John McCain takes a stand against changing the filibuster
 

According to articles I've read, there are about six or seven other GOP Senators who are still undecided on this nuclear option thing, so there's a real chance it could get shot down. Here's hoping they vote against it and put a stop to this whole power grab.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...nfilibusterban

Intresting.

However, he's talking as if Dems who had control of the Senate and the WH were concerned about "minority party" rights when they were in charge. They never did, unless you consider Ginsberg and Breyer as a sort of compromise for the GOP minority

The Republicans used their share of procedural blocking of Senate business when the Democrates had control of the Senate. The nuclear option was availiable then as well: with a simple majority, the Democrates could have changed the rules of the Senate, and removed the procedural blocking mechanisms.

The Democrates didn't, as far as I am aware -- was it even threatened?

In what way was that not respecting "minority party" rights?

I seem to recall one of the biggest problems between '92-94 when the Dems had everything was that the GOP did everything they could to prevent work from getting done. Filibustering was a HUGE tool they used.

In doing so it was an effective weapon to get the GOP majorities in the House and eventually the Senate.

(Of course there was that "contract with America" also, but the GOP seems to have forgotten that altogether, just like the ones that signed it who said they would implement term limits on themselves..... but that's another thread.)

I believe McCain (among others) was there in '92 - '94, so he probably remembers what it was like being the minority.

There's also another twist the GOP doesn't seem to want to acknowledge..... that is who can be the scapegoat..... I mean right now the GOP can point to the Dems and say they are holding up business (and perhaps some more lib.- mod. GOP rely on the Dems filibusters so they don't have to vote on certain judges), but you go nuclear you lose that excuse and maybe piss off enough lib - mod GOP senators to where they switch parties or show the filibusters wasn't the only problem.... because deep down I believe the Senators tend to vote more on their conscience and will cross party lines if need be..... at least far more than the House.

concerning ginsberg and breyer.....wouldn't YOU consider it a compromise? Hell, they were only given a vote because Lott made an agreement with clinton beforehand.

There's a word for what McCain is doing NCB. It is called being the better man.
It's refreshing to see someone who still aplies the golden rule. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Would you suggest that this has no place in politics :hmm:

I would say I respect McCain more than any other political figure at this point.....he seems a man of relative honesty, and looks to have the backbone to do what is best for the country. It is because of this man alone that I hold respect for the republican Party.
I have none for the democrats......for they have not earned it.

If not for the current Administration....I would likely BE a republican.

I will repeat my question.

Did the democrates even seriously threaten to go nuclear?

Threatening to destroy checks and balances, then not doing it out of "being the better man", is not better than not even threatening.

I don't know if the Democrates threatened to change senate policy to prevent the republican minority from having any power. Do you?

destroy checks and balances? oh boy. The way OUR constitution is written a federal judge needs 51 votes to be confirmed. Perhaps checks and balances are being "destroyed" by the filibustering that keeps the judges from getting a fair vote in the senate? No? oh yeah its the evil republicans destroying checks and balances, not the fair-minded democrats that don't even want to let the vote happen. I'd like someone to show me where in the constitution it says if the minority party wants to keep judicial nominees from becoming federal judges they can demand that 60 votes be required. I'm sorry to say this, but the US Constitution trumps the senate rules every day of the week.

Say what you want about what the republicans have done in the past. It still doesn't change the fact that the US Constitution requires only 51 votes to confirm a federal judge.

I thought he was talking about the guy from die hard lol.

Damn, every time I decide I hate McCain he does something good like this. I was so pissed at him over the steroids and Schiavo issues.

So basically you admit that it was fine back when they were the minority but now that they are the majority the rules should change? Typical.

despite some of my political differences with the man, I feel great respect for McCain for willing to break from his party for what he believes in. He seems like a rather honest politician too. (I have respect for very few politicians from either party)

I think that McCain is right to be worried that this could come back to haunt them. Remember, they took advantage of the filibuster alot too when they were minority party. Didn't the GOP block like 20% of Clinton's second term nominees?

:thumbsup: Not that I like Arizona or anything...but John McCain is A-OK in my book...:thumbsup:

Wrong.


Go back and read the Constitution. It says no such thing.

he who has the power makes the rules, right? to hell with the minority. :rolleyes:

you might consider studying the constitution, advise and consent, and how the senate actually is supposed to work within THIS republic before commiting to majority rules.

doesn't that mean rubber stamp ;)

According to Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the President of the United States "shall appoint" federal judges, who are confirmed "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate." For more than 200 years, this has meant that the Senate debates and votes by simple majority to confirm the President’s appointments to the federal bench.

