Thread Options 
|
#364114 - 05/26/05 03:51 PM
Who's most responsible for filibuster compromise?
|
Power Poster
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,332
WOOHOO
|
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#364115 - 05/26/05 05:40 PM
Re: Who's most responsible for filibuster compromise?
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
yep thats me - clueless and care- less.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#364117 - 05/26/05 05:45 PM
Re: Who's most responsible for filibuster compromise?
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
The answer is the 14 Senators that reached the compromise, but that's not given as a choice. Those 14 are clearly the "responsible" ones - too bad all 100 Senators aren't that responsible.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#364120 - 05/26/05 06:19 PM
Re: Who's most responsible for filibuster compromi
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
mirror mirror on the wall who's the cutey one in all?
Dont s(removed excessssive "s")
Last edited by Andy Z; 05/27/05 12:40 PM.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#364121 - 05/26/05 06:32 PM
Re: Who's most responsible for filibuster compromise?
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Yes, I agree - I've seen your posts, anon! Now, how is this a mirror for your banking career?
Paragons's response above is how people who have imitation Cobras out of a kit treat the world. They're so full of Cobra envy that that they have to throw in an insult to make them feel better about themselves. Sooner or later everyone sees through the charade.
Paragon, how is the way you treat people on the boards a mirror for where you banking career is heading?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#364122 - 05/26/05 07:55 PM
Re: Who's most responsible for filibuster compromise?
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
where's my sizzle stick anyway...
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#364123 - 05/26/05 08:13 PM
Re: Who's most responsible for filibuster compromise?
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
What's so wrong with compromise? You see, that's the problems with the extremists in BOTH parties. They don't want to compromise. And, these extremists have brainwashed people like Paragon into thinking this is the way of the world. That's how we've become so polarized, partisan, hateful and unilateral. That's not the way of the forefathers nor what our country was built on. The sooner we ALL see that the better we will all be in the long run. As long as the incendiaries are in charge, the deeper the hole we dig.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#364124 - 05/26/05 09:06 PM
Re: Who's most responsible for filibuster compromise?
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
Yes, I agree - I've seen your posts, anon! Now, how is this a mirror for your banking career?
Paragons's response above is how people who have imitation Cobras out of a kit treat the world. They're so full of Cobra envy that that they have to throw in an insult to make them feel better about themselves. Sooner or later everyone sees through the charade.
Paragon, how is the way you treat people on the boards a mirror for where you banking career is heading?
Why do you care so much about paragon? Are you some old lady Boler looking to hook up? Or, a girlyman?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#364125 - 05/26/05 09:09 PM
Re: Who's most responsible for filibuster compromise?
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I'd say that the poster is a girlyman - afraid to sign in.
Sounds Right to Me.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#364126 - 05/26/05 09:51 PM
Re: Who's most responsible for filibuster compromise?
|
Diamond Poster
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,245
US of A
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Yes, I agree - I've seen your posts, anon! Now, how is this a mirror for your banking career?
Paragons's response above is how people who have imitation Cobras out of a kit treat the world. They're so full of Cobra envy that that they have to throw in an insult to make them feel better about themselves. Sooner or later everyone sees through the charade.
Paragon, how is the way you treat people on the boards a mirror for where you banking career is heading?
Why do you care so much about paragon? Are you some old lady Boler looking to hook up? Or, a girlyman?
Who is Paragon?
_________________________
"If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." ~ Oscar Wilde
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#364127 - 05/26/05 09:55 PM
Re: Who's most responsible for filibuster compromise?
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#364128 - 05/26/05 10:00 PM
Re: Who's most responsible for filibuster compromise?
|
100 Club
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 165
|
The problem with 'compromise'is that when Democrats talk compromise, it means them getting their way. With this 'compromise', the deomcrats expect the president to consult them on future judicial nominations. That's ridiculous! They lost! The president gets to nominate judges he thinks appropriate because he is the only nationally elected official. Geez. I'm also tired of people complaining that stoping the filibuster on judicial nominees equates eliminating the proces of filibustering. The judges that made it out of committe should be voted on. I'm tired of democrats whining about those in the majority using their moajority position to advance their ideas. That's the whole point of being in the majority. Besides, some of the Senators who declared Owens too radical to vote on voted for her! This is insanity. I'm not posting anonymous because I stand by what I believe.
Thanks you, rant concluded. Have a nice day.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#364129 - 05/26/05 10:05 PM
Re: Who's most responsible for filibuster compromise?
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
WTFC whether I sign in or not!? That's the universal red-herring.
As I said, both parties are failing to compromise. The Republicans are failing to compromise by putting forth nominees that are way left. The Dems are failing to compromise by not understanding that they will have to accept conservative judges.
This country was built on compromise. Majority rule, yes. But minority having a voice, definitely.
You've made your position clear....no compromise. Rule with power absolutely. You're one of the "brainwashed" I mention. And, if that attitude prevails for a long, long time, we are going to become a very fractured country with very few friends in the world.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#364130 - 05/26/05 10:24 PM
Re: Who's most responsible for filibuster compromise?
