Filibuster - 51% vs. 60%

[Crazy Cooter]

What does everyone else think about the filibuster arguement?

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%?

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.

[Shape D.]

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.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

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.

With the Republicans threatening the "Nuclear Option", they could have Cheney (as President of the Senate) rule that the filibuster is no longer constitutionally valid.

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:

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.

mrC

[JB]

Personally? I just wanna see the appointments voted on.
Running your mouth to fill time so the vote never happens isn't reasonable.

If the national democrats did what the Texas democrats did and ran and hid to prevent the vote, they'd be chased out so fast...
But because they just fillibuster to block something they don't have the power to vote down, it gets accepted.


I say 51% to break a filibuster is rational.
51% to approve a nomination isn't.
From the thread, it's not clear what bill we're talking about. I ASSUME it's actually about filibusters, not nomination approval.

[Crazy Cooter]

...I'd like to see it at 66% a solid 2/3's.

I'd like to see that too.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

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

[JB]

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

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.

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?

[Crazy Cooter]

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.

[DrewKaree]

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.

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?

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. 

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.

What seems to be a monumental waste of time is the fact that this hasn't happened in the past, is being attempted for no reason OTHER than partisan politics, and hasn't been asked of any other President in the past. 

It'd be like you having a favorite joystick.  You want to use that one.  It is the one which you have set all your records with.  Now, you need parts for it, but there's a backorder.  They tell you "we don't have the parts, won't have the parts, and don't think you should use the parts if we DO get them.  We'll send you out THIS joystick instead"

You may become proficient with that joystick, however, it isn't the one you were better with, and would become EVEN BETTER, in your opinion, if they had only sent you the parts.

It's not as simplistic a choice as you're making it out to be, and is ignoring the fact that you're expecting this President to work around something that shouldn't have to be.  The Senate's job IS NOT to force a choice of nominees, its job is, if the nominee has the required votes to make it out of committee and to the Senate floor, REJECT THE NOMINEE PRIOR TO THAT, OR PUT THE NOMINEE TO AN UP OR DOWN VOTE. 

This isn't a "just pick someone else" issue, it's a "make a choice on who's put before you" issue.  If they don't have the guts to vote yes or no, then reject them in committee.  THAT'S the issue that's crap here.  If you don't understand the importance of this issue, then look into it some more, but this compromise stuff ignores the qualifications of these nominees.

Looking into these judges who are being held up will show you far FAR FAR less "extremist" judges than MrC would like for you to believe, and actually finding out WHY they're being held up is something that SHOULD be found out.  On the Senate floor, when they debate nominees as a body.  Don't you find THAT to be fair?

[DrewKaree]

And from a source liberals shouldn't have a hard time agreeing with, yet oddly only want to remember Frist's words of that time:

"All we have ever asked for (Clinton nominees) Marsha Berzon and Richard Paez is that both nominees get an up-or-down vote," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said in 1999. "If a senator has a problem with particular nominees, he or she should vote against them. But a nominee should not be held up interminably by a handful of senators."

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:

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.

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. 

Frist's vote against cloture/for filibuster was defeated, Paez DID have the votes, there WASN'T a filibuster, and Paez got his up/down vote, and was approved.  Paez got exactly what is being disputed presently:  the opportunity to be voted on since he had enough votes to make it out of committee.  Pointing to a "but he did it first" issue demonstrates your petulance and ignorance of the actual facts of what happened, and exposes your partisan reasoning. 

All four Clinton judicial nominees which had a cloture vote taken were confirmed and, as in the cases of such appeals court nominees Marsha Berzon and Richard Paez, those cloture votes were deliberately held to prevent a filibuster and to guarantee what filibusters are now denying to President Bush

[Crazy Cooter]

Too much to read on lunch break.

I see no reason not to choose a "middler".  Are these appointees supposed to control the direction of the Country (extreme right/left) or follow the publics direction (middler)?

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]

Too much to read on lunch break.

I understand

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.

They have been resubmitted because they have thus far not been put up for a vote, and a new set of folks have come in.  They have been resubmitted so a vote on them can be done, since they haven't been allowed out of committee yet.  You ARE correct, it IS a monumental waste of time to not have them put to a vote for so long that they REQUIRE being resubmitted, and you should congratulate Bush for doing the gentlemanly thing and resubmitting nominees that weren't able to be put to a vote from Clinton's term.

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.