The 108th Congress, or the current Senate, is the first in history to witness simultaneous filibusters on multiple nominations to the federal judiciary.

While the Constitution does not refer to a "filibuster," it does say that "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings," in Article I, Section 5. The Senate has used this power to create Standing Rule XXII, which is often known as the "Cloture Rule" or "Filibuster Rule," because it allows a minority of the Senate to prevent a final up-or-down vote by mustering 41 votes against ending debate.

There were only 15 cloture votes taken on judicial nominations in the more than 200 plus years prior to the beginning of the 108th Congress in 2003. Of these 15 cloture votes, only four failed and only one nominee failed to be confirmed (the nomination of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court). In the case of each of the other three failed cloture votes, the judicial nomination was confirmed.

Actually, one of the greatest things about our government has always been the fact that majority rules with the voice of the minority.

By doing this nuclear action, they take away that foundation and in all honesty, if the minority cannot be heard then we are headed for a dictatorship. We are closing in on one now. All you have to do is open your eyes to how there are people on this board, in the media, and in both houses that are willing to do whatever it takes to keep the GOP in power; to allow the corporations such as healthcare and energy to do whatever they like and to rubber stamp approval on everything Bush does even if it does run up massive debts we can't pay, takes away states and people's rights and destroys the foundations of our freedoms.

Hell, some of the GOP on here have stated that our rights are priveleges and can be taken away by the government.... Where does it say that in the Constitution? The bill of rights means nothing to the GOP except that people can own guns.... and even then if the NRA wasn't one of their top contributors they probably would be ready to ban that one also.

Personally, I believe, if you are not in politics to help and protect those who have a hard time doing it for themselves and to be their voice........ then you need to get out of it and go make your money elsewhere.

i noticed that you included part of the constitution with some other blurb in bold thats not sourced. for 200 years, its been done according to the rules the senate sets for itself, NOT by 'simple majority'. but that was a nice try.

glad you included the word 'multiple', otherwise people could call you on it.

see my first reply in this post. so which is it to be? majority vote or according to senate rules?

Seems to me the nuclear option is a rule that is also held by the senate, so why is it not a viable option? I mean sure the dems are well within their rights to filibuster judges that they know would otherwise get nominated, but then it would seem legit that the republicans are within their rights to do what they need to do.

Also why are so many people here under the impression that the will of the majority is some how negated by that of the minority? Instead of oppression by the many, you have it by the few? I think not.

going to a strict majority vote would be removing the rules altogether.

If the minority filibustered EVERY SINGLE nominee, you'd have a case. This just sounds like whining. 95% of the nominees have been appointed, is that a tyranny?

Thank you mojo.

If people want to argue that it is senate rules to allow for a filibuster, well the same senate and the same set of rules allow for the "nuclear" option to be implemented. If the republicans are able to change senate rules to end the filibustering of judicail nominees they will be doing it by the same rules the democrats use to filibuster the nominees.

I hope they get the 60 votes and change the rules because there is no way there are ever going to be 60 democrats in the senate at the same time, ever.

The arrogance of Republicans these days is astounding.

Personally, I didn't use the term "US constitution", because I wasn't talking about the US constitution.

Checks and balances on the power of government exist outside of the US constitution. Amoung the many checks and balances on government power are the traditions and rules of the Senate.

These range from killing bills in committee, to filibusters, to all the other things that have allowed minority members of the Senate to matter.

A non-trivial number of Clinton appointments where blocked in the Senate.

Roughly the same number of Bush appointments where blocked in the Senate.

Yes, going nuclear is an option.

If you would strike down every law until you could get at the Devil, where would you hide from the cold winds that would blow then?

If the goal of the GOP is to rule America forever and ever more, striking down laws is a good plan. Otherwise, the cold wind will blow one day. That is John Mcain's point.

And here we have it. If you plan to never lose control of government, through whatever means you believe just and/or useful, removing shackles on the power of government is a plan that looks good.

Wow. The context just got switched around QUICK.

It seemed to me that the original argument is that senate rules should not allow for a filibuster. That was your argument. To which people have responded to your argument by stating that senate rules should allow a filibuster (as they do). And now your argument is that because someone has argued in defense of an action supported by rules, another set of rules that allow the attack of said action should negate the argument that said action should be defended?

Doesn't work that way.
Yeah ... and what exactly do you think that proves? It most certainly doesn't demonstrate any compelling reason that the senate SHOULD end the ability to filibuster - so you're effectively saying that the senate can create it's own rules, therefore any rule it feels like creating is defacto appropriate. Nonsense.

