutional right to privacy or would you just allow outlawing abortion?

Return to Top
#362016 - 05/21/05 06:11 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
zaibatsu Offline
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
Quote:

So would you overturn the whole Constitutional right to privacy or would you just allow outlawing abortion?




Check the constitution, it does not contain a right to privacy.

Overturning Roe vs. Wade is not about right to privacy or outlawing abortion. See that is the problem--most people think overturning Roe would outlaw abortion. Many states would further restrict it; others would broaden it. Some states might pass laws to ban it. The Supreme Court would certainly review any challenge, but they should not legislate the way Roe does. Roe does much more than determine whether the Texas law was constitutional. It went on to say what can happen in each trimester. That power is reserved to legislative bodies, but the 9 men ignored it and did what they wanted to do. Why? Because they don't really answer to anyone. Yes, they could be impeached, but what it the reality of that happening over legislating from the bench.
Last edited by Obi Wan Z-kobe; 05/22/05 01:42 PM.
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city

Return to Top
#362017 - 05/23/05 01:38 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Quote:

there were posters claiming that the Republicans had not filibustered Democratic nominees. The information on the Fortas and Paez nominations was to show that those claims were false.




No, it's not. Paez received a cloture vote. Fortas' nomination was withdrawn because it did not have majority support. In neither case did Republicans use a filibuster to kill a nomination.

Now, it would be fair to say that some Republicans tried to use a filibuster to kill the Paez nomination, however, enough Republicans wouldn't go along with that, so they were unable to do so. If five Democrats would vote for cloture on these appeals court nominees, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

Return to Top
#362018 - 05/23/05 03:23 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
°X° Offline
Power Poster
°X°
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,332
WOOHOO
Democrats are calling Republicans hypocrites by using a feint even media elitists have glommed on to. They assert that Republicans filibustered a judicial nominee in the past... that’s right, they only have one example... Judge Abe Fortis who was already on the Supreme Court and was simply nominated for the Chief Justice vacancy.

The problem with this ‘example’ is that he never was truly filibustered. He was nominated, then passed through committee, then after four days of debate... some of President Bush’s nominees for actual judicial seats have now been waiting several years... they had a floor vote. The vote count was: On Oct. 1, Senate vote lost on a 45 (10R,35D) - 43 vote (24R,19D).

He didn’t even have the support of his own party and several Republicans voted for his confirmation! Media elitists don’t want to report the facts because the facts don’t allow them to blatantly attack Republicans in their publications and the uneducated liberal populace will continue to be fooled by their rhetoric.

Standing along side Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Chairman of a group of African American pastors, Bishop Harry Jackson asked, “Why are they afraid to put a black woman on the court?”, and he later said she is, ‘not only a legal hero for black America, she is a legal hero for all America’.

The answer is referred to in the opening paragraph of a recent AP story, ‘Amid Democratic complaints about radical right-wing activist judges’. ‘Radical right-wing activist judge’ is a liberal label for, ‘anti-abortionist’ or a judge who is against abortion. It’s the ‘activist’ part that they are afraid of.

Liberal Democrats love activist judges because these judges usually don’t adhere to the strict mandates of the law and go off on their own tangents when ruling on cases. If Justice Brown is a right-wing activist judge... and could possibly make it to the Supreme Court... then being against abortion doesn’t sit too well with the Left.

That’s what the filibuster over the judicial nominees is all about, abortion and the possible future vacancies on the Supreme Court. The Left could care less if these nominees are solidly qualified and are absolutely respected judges who would be positive additions to the federal courts.

The Left only wants them if they support the unchecked, unregulated, undeterred, mass destruction of innocent unborn babies. In their world view, anything less would be ‘uncivilized’.

Return to Top
#362019 - 05/23/05 04:07 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
straw Offline
Power Poster
straw
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
So not allowing nominees to come to the floor for a vote is different from fillibustering how exactly?

I know republicans were in the majority back then, and the democrats are the minority party, but the argument being espoused is that a President's nominees deserve/require an up/down floor vote.

Republicans have not allowed up/down votes in the past, but suddenly this is of monumental importance. Hypocrisy at its finest!

Change the rules and deal with the voters. I actually think most voters will approve of the rule change and Republicans will make more political hay of it than Democrats.

Why has Frist waited this long? He wants the confrontation to kick off his presidential bid. Lets get this over with already to see how it plays out.

Return to Top
#362020 - 05/23/05 04:14 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Quote:

So not allowing nominees to come to the floor for a vote is different from fillibustering how exactly?

I know republicans were in the majority back then, and the democrats are the minority party, but the argument being espoused is that a President's nominees deserve/require an up/down floor vote.

Republicans have not allowed up/down votes in the past, but suddenly this is of monumental importance. Hypocrisy at its finest!




If the Democrats were in the majority (see 2001-2002) and were not voting nominees out of committee, that would be one thing - that would be hypocritical if the Republicans claimed they had never done that. But what you have now is an unprecedented hold up of nominees by just over 40 senators. This is an escalation.

I personally think the best way around it is for both parties to guarantee an up or down vote on the floor for every nominee. But the Republicans can't do that by themselves. What they can do is change the filibuster rule. And if the Democrats won't make the agreement to provide an up or down vote, they'll do so.

