The 60% rule was initially used to avoid haveing whomever has more seats getting whomever they wanted. I'd like to see it at 66% a solid 2/3's.
...I'd like to see it at 66% a solid 2/3's.
Personally? I just wanna see the appointments voted on.
Running your mouth to fill time so the vote never happens isn't reasonable.
Don't get me wrong. I think it was wrong of the republicans to fillibuster Clinton's guys too. In fact, it was worse due to the %ages.Personally? I just wanna see the appointments voted on.
Running your mouth to fill time so the vote never happens isn't reasonable.
For me, this is bigger than simply an up or down vote. It goes to the very heart of an established system of checks and balances.
The Democrats have already voted and approved 215 judges appointed by Bush (that's a 95% success rate). They are filibustering the 6 most extreme nominees because the Republicans refuse to come to the table and discuss mutally acceptable optional nominees. Democratic Minority Leader Harry Reid has already offered two compromises that have been rejected outright by Frist (R). This is about the Republican desire for absolute power, and shows a complete disregard for represebtation for the entire other half of the country (53 million people).
60 of Clinton's nominees never even made it out of committee, they were held up by Republicans. So this "just give them an up or down vote" line coming from the right, is pure hypocritical crap.
I wouldn't want to see the end of the filibuster, even if it were the Dems holding all the branches of government. It's the checks and balances that have made this country great.
mrC
Right now, the Dems can force a 60% agreement requirement. The repubs want to change it so only 51% is required to approve the Presidential appointments. Should it stay at 60%?The proposal is to change a Senate rule, made by the Senate. In the past, similar changes have been made, such as the LOWERING of the number, from 67 to 60.
I think so. I think that lifetime appointees for the judicial system should be required to have at least 60% of the people in agreement over them. That would require the judges to be "mainstream" instead of "extreme" (one way or the other). I think the judges should follow public opinion and not direct it. If someone can't get the 60% they need, they shouldn't be there.That's fine. In order for your idea, which sounds rational, to become reality, the nominees have to be allowed out of committee and put to an up or down (and your 60%) vote on the Senate floor be allowed to be brought up. This means for your idea to even happen, they've got to shut up and allow the vote. Currently, the nominees have the numbers to be sent to the Senate floor. The filibuster you're speaking of is to keep these nominees in COMMITTEE indefinitely, preferably until Bush is out of office, for liberals. Big point.
The 60% rule was initially used to avoid haveing whomever has more seats getting whomever they wanted. I'd like to see it at 66% a solid 2/3's.And was actually at that higher level, which seems reasonable. (In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes needed to invoke cloture to three-fifths (60) of Senate membership. At the same time, they made the filibuster "invisible" by requiring only that 41 Senators state that they intend to filibuster; critics say this makes the modern filibuster "painless.")
I don't see any reason why Presidents (repub & dem alike) can't choose a "middle" guy/gal.I don't see any reason why Presidents (both parties) should feel obligated to choose a "middle" guy/gal, if they believe someone else to be better qualified. In all this time, it's always been a President's choice to make, and choosing a "middler" for the sake of compromise stands for nothing, and serves to weaken the decisions made.
]Don't get me wrong. I think it was wrong of the republicans to fillibuster Clinton's guys too. In fact, it was worse due to the %ages.The votes on Clinton's guys (and every other "guy" in history until these past sessions) were done. Filibustering wasn't done at this level (committee), the "guys" were sent to the floor to be voted up or down if they had the votes to get there. Period. This - WAS NOT DONE - in the past.
I just don't like the fact that one person can lock the whole system up.
How about reduce the anti-filibuster vote, and boost the nomination approval vote simultaneously?
Can't we just get appointees that people actually think will do a good job. Then all this arguement crap is gone and we can discuss real issues instead of created issues.
It just seems a monumental waste of time to keep recycling the same names. Just grab another name out of the hat and let the common ground guide the country.
That argument ran into a little trouble this morning on the floor of the Senate, when Sen. Chuck Schumer asked Majority Leader Bill Frist a simple question:Hey General Half Truth, you forgot to let everyone know what was said after that. It fills out your version of the truth to become the ACTUAL truth.
SEN. SCHUMER: Isn't it correct that on March 8, 2000, my colleague [Sen. Frist] voted to uphold the filibuster of Judge Richard Paez?
Doh! (Please note that Frist is leading the charge declaring that the filibuster is unconstitutional, when HE HIMSELF has voted to uphold the filibuster, so he could actually set a precendent using it.
Too much to read on lunch break. ;)
Aren't these people being "resubmitted"? I thought they were already turned down. I thought one of the people went through the process FOUR times. That's a monumental waste of time.
I say just submit middlers and be done with it. They would get appointed tomorrow and reflect the "morality" of a broader base of the population. What's wrong with this? No facts, no figures, no controversy. It's just common sense. Right now it seems as though we're trying to push a fat lady through a dog door rather than walking her through the garage door.
DrewKaree's right; this would be the first time that this type of appointee would be filibustered.
Then the appointee must be especially bad. Worst in history perhaps?
DrewKaree's right; this would be the first time that this type of appointee would be filibustered.
Then the appointee must be especially bad. Worst in history perhaps?
I simply REFUSE to believe I've stumped MrC ::)