Going Nuclear?
What's going on with the filibuster issue that’s exploding in the Senate right now?
Here’s the deal. You already know that the President nominates judges for the federal courts and the Senate votes on them. What you might not realize is that, if the judge is controversial, it basically takes 60 votes for the nomination to pass, instead of 50. This is because of special rules (the filibuster and cloture).
Frustrated, Republicans in the Senate want to change the rules so that they only need 50 votes – rather than the 60 necessary for cloture – to approve the President’s nominations. Under this plan, which is being called the “nuclear option,” the Vice President would step in and cast the tiebreaker.
Republicans call the Democrats’ use of the filibuster a “judicial tyranny to people of faith” since so much of the dispute is about the separation of church and state.
Democrats have threatened to slow Senate business to a crawl if the nuclear option passes, insisting that Republicans are trying to do away with a fundamental protection afforded to the minority party, which safeguards against a “tyranny of the majority,” a concern addressed by the writers of the Constitution in the creation of a three-branch government.
Remember, whoever wins this fight gets the advantage when members of the Supreme Court need to be replaced.
What do you think? Is democracy on the march, or about to blow up? How do you want your government to be run?
Here’s the deal. You already know that the President nominates judges for the federal courts and the Senate votes on them. What you might not realize is that, if the judge is controversial, it basically takes 60 votes for the nomination to pass, instead of 50. This is because of special rules (the filibuster and cloture).
Bonus History Lesson:Democrats in Congress have recently used filibusters to block a lot of federal judge nominations. They argue that some of them would, for example, tear down the barrier between church and state, rollback environmental laws or get rid of the minimum wage.
Since the 1850s, both parties in the Senate have used filibusters to make it harder for the majority party to have its way. Typically, a vote cannot be taken if a Senator wants to debate the issue or introduce motions or amendments. A filibuster involves strategic use of debate to allow Senators to block or delay a measure even if they are in the minority and do not have enough votes to defeat it. The debate and procedural moves can only be stopped by invoking cloture, which requires 60 votes and forces a vote, or by withdrawing the measure.
During the 1930s, Senator Huey P. Long used the filibuster against bills that he thought favored the rich over the poor, reciting Shakespeare and reading recipes to his fellow senators. Southern senators later used filibusters to block civil rights legislation, including anti-lynching legislation, until cloture was invoked after a 57-day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964. The record for the longest individual speech goes to South Carolina's J. Strom Thurmond who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957. To see the filibuster in action, check out Jimmy Stewart in Frank Capra's classic film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.
Frustrated, Republicans in the Senate want to change the rules so that they only need 50 votes – rather than the 60 necessary for cloture – to approve the President’s nominations. Under this plan, which is being called the “nuclear option,” the Vice President would step in and cast the tiebreaker.
Republicans call the Democrats’ use of the filibuster a “judicial tyranny to people of faith” since so much of the dispute is about the separation of church and state.
Democrats have threatened to slow Senate business to a crawl if the nuclear option passes, insisting that Republicans are trying to do away with a fundamental protection afforded to the minority party, which safeguards against a “tyranny of the majority,” a concern addressed by the writers of the Constitution in the creation of a three-branch government.
Remember, whoever wins this fight gets the advantage when members of the Supreme Court need to be replaced.
What do you think? Is democracy on the march, or about to blow up? How do you want your government to be run?
posted by Hans Riemer at 7:16 PM
83 Comments:
If Bill Frist decides to push the button on the filibuster and destroy democracy, we should pick his carcass apart in the streets of D.C.
Seriously??
How one sided could this be? Please tell me what you have aganist the way judges have been kept out in the past...if you dont like the judge VOTE HIM DOWN!! This is the first time the filabuster has been used aganist people and not issues!!!! They should get a vote. But the Dem Sen's are afraid to go on record by voting them down. They are qualified- what they dont like is -personal beliefs- fine VOTE NO!!!!!
As for Rock the vote giving facts! This is S**t!!! The poll is even slanted.
These are not facts its SPIN!! Just as bad as Fox or the Times- SPIN SPIN- your a public service group to GET OUT THE VOTE!! Not a DNC bully page. STOP PLEASE
What we are talking about are Senate rules, not a Constitutional ammendment or any fundamental aspect of our tripartite system of government. The e-mail sent out by Rock the Vote implies the opposite which is reckless and reflective of low journalistic standards.