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Hey, let's have filibusters for anything that involves a majority vote. Why should anything be decided by a tyrannical majority.
Appellate judges should take your approach Anon. Instead of the minority issuing dissenting opinions, they should filibuster a decision until a compromise decision is reached.
In elections, when one party realizes they are going to lose, they should filibuster the election and DEMAND that the other party select a candidate that is more to their liking.
Your carping about the tyranny of the majority is nothing but a rejection of the foundation of our great nation. If majority rule is tyranny, then I suppose our nation was founded on tyranny and you should move to a less tyrannous country like China.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#364131 - 05/26/05 10:35 PM
Re: Who's most responsible for filibuster compromise?
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
This country was built on compromise.
Give me compromise or give me death? I don't think so.
Come and take it (or we can compromise)? I don't think so.
Quote:
Majority rule, yes. But minority having a voice, definitely.
The minority had a voice and it spoke loud and clear. The final score however was Minority 46 - Majority 53. (Did some of the minority vote for Owen? Does anyone have the actual count of the minority (DEM) vote?)
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#364132 - 05/26/05 10:43 PM
Re: Who's most responsible for filibuster compromise?
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
|
Quote:
Your carping about the tyranny of the majority is nothing but a rejection of the foundation of our great nation. If majority rule is tyranny, then I suppose our nation was founded on tyranny and you should move to a less tyrannous country like China.
You are right anon. We should do away with all counter-majoritarian systems in the government. Let's start with the Senate itself, which gives Rhode Island the same number of votes as California. This runs counter to California's population majority.
While we are at it, let's get rid of the executive veto, which allows the President to counter the will of the people expressed through their representatives.
Electoral college goes too.
As well as judicial review goes too, since this is definitely counter-majoritarian. Of course, if the majority adopts unconstitutional law, oh well, majority rules.
The point is the entire federal government was set up to check the will of the majority and to ensure measured laws, executives, and judges.
China doesn't have these institutions, and our republic has outlasted all others in history because of our founders' brilliance in understanding the danger of majority rule and factions. Forcing factions (major or minor) to come togther and compromise, created a stable, long lasting system.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#364133 - 05/26/05 11:22 PM
Re: Who's most responsible for filibuster compromise?
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Your carping about the tyranny of the majority is nothing but a rejection of the foundation of our great nation. If majority rule is tyranny, then I suppose our nation was founded on tyranny and you should move to a less tyrannous country like China.
You are right anon. We should do away with all counter-majoritarian systems in the government. Let's start with the Senate itself, which gives Rhode Island the same number of votes as California. This runs counter to California's population majority. It is not counter majority. It gives equal weight to all the states at a federal level. I never said I thought our rule should always by a majority vote of the people.
While we are at it, let's get rid of the executive veto, which allows the President to counter the will of the people expressed through their representatives. This is a post-vote check built into the system, unlike a filibuster.
Electoral college goes too.This is a majority vote of the delegates of the states based on their population.
As well as judicial review goes too, since this is definitely counter-majoritarian. Of course, if the majority adopts unconstitutional law, oh well, majority rules. Now your just getting silly. This again is a check after a vote.
The point is the entire federal government was set up to check the will of the majority and to ensure measured laws, executives, and judges. I agree, but the representatives should be allowed to vote and then those checks and balances can kick in and not before.
China doesn't have these institutions, and our republic has outlasted all others in history because of our founders' brilliance in understanding the danger of majority rule and factions. Forcing factions (major or minor) to come togther and compromise, created a stable, long lasting system.I was just being silly with the China comment. Can't believe you even reponded.
Your examples are weak, weak, weak.
Here, I'll add another weak example:
Let's do away with representative government altogether because its decisions are not a majority vote of the people. Let the people vote on everything and let's have no checks and balances at all.
Give me a break. There are no checks and balances with an endless filibuster.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#364134 - 05/26/05 11:52 PM
Re: Who's most responsible for filibuster compromise?
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Responsible, yes - but only if one considers compromising party values as a responsible thing to do.
Compromising party values is very responsible where
it means standing up instead for the best interests of your country
as it does here. If the "nuclear option" had established
the precedent that Senate rules could be ignored by the
simple expedient of having the chair rule that the rules
did not apply or were unconstitutional, no rule would be
safe.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#364135 - 05/27/05 03:20 PM
Re: Who's most responsible for filibuster compromise?
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
|
Quote:
Let's do away with representative government altogether because its decisions are not a majority vote of the people. Let the people vote on everything and let's have no checks and balances at all.b]
You have been carping about majority rule; direct vote by the people would be the best way for the majority to express itself, would it not?
Seems like this would satisfy your desire for majortiy rule. I for one would not be entirely comfortable with that system, but if you feel that would work best, good luck to you.
I, however, think majority rule is not the overriding, fundamental component of our republic. (Please note I say republic, not democracy. There is a big difference.)