Return to Top
#362021 - 05/23/05 04:29 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
zaibatsu Offline
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
I think the filibuster came into being in 1833 and the rules on filibuster have been changed many times. I believe the Democrats were in power for many of the previous changes. I believe those changes involved any and all legislation. I believe that I heard this possible change would only involve judicial nominations. Someone may have detailed these changes in this thread...I don't remember. The Democrats and the media are making much too big of a deal about the possible change.
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city

Return to Top
#362022 - 05/23/05 04:51 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Anonymous
Unregistered

No, frankly they aren't. This is a check/balance feature that is unique to our democracy. It may well be a feature that has allowed our democracy to flourish as it has. It provides a voice for the minority party. Let's all remember that while the Republicans are the majority party, 48% did not vote Republican in the presidential election. Isn't this minority entitled to some voice?

Return to Top
#362023 - 05/23/05 05:12 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Bengals Fan Offline
Power Poster
Bengals Fan
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,990
Cincinnati, OH
Quote:

No, frankly they aren't. This is a check/balance feature that is unique to our democracy. It may well be a feature that has allowed our democracy to flourish as it has. It provides a voice for the minority party. Let's all remember that while the Republicans are the majority party, 48% did not vote Republican in the presidential election. Isn't this minority entitled to some voice?




Yes, the minority is entitled to A VOICE. They are not entitled to turn the entire session into a deadlocked lame duck refusing to let anything get done. They are entitled to disagree and voice their disagreements. They are not entitled to prevent a vote entirely because they know they will lose. They are entitled to a voice, not a tyranny of the minority.

Return to Top
#362024 - 05/23/05 05:24 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
°X° Offline
Power Poster
°X°
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,332
WOOHOO
Look, the abortionists are breeding (or failing to breed) themselves out of existence. Those 40 million + people they've killed would have been raised up in families that believed in the correctness of abortion.
Add to that all the other tens of millions of pregnancies that failed due to the previous occurrence of an abortion, and you can see just exactly what's going on here.

It's an entire political class, the Liberals and their running dog lackeys, who have decided to self-destruct.

In the end it probably doesn't matter what happens with the judiciary in the near term future ~ it's in the long term that there will be no Liberals to replace those on the bench.

At the end of the day, the majority will win.

Return to Top
#362025 - 05/23/05 05:27 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Anonymous
Unregistered

Quote:

Check the constitution, it does not contain a right to privacy.





While the right to privacy is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, that does not resolve the issue. The Ninth Amendment is very specific that:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Supreme Court has held that the right to privacy is one of those rights retained by the people. You may disagree, but your statement that "Overturning Roe vs. Wade is not about right to privacy" has no connection to reality. Roe v, Wade held that the right to privacy included a woman's choice on whether to have an abortion. Overturning Roe would mean at least that the choice on abortion would no longer be protected by the right to privacy, and could mean that the other areas protected by the right to privacy (contraceptive counseling and private secual activity) might not be covered as well.

Return to Top
#362026 - 05/23/05 05:29 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
°X° Offline
Power Poster
°X°
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,332
WOOHOO
In other words, the political opposition is busy slaughtering it's children!

Return to Top
#362027 - 05/23/05 05:43 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Anonymous
Unregistered

Quote:

No, it's not. Paez received a cloture vote. Fortas' nomination was withdrawn because it did not have majority support. In neither case did Republicans use a filibuster to kill a nomination.

Now, it would be fair to say that some Republicans tried to use a filibuster to kill the Paez nomination, however, enough Republicans wouldn't go along with that, so they were unable to do so. If five Democrats would vote for cloture on these appeals court nominees, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.




Once again, the following is from the official US Senate website:

" Filibuster Derails Supreme Court Appointment

...Although the committee recommended confirmation, floor consideration sparked the first filibuster in Senate history on a Supreme Court nomination.

On October 1, 1968, the Senate failed to invoke cloture. Johnson then withdrew the nomination"

I don't know if you think you know more about the history of the Senate than the US Senate website shows, but I would tend to believe them over your interpretation.

As far as Paez is concerned your argument that the fact that cloture was invoked to stop the filibuster means that there never was a filibuster does not hold up. You said: "If five Democrats would vote for cloture on these appeals court nominees, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now." By your logic, if that happened it would mean that the Democrats never filibustered the current nominees! A cloture vote stops a filibuster, it does not mean that the filibuster never occurred.

Return to Top
#362028 - 05/23/05 06:16 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Anonymous
Unregistered

Quote:

No, frankly they aren't. This is a check/balance feature that is unique to our democracy. It may well be a feature that has allowed our democracy to flourish as it has. It provides a voice for the minority party. Let's all remember that while the Republicans are the majority party, 48% did not vote Republican in the presidential election. Isn't this minority entitled to some voice?




Some voice? Like the ability to block a nomination that has the support of a majority of the representatives? I don't think so. The minority should never have that sort of voice over nominee. The minority party has 48% of the voice; why should they be able to use it to create a 100% block of a nominee?

Return to Top
#362029 - 05/23/05 06:19 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Anonymous
Unregistered

Well, past representatives of the Senate disagree with you. But I'm sure that you know more and have a greater understand than they do.

It's this pack of Republican morons that want to change the rules to suit their own needs. If the shoe was on the other foot (i.e. dems changing the rules) the screaming would be deafening.

Return to Top
#362030 - 05/23/05 06:26 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Anonymous
Unregistered

Quote:

Overturning Roe would mean at least that the choice on abortion would no longer be protected by the right to privacy...




Not true at all.

First of all, the Supreme Court did not give abortion an absolute right to privacy. What about the 3rd trimester?

Secondly, the Supreme Court can use their "right to privacy" when they rule on abortion cases legislating the way Roe does. This will free up our judicial nominees and free up our presidential hopefuls from the abortion issue. Roe is bad judicial precendent.

My opinion on this is completely and totally separate from my views of abortion.

-Z-

Return to Top
Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5