The Senate has the right to change its rules. Throughout history the Democrats have utilized the filibuster to thwart the desires of the Country. They did it opposing Civil Rights legislation in the 60’s (the new hero of the Democratic party Senator Byrd led the charge as a Klansman). The Country was saved by the Republican Party, kicking the Dixiecrats in the butt.
The filibuster is a rule that has been used to oppose legislation since the adoption of the Constitution. Not until the last four years has it been employed under the Senate’s “advise and consent” role with respect to the President’s nomination of federal judges to the Appellate Bench. If it had, we would not have Judge Scalia.
It has not been until the last five years that the Democrats in the Senate have been refusing to allow the appointment of justices to the appellate courts without a smell test (primarily a religious test), i.e. the test is “do you believe in the Democratic Party’s dogma” on issues of abortion, homosexuality, gay marriages and religion. They want judges who believe in same sex marriages, abortion rights for minors and the elimination of religious symbols in the public arena (symbols that have been there since the inception of the Country).
The Democrats lost the battle in the legislature so they turn to the dictatorial powers of liberal justices in Federal Courts. Have we forgotten or forgiven the Democrats for their racist and sexist attacks on Justice Clarence Thomas. Make note that the Democrats are now attacking women and minorities who do not adopt the Democratic Party’s position.
It seems the Democrats are willing to support those who in turn support the Democratic Party’s agenda (this leaves out conservatives, libertarians, and independents, but probably not Socialists or Communists).
The Federal court has in fact been legislating and it must stop doing so if it wants to keep the respect of all Americans, not just those Americans who can persuade the Court to adopt their agenda.
This Country held an election and the Democrats lost both in the executive and legislative branches...soundly. This complaint about the filibuster rule is in reality whining about the fact that they lost. They feel their loss of power and now grasp for a Senate rule in an effort to force their views upon the Country.
One loses an election when he or she fails to convince the country that his or her agenda is what the Country needs or what the voters want. The Democrats need to go back to the drawing board and decide why the American people are not buying their agenda.
I pulled up the associated poll made available by Rock the Vote. It is shamefully constructed to skew results in favor of the Democratic plight. If Rock the Votes wants to maintain a non-partisan mission to encourage participation in politics, then curb the political bias.
There are good men and women on both sides of the aisle, but what I have witnessed from the Democratic party is pathetic. Rather than focus on the issues that effect this Country and that need their attention, they are consumed with grasping for power that was already lost in the last election.
The "nuclear option" is of the Democrats own making as it results from their abuse of the Senatorial rule they now claim defense of. What is reviling is the attempt to cloak this issue of rule change in the guise of something of Constitutional stature in an effort to invoke patriotism. The Demoncrats missed the boat when and where their patriotism was needed and now they offer feigned patriotic bluster to elevate their interests above those of this Country. Shame on the Democratic party and shame on Rock the Vote for supporting this sham!
"Well, Democrats in Congress have used filibusters to block a lot of federal judge nominations."
This statement in the email could not be further from the truth. A lot? Democrats attempting to keep 5% of the most radical conservative judges off of federal courts is "a lot."
This issue may not be so big had it not been for the fact that the Republican majority and President Bush have destroyed any sense of commity in the Senate.
The Republicans want to eliminate 50% of the American opinion. This tactic is just another power grab. Earlier this year all we heard about was how horrible activist judges were in the Terry Schiavo case. Now you have Bush judicial nominees who have been declared by their peers of going far beyond judicial standards in their opinions. These nominees are some of the most activist judges - but now the lack of restraint is okay by the Republicans.
What rules will be changed to bankrupt Social Security? When does it end?
The Nuclear Option is obviously the drunk with power Republicans attempting a totaliatrian approach to our supposed democratic prcedure. If the Nuclear Option is succesful the minority will have no voice.
This has got to be the most spun piece of trash ever to come out of Rock the Vote. There are no Constitutionally guaranteed protections for a minority party. In fact there is not one mention in the Constitution of political parties at all. Furthermore:
1. Senate rules on filibusters are just that, "Senate Rules". They are written, changed, and deleted, as the Senate desires.
2. The Senate rules on filibusters have changed 7 times in the course of the institution.
3. Filibusters have only rarely ever been used by either party for judicial nominations, and in those cases, with the sole exception of Supreme Court Justice Nominee Bork, the filibuster was because there were serious questions of the nominee's competence.
