Nuclear option

[Gonz]

That's what the Dems are calling the Republicans effort to end the filibuster on the judicial nominations. The option will, in effect, change the rules for a filibuster. Since the filibuster isn't a filibuster anymore anyway, does it matter? Being forced to speak until your side has enough votes to vote down the filibuster went out the window some time ago. Now, they just claim one & it takes 60 votes to stop (break) one.

For 240 years the Constitution said it took a simple majority vote for a judicial nominee to get to the federal bench. Now, with the filibuster, it takes 60 votes. That has never been used to stop judicial floor votes, until GW took office & the Dems lost control. They are the ones using the nuclear option & the Republicans don't seem to realize they they're the majority party (well, the mainstream press doesn't help in this matter).

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, that Dr. Frist was a "radical Republican" for participating in the telecast, which aimed to build conservative Christian support for his threat to eliminate the filibuster of presidential nominees - a parliamentary tactic that allows at least 41 senators to reject a nominee by indefinitely forestalling a vote. Democrats, who hold 44 Senate seats, have vowed to virtually shut down Senate business if Dr. Frist follows through.

Who's using nukes here?

NY Times

 

[chcr]

Y'know Gonz, I completely agree with you about the Democrats being out of control. IMO, both sides are more concerned with partisan one-upmanship than about the state or fate of the country. This, I fear, shows the true intentions of the current leaders of the republican party.

About 2,000 people packed into Highview Baptist Church for the telecast. Organizers said it was broadcast to several hundred churches and thousands of individuals over the Internet and was available to 61 million households over Christian radio and TV stations.

You said once that I was being paranoid when I suggested that the leaders of the republican party were going too far toward a religious right theocracy. Do you now see evidence that they are?

Meanwhile, Sen. Joseph Biden Jr., D-Del., suggested that the parties might break their deadlock if Democrats agreed to confirm some judges under review and Republicans agreed to drop the rest.
"We'll let a number of them go through, the two most extreme not go through and put off this vote and compromise," Biden said in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC..

God forbid!

 

[catocom]

You said once that I was being paranoid when I suggested that the leaders of the republican party were going too far toward a religious right theocracy. Do you now see evidence that they are?
God forbid!

I do.
They are going too far in some areas, and doing nothing in somes areas that they should be. IMO

 

[freako104]

Both sides are doing it though Cat. Dems go too far in one area while ignoring another. Repubs are doing it. IMO they just want to say vote for me cause this is what I stand for. My problem is that they arent standing for anything.

 

[catocom]

Ah, it's the whole PC thing that's completely out of control.

 

[chcr]

Both sides are doing it though Cat. Dems go too far in one area while ignoring another. Repubs are doing it. IMO they just want to say vote for me cause this is what I stand for. My problem is that they arent standing for anything.

I disagree freako. They do stand for something. The Democrats have hitched their collective wagon to the PC, liberal, pander to every special interest group we can crowd while the Republicans have hitched their's to the ultra conservative religious right's fanatacism and theocracy. Intelligent, thinking, moderate people are left with no voice. The media doesn't find us exciting enough and the politicians want us to pick a side. The whole "you're either with us or against us" mentality has gone too far. This used to be America. We can only hope that one day it will be again.

 

[chcr]

P.S. Hey Gonz, don't you mean nuc-u-lar???

 

[freako104]

I disagree freako. They do stand for something. The Democrats have hitched their collective wagon to the PC, liberal, pander to every special interest group we can crowd while the Republicans have hitched their's to the ultra conservative religious right's fanatacism and theocracy. Intelligent, thinking, moderate people are left with no voice. The media doesn't find us exciting enough and the politicians want us to pick a side. The whole "you're either with us or against us" mentality has gone too far. This used to be America. We can only hope that one day it will be again.

Sorry but both groups like you said pander to certain organisations. To me they do it for the image more than anything. They could give a shit less about anything that wont get them votes.


Cat: Its been out of control for a while now. Almost makes it difficult for some to want to say they are liberal/conservative anymore because so many are making them look bad.

 

[Gonz]

In the 80s, a Democratically controlled Congress allowed Ronald Reagans conservative pick, Antonin Scalia to join the court. A Democratically controlled Congress also allowed Slick Willies pick, Ruth Bader Ginsberg ( a former ACLU head) to join. The Republicans were aghast but the didn't filibuster a judge. See the difference?

 

[chcr]

In the 80s, a Democratically controlled Congress allowed Ronald Reagans conservative pick, Antonin Scalia to join the court. A Democratically controlled Congress also allowed Slick Willies pick, Ruth Bader Ginsberg ( a former ACLU head) to join. The Republicans were aghast but the didn't filibuster a judge. See the difference?

Yes Gonz, but you're missing the point. Both sides have become so wrapped up in this partisan one-upmanship that they no longer really care what actually happens to the country (if in fact they ever did). You're allowing the smoke screen to obscure the big picture. Maybe you want the religious right to run the country (they practically are already) but I have a real problem with it.

Freako, it's still standing for something. Even if they don't mean it, most of the members of each group believe they do, so there's effectively no difference.

 

[Gonz]

I don't want the fanatical religious to run the anything but even that may be a safer bet than where we ended up after the failed Do your Own Thing movement. We've allowed personal egotism to destroy the country. Just as soon as the Scarlet Letters come out, I'll start pulling the other way.

 

[chcr]

I don't want the fanatical religious to run the anything but even that may be a safer bet than where we ended up after the failed Do your Own Thing movement. We've allowed personal egotism to destroy the country. Just as soon as the Scarlet Letters come out, I'll start pulling the other way.

That'll be far too late.

You're an atheist (well agnostic really). That means you aren't really American anyway, by these peoples standards yet you want to continue to let them be in charge. That my friend, is insane.

 

[catocom]

Fanatical anything is not good, buuut...
IMO This country was founded on christianity (basically) and since
most of the "christian" is being/been taken out, the foundation is near gone.

 

[Gonz]

I agree. It could be restrengthened without going as far as some fear (theocracy) with a little personal sacrifice...meaning, realizing the world does not revolve around the individual.

 

[Thulsa Doom]

The Republicans were aghast but the didn't filibuster a judge. See the difference?

They didnt have to. They kept them all stuffed in committee. 60+ of them. Wouldnt allow them to even begin to have an *pause for effect* UP OR DOWN VOTE like they are yelling about constantly now. Democrats dont have that option now. So what goes around comes around I say.

 

[rrfield]

Sorry to chime in so late, but...

So the Democrats are using the fillibuster to block some judges, which the GOP says hasn't been done before.

Is it against Senate rules? No.

 

[Gonz]

No, teh GOP has never done that.

Is it against the rules? Yes. There are only 7 instances where the filibuster is used & judges aren't among them.

 

[rrfield]

Is it against the rules? Yes. There are only 7 instances where the filibuster is used & judges aren't among them.

Shenanagins. If it were against the rules the Senate would not need to change the rules to stop this tactic.

 

[Gonz]

Welcome to the Minority Club. They refuse to allow the majority to act like they did when they were the majority.

In the immortal words of Rep Maxine Waters...The Republicans are using the power of the majority to get their agenda across.