Again, minority factions have been given tremendous rights under our Constitution. Just because Republicans are in the majority today is not really a good reason to start disrputing the balance between majority/minority rights.
This is a can of worms, once opened, will lead to unintended consequences that could be very serious.
I don't expect you to understand that though, since you seem only interested in the narrow issue of today, and maximizing Republican power today.
Remember, only a few years ago, both parties were arguing the exact opposite positions. Since this is not a high moral issue, but simply the political hot-potato of the moment, let's all take a deep breath before we overreact.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#364136 - 05/27/05 06:35 PM
Re: Who's most responsible for filibuster compromi
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
Let's do away with representative government altogether because its decisions are not a majority vote of the people. Let the people vote on everything and let's have no checks and balances at all.b]
You have been carping about majority rule; direct vote by the people would be the best way for the majority to express itself, would it not?
Seems like this would satisfy your desire for majortiy rule. I for one would not be entirely comfortable with that system, but if you feel that would work best, good luck to you.
I, however, think majority rule is not the overriding, fundamental component of our republic. (Please note I say republic, not democracy. There is a big difference.)
Again, minority factions have been given tremendous rights under our Constitution. Just because Republicans are in the majority today is not really a good reason to start disrputing the balance between majority/minority rights.
This is a can of worms, once opened, will lead to unintended consequences that could be very serious.
I don't expect you to understand that though, since you seem only interested in the narrow issue of today, and maximizing Republican power today.
Remember, only a few years ago, both parties were arguing the exact opposite positions. Since this is not a high moral issue, but simply the political hot-potato of the moment, let's all take a deep breath before we overreact.
Republic, not democracy. What a discovery! Simple civics lessons I do not need. 
Can you not read my posts and see that I have said that, regardless of the party in charge, it would be best to disallow filibusters of appointments. I will cringe when a liberal democrat gets elected, but I will support their right to appoint their choices. There are balances in place already. The Senate is supposed to give an up or down vote, how does a filibuster accomplish that?
You want the Republicans to not overreact. Well, we could say the same thing about the Democrats who were set to filibuster a candidate that was qualified and moderate thereby requiring a supermajority to give an up vote to the nominee.
"The president has the constitutional duty to nominate — and with the advice and consent of the Senate — appoint judges. The confirmation of a judicial nominee requires the support of a majority of senators — usually 51 votes. That is not a partisan statement. It is a statement of fact.
But the Democrats decided to abandon that practice in the last Congress. They decided to rewrite the Constitution. They demanded a super majority vote — not 51 votes, but 60 votes — to confirm a judicial nominee. And they launched a leadership-led, partisan campaign of judicial obstruction by filibuster.
It was a radical and dangerous departure. It realigned the separation of powers between our three branches of government. It undermined the checks and balances as designed in the Constitution. It denied 100 senators their right to advise and consent. It threatened the fairness and independence of the federal judiciary. And it thwarted the democratically expressed will of the American people.
Debate the nominee. Then vote. Vote yes. Vote no. Confirm the nominee. Reject the nominee. But give the nominee the courtesy ? the respect ? the decency ? the dignity ? the fairness of a vote. That's it.
It is so crystal clear to me. That's the way the Framers designed the Senate to work. That's the way the Senate worked for 214 years. That's the way the Senate should work today and in the future. And I know this may not be the right time to say this. And I know some of you may disagree. But judicial nominees that come to the floor deserve up-or-down votes regardless of which party controls the White House or the Senate.
If the Senate must change to protect the Constitution ? If the Senate must change to uphold the will of American people ? If the Senate must change to meet the challenges of the times in which we live ? Then the Senate must change.
It has, after all, changed often in its history. Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, when he was majority leader, used the Constitutional Option, not once, not twice, not three times, but four times."
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#364137 - 05/27/05 06:38 PM
Re: Who's most responsible for filibuster compromi
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
One more thing. I have not been "carping" about majority rule. I have been carping about the fact that the Senate's up or down vote on a judicial nominee is supposed to be a majority rule. Why not avoid filibusters altogether and raise the up or down vote to a supermajority?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#364138 - 05/27/05 08:48 PM
Re: Who's most responsible for filibuster compromi
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
|
Quote:
Can you not read my posts and see that I have said that, regardless of the party in charge, it would be best to disallow filibusters of appointments. I will cringe when a liberal democrat gets elected, but I will support their right to appoint their choices. There are balances in place already. The Senate is supposed to give an up or down vote, how does a filibuster accomplish that?
Which anon posts are yours exactly  If you want me to track your posts, log in and create an identity.
I agree that all nominees should get an up/down vote. But this whole thing became politicized so long ago, I just don't think the genie can be put back in the bottle.
Today, dems held up Bolton vote for more documents not turned over by the administration. It gets silly after a while. The Senate is supposed to look for unqualified candidates.
This will not end until true bipartisanship can present itself and both parties agree to end this nonsense. This will not happen now, since the next presidential campaign has started and both parties have leaders looking to position themselves for that election.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Thread
Index