4. In the case of Bork, he was seen as dangerous by both sides.
5. NONE, I repeat, NONE, of President Bush's nominees to the federal appeals courts and above, have received anything less than stellar competency ratings from the American Bar Association, not exactly the most conservative organization around.
6. This is then the first time that the vote for a judicial appointment has been filibustered by ideological, rather than competency grounds, and that sets a very dangerous precedent, much more so than any change in the rules.
7. As proof of 6 (as opposed to the barely more tolerable idea of filibuster due to the nominator, in this case President Bush), at the beginning of his term, in a goodwill gesture, Bush made the unprecedented move of re-nominating two Clinton appointees, who had not been confirmed, along with the rest of his slate. The two liberals were quickly rushed through committee and confirmed. The rest have been stuck in filibuster.
RTV has become just a DNC mouthpiece.
I think it is an obvious no-brainer choice here. If we take away the filibuster, we remove the right for the minority party (might be republicans someday you know) to oppose things that are wrong (as it has been used in the past). Indeed, I think it has been used and can be used to press forth your own agenda, but to dismantle it completely, is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. You might as well, in this instance, just hand the reins of government completely over to President Bush (who not everyone believes in or voted for) and say "YOU GO BOY. We just KNOW you have the best in mind for us and will never make mistakes. I mean, why do you need anyone to say NO to you." In that direction lies stupidity.
Before you say, "yes, but we rule by the majority," remember our founding fathers built this government to allow for balance of power. It is what makes this country great. Even the examples of filibustering bear this out. Many GOOD things, as well as bad, have come out of this. It is, right now, the only real check on the republicans. Like it or not, we must be able to make compromises in order to balance choices in what is still a strife-torn nation. if we do not have some balance from the minority party and the ones that are represented by them, then we don't hear what that half has to say (and believe me it was a VERY close division in this last race, probably closer if all people had voted instead of just being disgusted by the whole system--idiotic but it happens all the time).
If we don't have this, then the majority gets to dance through, and in addition, having the Vice President (just power of the president further extended) break the vote just gives us a totalitarian government, not a democracy. I am astonished at a government that talks about bringing "peace" and "democracy" to other countries wanting to dismantle the checks and balances that keep our own government fair.
Thanks for letting me vent.
The Nuclear Option is being used by Republicans to "rubber stamp" President Bush's black and white view on politics, democracy, morals, and money.
Almost every Republican in the Senate relies on favors and support from the rest of the GOP. If more of them have the guts (as Senator McCain), they would vote their conscience and respect every American's right to live in a free society and pursue "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
If 49% of the US is VERY opposed to an appointment, then they should have "VETO" power, and find someone suitable to both parties. Or are the Republicans asking the other 49% to like it or leave it?
I used to think the Democrats took your money, and the Republicans took your rights. Now I believe that the (right wing) Republicans (GW) want to take your money, your rights, your sons and daughters, and dictate your opinion on issues and the correct method to address those issues that we have in common.
I'm embarrassed to be associated with a country that has made such bullying acts ... forcing a tribal society to change by sacrificing our children and our economy ... trying to force the judiciary branch to concede to its will (yet ironically, will not PAY for such care), and endangering us all to more terrorists. They have been goaded into the enemies trap!
I think anything the Senate passes or approves ought to require 60 votes, not just cloture. If you can't get 60 of the 100 senators to agree to something, then it's probably not a good idea. Decisions by total consensus may be impractical, but 60 out of 100 is not asking too much. But we wouldn't get a constitutional amendment to require 60 senate votes for anything, until pigs fly, so in the meantime, let the filibuster continue as a workaround to get that 60-vote requirement for those things which at least one senator finds particularly horrible.
Here is a scarey thought, Bill Frist is a likely candidate for the next Presidential election! I sincerely hope this country can withstand 3 1/2 more years of dictatorship from President Bush, and his administration. Have you noticed Bill Frist speaks in the same terms as President Bush? There is no vote in his eyes, he plainly states. This is the way it is, like it or not. What happened to Democracy? With the thought of erasing the use of a fillabuster, erases essential, well thought out processes from our forefathers when they wrote the Constitution.
How about the sneaky, deceiving way President Bush put the ANWAR deal into the budget. Such a consideration has no place in the budget, period. It is a whole other issue. Go to www.nrdc.com and read the truth about drilling in the "Artic Refuge". It will take 10 years to see a result from drilling in that region. Ten years from now it is not going to make a difference, and the damage will have been done. Ironicly it was a Republican President, Roosevelt that put the protection into place to protect such a wonderful environment. He was smart enough to realize it should never be touched by man.
