Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 03-17-2005, 01:16 PM   #41 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: BFE
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbelt
That method, man v. man, doesn't always seem to work correctly *(will of the majority) nationally though.

NCB, did you think it was disgusting when the Senate Republicans refused to release Clinton's nominees from committee?

The Senate is a check on Bush's choice of judges. The Senate democrats who represent a majority of america (even though all their constitutents didn't vote for them, they still represent a majority) are right to look out for the majority of america's interest.
The Constitution says "advise and consent". Not "supermajority", et cetera. The Senate has an OBLIGATION to say "yea" or "nay". Refusing to let nominees come up for a vote is an abuse of their constitutional perogative.

It's amazing that some people claim that the Democrats still represent the majority of Americans. Given the consistent losses that the Democrats have taken in election after election since 1994, it's also not a very rational viewpoint. I'm reminded of that picture of Tom Dascle after one of the elections, sitting alone backstage, with his head in his hands.
daswig is offline  
Old 03-17-2005, 01:25 PM   #42 (permalink)
Rail Baron
 
stevo's Avatar
 
Location: Tallyfla
I would just like someone to explain to me why a judicial nominee that will garner 51 votes or more in the senate should not be confirmed. In the constitution they only need 51 votes. Please explain to me why the nominees should not be confirmed if they are able to get the votes required.
stevo is offline  
Old 03-17-2005, 02:01 PM   #43 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
Because the Constitution gave the Senate the power to create it's own rules of debate.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 03-17-2005, 02:20 PM   #44 (permalink)
can't help but laugh
 
irateplatypus's Avatar
 
Location: dar al-harb
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbelt
Because the Constitution gave the Senate the power to create it's own rules of debate.
and because of that they shouldn't modify it? i don't understand your answer to the question.
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill
irateplatypus is offline  
Old 03-17-2005, 03:04 PM   #45 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Republican Filibusters Of Nominees Reported To The Senate Floor In The Past 40 years.

Quote:
· 1968 Abe Fortas, Supreme Court
· 1980 William Lubbers, NLRB
· 1980 Don Zimmerman, NLRB
· 1980 Stephen Breyer, 1st Circuit
· 1987 Melissa Wells, Ambassador
· 1987 William Verity, Commerce
· 1993 Walter Dellinger, Justice
· 1993 Five State Department Nominees
· 1993 Janet Napolitano, Justice
· 1994 Larry Lawrence, Ambassador
· 1994 Rosemary Barkett, 11th Circuit
· 1994 Sam Brown, Ambassador
· 1994 Derek Shearer, Ambassador
· 1994 Ricki Tigert, FDIC
· 1994 H. Lee Sarokin, 3rd Circuit
· 1995 Henry Foster, Surgeon General
· 1998 David Satcher, Surgeon General
· 2000 Marsha Berzon, 9th Circuit
· 2000 Richard Paez, 9th Circuit

http://www.leahy.senate.gov/issues/n...libusters.html
CShine is offline  
Old 03-17-2005, 03:17 PM   #46 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
No, they can modify it if they want.
But then the Democrats can insist on every piece of legislation being fully read.
When legislation runs at 4000 pages or so.... Business can be slowed down a bit.
That is what the nuclear option is.

If the Republicans remove the gentlemens rules of the filibuster, the democrats insist on every detail.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 03-17-2005, 03:23 PM   #47 (permalink)
NCB
Junkie
 
NCB's Avatar
 
Location: Tobacco Road
Quote:
Originally Posted by CShine
Republican Filibusters Of Nominees Reported To The Senate Floor In The Past 40 years.




http://www.leahy.senate.gov/issues/n...libusters.html

Just curious. Why would the GOP filibuster nominees from a GOP Prez?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christine Stewart, Former Minister of the Environment of Canada
"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
NCB is offline  
Old 03-17-2005, 03:25 PM   #48 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Fourtyrulz's Avatar
 
Location: io-where?
I am absolutely sick of the GOP changing the rules to serve only their means. Removing the filibuster would be completely radical and very, very unsettling in general. Do they not know that one day they will be on the "losing" team? What will they do then?
__________________
the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation.
faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- Merriam-Webster's dictionary
Fourtyrulz is offline  
Old 03-17-2005, 04:31 PM   #49 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCB
Just curious. Why would the GOP filibuster nominees from a GOP Prez?
Who says people in the same party always agree? The Carter years were famous for all the times the Democratically-controlled Congress voted against Carter's legislative agenda. It happens in the GOP too, even though it's never gotten as bad for them as it was for Carter way back when.
CShine is offline  
Old 03-17-2005, 04:45 PM   #50 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: BFE
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbelt
Because the Constitution gave the Senate the power to create it's own rules of debate.

So because the Senate can create it's rules of debate, they can ignore their Constitutional duty to advise and consent?

Rules of debate are NOT Constitutional obligations. They have a Constitutional duty to advise and consent. Senate rules take a second seat to Constitutional duties every time.
daswig is offline  
Old 03-17-2005, 04:50 PM   #51 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Seaver's Avatar
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Quote:
Yeah, but when they are chosen NOT for their impartiality but rather how they will vote on certain partisan hot-topics..... then they are not in the job for what is truly in the best interest of the country, but rather what promotes their political party more.
They have NEVER been put in because of impartiality. They are placed there by the executive branch because it is the right of the executive to check the judicial. Now, of course presidents will put those judges who they agree with in there, it's one of the powers you get. It would be unconstitutional for the president to put someone in place of an already standing judge.

And as for your statement "then they are not in the job for what is truly in the best interest of the country, but rather what promotes their political party more", have you ever thought their own self interest is what they VIEW as the best interest for the country? Judges in the Supreme Court level interpret the law and the rational of those who created it. Their sole job is what you are hammering them for, which is putting their own views on the law's intention and/or constitutionality.
Seaver is offline  
 

Tags
nuclear, opinions, option, senate


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:47 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360