Nice concept, but your idea of a "middler" may be too soft for MrC's tastes, or not soft enough for another's tastes.  Middlers are relative to who's deciding, which brings us back to where we're at.

Try and find out what the reasons are for these "radicals" not being voted on.

[DrewKaree]

 


May 18, 2005
KERRY THREATENS TO TALK FOR ONE HOUR

Could be Violation of Geneva Conventions, Legal Scholars Say

Adding fuel to the current controversy over Senate filibusters, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass) today threatened to speak for a solid hour on the Senate floor, an act which several prominent legal scholars said could be in violation of the Geneva Conventions against torture.

Sen. Kerry issued his threat today in the trademark monotone that became familiar to millions during his ill-fated run for the presidency in 2004.

"I'm going to speak for a solid hour and there's nothing any of you can do to stop me!" bellowed the Massachusetts senator, causing Democrats and Republicans alike to rush for the exits of the Senate chamber.

While some political insiders called Sen. Kerry's threat to speak for an hour little more than a scare tactic, legal scholars believe that should the Massachusetts senator make good on his threat he could draw the ire of Amnesty International and other human rights watchdog groups.

"Senator Kerry threatens to talk for an hour at his own peril," said Dr. Ivan Connaught, who has spent the last thirty years studying the Geneva Conventions at the University of Minnesota.  "According to my reading of the Conventions, listening to John Kerry speak for anything over ten minutes would have to be considered cruel and unusual punishment."

The senator's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, said today that even she had never been forced to listen to her husband speak for an entire hour.

"When he opens his piehole, that's when I whip out my iPod," she said.

Elsewhere, a terrorist seeking 72 virgins was found waiting on line for the new "Star Wars" film.


www.borowitzreport.com

[rohan]

I'd love for the Republicans to call the Democrats' bluff and let them filibuster.  This would show the American people what Democrats are simply obstructionists that don't have anything good to offer the country.  DrewKaree's right; this would be the first time that this type of appointee would be filibustered.  Personally, I don't think the Democrats are ballsy enough to actually do it.  If the Reps. decided for a rule change to 51%, I'd be happy, too.  Way to go Dems., you've shown that you're the party that keeps things from getting done in the U.S. gov!

[jbox]

Wait, I'm confused. I thought I was watching the one with the giant rabbit in it, or is the one where the bells keep ringing? 

You should come to SA, where our state parliment was so bollocks'd the Government ended up having to "buy" an opposition member (by creating a new cabinet position) just so they could get the numbers to remove the numb-nuts they made speaker in the first place.

[fredster]

Does any other country have this rule / procedure?

[Crazy Cooter]

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?

[fredster]

Then the appointee must be especially bad.  Worst in history perhaps?

Cooter, what's so bad about this "appointee" in your opinion?

[Crazy Cooter]

I'm just saying that in response to them being the first...

[DrewKaree]

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?

You're right.  The black lady they want to keep down....check this out.  This is the assessment of what she did that makes her one of the worst in history.

SHE UPHELD THE LAW CURRENTLY ON THE BOOKS!

Now that I look back upon it, I can clearly see she's unqualified to even have EFFIN' DISCUSSION ABOUT HER NOMINATION be brought to the Senate floor.  CLEARLY the reason she isn't to be voted upon (nor any of the other nominees with enough votes in committee) is to avoid even having to bring up sordid details like her pubic har on a soda can

How can not even allowing discussion and a vote on the person's qualifications be rationalized as anything other than sheer partisan divisive political maneuverings?  SOMEONE explain this crock of shite to us, since clearly MANY have no clue about why this is both important and necessary.

I simply REFUSE to believe I've stumped MrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I simply REFUSE to believe I've stumped MrC

  Out of town for my little brother's wedding. Just got back today, apparently just in time for the "compromise" on the filibuster. I have absolutely NO IDEA how this will play out, and I can't wait to see it.

Lunatics on both sides are absolutely crazed right now. The knuckle-draggin Freepers are claiming they'll be leaving the GOP in droves, and mouth-breathing "lefties" at DU are claiming they'll be leaving the Democratic Party at about the same pace. (WARNING: Insanity at both sites)

So, is this a "moderate" victory?  lol.

[DrewKaree]

Just another example of how, even though a two-thirds majority seems to be something rational that all sides can agree on, it wouldn't make a darn bit of difference, since this decision was made by a handful of people out to make political hay for themselves.