I hope and pray with all my heart 3 1/2 years from now the American people will see how horrible it has been living under Republican rule for way too long. As the saying goes, Republicans belief, "Hoorah for the rich, and to hell with the poor".
Saudi Bush should be ashamed of himself for using our Young Soldiers to fight for his Rich friends oil !!! BRING OUR TROOPS HOME !!!!!!!!
These judges (some of them at least) are crazy and should be kept off the bench. Whatever way we can do that, I am in favor of.
please. Someone stop this Bush Administration steam roller! Fillibuster my rear end. America is great because of the stop gap measures against dinosaurs like Bush.
Wow. How many people here have completely missed the point.
Judges have a mandate to make rulings based on law and constitutionality. Weeding out judges whom will vote according to their religious beliefs is essential to the democratic process- conservative activist judges are no more welcome on the bench than liberal activist judges, nor should they be; hence both have their rulings overturned on appeal.
If a judge's record on the state or national level reflects a tendancy to rule based on personal belief rather than law and constitutionality, and the President remains hell-bent on their appointment, then it is the responsibilty of the Senate to use the tools available to them to delay, block, and draw attention.
In a complacent country where we believe whatever our news channel of choice jams down our gullet, it is essential that such checks and balances exist for the protection of not only the minority party, but the minority constituency who might not desire to live in the Christian States of America.
Let's see..
Bush nominated about 200 judges, and all of them passed except for ten. TEN! I find it rather amusing that many conservatives are saying the filibuster is an attack on people of faith. Back in the 90's, Republicans blocked about 60 judges using the filibuster and the Democrats threw a stink about that. Look, we all know that both sides of the aisle would like judges on the bench that go along with the corresponding party's agenda, no question. I think the main concern for the Democratic party about these 10 nominees is that there are 55 Republican senators, and most Republicans want 50 votes to approve judges. These judges won't simply get an up or down vote, if the "nuclear option" is invoked; rather, they'll get a free pass.
I believe it would be beneficial for the Republicans to keep the filibuster as it is now, in the long run. The tables will turn one day, and the Dems will have control of the Senate.
I think there was a reason we need 60 instead of 50. A vote with 60 in support would more than likely call for bipartisan support and force each member to really decide how they feel. A 50 vote (plus one with the VP) would in this case fall in favor of the dominate party. I don't think this is why the system was set up. The system is set up to make it difficult to pass legislation and nominees - because we don't want everything to go through either!
Isn't it funny that when Bush won the first time, the Dems were ready to re-think the electoral college for crying out loud? Now that something is not in their favor, they are yelling that we should never change anything about the constitution (even though this is not even a constitutional issue).
The individual that said earlier, "What is reviling is the attempt to cloak this issue of rule change in the guise of something of Constitutional stature in an effort to invoke patriotism", is absolutely correct. (Although, this can be said about the Rep party as well. Neither side is quilt free.)
Let the system work itself out. This is why we have elections every four years, people. The founders of this country were at least intelligent enough to know that no party should have power for any extended period of time.
Bottomline, no the vote requirement should not go from 60 to 50 and the minority should always have a voice. However, as also mentioned earlier this evening, if they don't like the Judges, vote against them instead of pulling this filabuster nonsense.
Peace.
First of all, there is no such thing as a "nuclear option." It's simply a term being thrown around to stir up the emotions of simple-minded people who have lots of opinions about a system of government they obviously know little about.
With that said, filibustering is not a Constitutionally-protected tactic. In fact, it didn't become popular until the 1850s and is nothing more than a courtesy that has been recognized by senators over the years -- a courtesy of not limiting how long a senator can speak on the Senate floor.
Interestingly enough, the term "filibuster" comes from a Dutch word for "pirate." Go figure.
Under the Constitution, the President has the authority to nominate federal judges, ambassadors, etc. which then must be confirmed by the Senate in order to take office (Article II Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution). Filibustering is a "nuclear option" because it allows a single Senator to basically destroy the entire process by denying a vote long enough that everyone gives up.
Draw your own conclusions. Do the research. Just don't buy into the media hype, partisan allegations and Rock the Vote's politically-slanted commentary. And imagine that things are the other way around: Dems appointing judges and Republicans spending years filibustering them.