I don't believe anyone has denied that the senate CAN end filibustering if it so chooses. So why you would make a point of the apparent fact that they can is inexplicable. Except in so far as you mistakenly attempt to use that point to discredit the defense of filibustering.

They are no more wrong to end the ability to filibuster judicial nominees than they are to use those same rules to allow the filibuster of judicial nominees.

Different leaves on the same branch.

You're still doing it - claiming that because they CAN make/change rules, all rules and all rule changes are acceptable and equivalent.

No, they are not. It is being argued in this thread that there are benefits to the filibuster. For you to simply state that one rule is equivalent to another means absolutely nothing in the context of the discussion.

It's not a question of whether they are "right" or "wrong" to change rules in general (the answer to that is in the Constitution you quoted: they have the right to change rules) - it is a question of whether they are right are wrong to change this particular rule. And as long as you attempt to defend the criticism of their intent to do so with your (accurate but irrelevent) claim that they have the right to change the rule, you're going to continue to demonstrate absolutely nothing.

I don't know what the dems are so worried about. If the ability to filibuster judicial nominees is taken away, then they should just wait their turn until they're back in power with a majority in congress and president. Then they can really stick it to the repukes....unless they are upset because they fear they may never be in that position again.

Or maybe, just maybe, they don't want to fall victim to Nietzsche's "he who fights monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster." Why would it be considered a positive thing that the two sides become even more polarized and adversarial? It's already destroying the country.

Its hardly destroying the country. Its just about the only thing that makes politics interesting. Don't you know that? How interesting would politics be if everyone worked together and there were no disagreements. This board sure wouldn't exsit.

Drama is now a good reason to promote extremism?

I think there is something you don't want to or are incapable of understanding.

Politics matters.

Yes, it is a game, with complex rules and it can be enjoyable to watch.

But, it is more than a game. It actually matters, in and of itself, unlike football, soccer, baseball, hockey, survivor, or what have you.

Politics done improperly can kill billions. Politics if done properly can save billions.

It's real life.

I know its real life, I know it matters. But I'm not an alarmist and I'm not worried we're going to turn into a North Korea or Iran. I think many of peoples fears are unfounded. I have enough faith in the US Constitution to feel secure about my country not turning into a military or religious dictatorship that I can sleep at night. And sleep very well.

The constitution is a piece of paper. Do you believe god blessed it with mystical powers of freedom preservation?

A government whose goal is to push back the constitution's guaranteed freedoms will succeed. Because it is only a piece of paper, it can't fight back.

What the hell do you care? You don't even live here.

You might be right, but you sure aren't talking about the US government. There's much more to this government than a group of republican senators in washington DC.

NOT cool.

This reminds me of an argument I've recently heard about the world's reaction to US foreign policy:

One of the reasons so many Europeans are exasperated by our recent unilateralist stance is that they themselves feel a sense of ownership in American ideals. People in other countries talk about American politics not just because our decisions affect them, but also because they identify with our principles - things like a free press, our rollicking political debate, our naive belief in our system that always seems to work out, and our willingness to pitch in and help others.... I think in a way we are Europe's kid brother that is making good, so to see us not uphold our best nature is painful to other nations.

You may be tempted to respond that the reality is that others HAVE no ownership in our society, but I say that I do believe that America is about ideals, and those ideals transcend our boundaries. When we are at our best, the US does represent the grand experiment - which is why it is important that we keep ourselves honest.

I'm not going so far as to say that we should give other countries a vote in our affairs, but I do think that eliminating their voices from our debates is short-sighted.

BTW Yakk, I'm not trying to speak for you personally...

You're right.

Agreed....Very Uncool.....Very

Reading through these, Yakk, I'm disappointed. The Constitution is our history and it's not going to be wiped out...ever...a country that doesn't have a foundation isn't one that is successful. Granted, we're a young country, but we're strong-minded and strong willed. No government can take that away from us...or push back our freedoms...we are based upon it...

Granted our freedoms may change but they won't be minimalized to the point of disappearing...

Tsk Tsk, Stevo, I would have thought you to be more articulate and diplomatic than that.

Though I can see the unspoken point in the fact that a person who doesn't live in the U.S. doesn't have a first-person P.O.V., in this case that point is null and void. A person who follows the actions taken by the government of another country and understands the laws and morals of it's people and leaders should certainly be welcome to state their opinion on an issue...

However, in regards to what I posted above to Yakk...regardless if you're a citizen of the U.S. or not, living on it's soil or not, you should always take into consideration, if not understand, or do your best to understand a country's laws, morals, history, and reasons for the decisions they make (and have made).