JEHRMUU, HANSSSSSSS---
PLEASE READ THE CONSTITUTION....
It may help you realize that
(1) There is NO CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE HERE
These were potential SENATE RULE changes. The Constitution gives the Senate the right to govern itself!
(2) We are NOT A DEMOCRACY,
We are a Republic.
and...
Our Republic is NOT in danger of
of being destroyed, because the people
voted for the Senators that are there now.
The PEOPLE WILL GET TO DO THAT AGAIN IN 2006.
If you are going to lead for the younger generation, please ATLEAST get your facts correct
Apologies if this sounds condescending, but as years of study of America's founding document, I would hope MTV would be more cautious about educating itself before preaching.
Members of the US Senate came to a
compromise on the fillibuster at
7:30 PM 5/23/05. There will be a
up or down vote on certain judges
nominated by George W. Bush. Now the Senate can take care of the
American people business. I hope
so because I am praying to God for
s better America.
I would like to first state that I have no respect for those who use manipulative language in their efforts to persuade. Language like "going nuclear" in a context that has nothing to do with atomic energy is simply the fallacy of an appeal to fear. That in my eyes already seems to show that some people are reluctant to discuss the issues involved. The true question is whether or not it should be easier than it is now to invoke cloture to end debate. If cloture comes to require only a 50% majority rather than 60%, that will result in a more quick, less deliberative government. It may also cause there to be less collaboration between senators with opposing viewpoints. It is necessary to balance those two factors when considering this topic, rather than going back to a Cold War mentality.
It should be noted that this is a rather sudden issue that was not referenced in any of the recent senatorial campaigns(to the best of my knowledge). That may indicate that it is motivated by temporary political concerns, and may not be the best long-term policy. However, the agenda behind the idea has no bearing on whether it is the best choice. The best feature of elmiminating the fillibuster is that it would make the government more transparent. If the American people then wanted to create a more consensus-oriented system, that would be possible. Getting rid of the fillibuster, however, would make a consensus system a deliberate choice, rather than an accidental effect. I therefore support it.
I see Hans Reimer has decided to bring his partisan political fear mongering into issues other than Social Security now.
Once again, I weep for this generation.
Hans Reimer's political partisan bitching aside, let me present to you the perfect solution to all of this:
Make the filibuster a real filibuster. You know, the one where you get up there and talk, talk, talk until you get tired and the show's over.
A REAL filibuster would force Senate members who choose to filibuster to carefully weigh whether to use it or not, because it would put all other Senate operations to a halt, and it would take one thing the current fake filibuster does not need- EFFORT.
Democrats love talking about "checks and balances" these days. Well let me ask them a question, then: where's the "check" on the blatant abuse of the filibuster? There used to be one, when the filibuster was REAL, but not anymore.
Democrats want to filibuster? Fine. Do a real one. The pathetic rule change that took place in the 1960s-1970s changed the filibuster into a "procedural filibuster," which basically is just another excuse to push the necessary votes to pass something from 51 to 60.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that 60 votes are necessary to confirm a judicial appointment. In fact, all the Constitution says is that the Senate should "advise and consent" on judicial appointees.
Sadly, Hans is misleading everyone again. Eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominees (or restoring the ORIGINAL, REAL filibuster) is following the Constitution, whereas using fake procedural filibusters to artificially increase the required votes for judicial confirmation is absolutely NOT Constitutional.
Matt, 60 votes (which a filibuster would require) is a greater consensus than 50 votes (which would be enough if there were no filibuster).
Keeping the filibuster therefore requires decisions to be more of a consensus (you need 60 votes, that is, both the right aisle, plus 1/5 of the left aisle).
Without a filibuster, you only need the right aisle, and the left-aisle minority is powerless.
In order to have a well run government there has to be balance. When the far right or left get too powerful, then we no longer have balance.
Therefore, if everything is too conservative then we loose balance. The Bush Administration is tipping the scale too conservative and unless we have methods to allow for balance then we are not able to exercise Freedom.
A nation that is too conservative will not exercise Freedom for all, but Freedom for the few.
Any action that has the "potential" of bringing church and state together is highly suspicious. Do we want to go the stone age? Do we want a country that is so religious it would turn us into the middle east nations?
Conservatives generally are very structured individuals. Change is not something they are able to adapt to and believe me the world is changing too fast for those that are conservative.
Its no different that those in the middle east fighting democracy. They want a conservative government. Is that what we want here? They cannot embrace change over there either and conservatives here cannot embrace the fast changing pace of our world.
Fighting change, evolution of mankind is a losing battle for conservatives. Man will change..Man will move forward...or we wouldn't have electricity, light bulbs and refrigerators today.
Lets not go back to the stone age!
Historically, the filibuster has not been a great instrument of progressive political change! On the contrary, this archaic rule has been used mostly by minority, anti-progressive blocs in Congress to blunt social progress, most visibly during the 50's and 60's when Republicans and segregationist southern Democrats filibustered to impeed the passage of civil rights legislation. Is this a political instrument we want to preserve? Very rarely is it "progressive" to grant the minority the right to scuttle the will of the majority. It would be no great tragedy if the filibuster were abolished entirely, let alone just in the case of judicial nominees. The President does enjoy the right to nominate whomever he wishes for the Federal Bench. It is the Senate's right and duty to approve or disapprove the nominee. If a judicial candidate is truly a poor choice as a jurist, it shouldn't be too difficult to make that case and prevail upon a majority in the Senate to reject the individual in open debate and a straight-up vote. The Republicans are indeed the majority in the Senate, but that doesn't mean they're a bunch of mindless automatons, ready to rubber-stamp anyone President Bush puts forth. If the Democrats feel strongly that a candidate should be rejected for the good of the nation, let them make that case in open deliberation and trust that their Republican colleagues also have the same good intentions for our nation and will vote accordingly. But if it's just because they disagree with some of the nominee's rulings or consider them to be at odds with so-called "liberal orthodoxy", the Democrats (who are, after all, the minority party) should not have the right to scuttle a straight-up vote in the Senate by reading from the Yellow Pages (which is essentially how a filibuster works.) Instead let them make an intelligent case against the nominee, and convince the majority to reject confirmation. In a democracy, for a Minority to prevail, let them convince, not filibuster. Otherwise, the will of the Majority is compromised by the "tyranny of the Minority."
I love it when people want to discuss our political system and obviously have no grasp of how our republic works.
(BTW I know there was a compromise or sorts late Monday...)
First off this is a constitutional option because the Constitution gives the Senate the ability to create and alter their own rules, which encompasses the filibuster of judicial nominees. If the change in the senate is made, stating that a super majority (60 votes) is no longer needed on judicial nominees then the Senate is well within their constitutional authority to do so. Besides, its not like the Senate hasn't changed their own rules before (the filibuster has been changed 7 times in the past).
Next, the Constitution is VERY specific in which few events a super-majority is required to pass the Senate, and judicial nominees are not one of them (bringing about a Constitutional Amendment for example is a super-majority vote). If the founders felt that 60 votes were required on judicial nominees then they would have written it in the Constitution along with the other super-majority instances, but they didn't.
I'd like to see the Democrats lay out a specific complaint against these judges and point to rulings in which they actively legislated from the bench. then make a pack with the American people to NEVER nominate or vote for any judge that shows a tendency to create rulings based on personal feelings or political beliefs, things like using International Law in cases to usurp States Rights to set penalties for 16 and 17 year old convicted felons, or forcing same sex marriages on a state not out of a ruling based on state law, but because someone brought a law suit to force the issue in court. Yeah, the Democrats have a chance here to become the party that stands up to judges that overstep their authority when ruling on matters that should be decided by the legislature... I wonder if they'll play that out?
It's sad to read what some of you have said in your comments. First off, the anonymous person who said that the Democrats should just vote the nominees down: ummm, hello, they're in a minority so they can vote and make their stand and lose. The filibuster is the only way for a minority to stand a chance since it requires more than the usual 50 votes to accept a nominee. Read the facts then talk. Then I see one of you pissed off that we're even concerned because it's just about Senate rules and not an Amendment change. Have you ever heard of the word "precedence" as in you do it once, people won't think twice to do it again? You can be right wing or left wing but you need to focus on the fact that the filibuster was implemented for checks and balances. If you take it away now, who's to say the Senate won't do the same thing when something even more crucial is at stake? Are you willing to take that chance? Personally I'm not. And the Republicans claim that the Democrats are taking advantage of the filibuster to go after people of faith. As a Hindu, I'm ecstatic that someone is trying to separate Church and State. Christians may dominate this country but it's still a non-denominational government. And yes, Hindu values are almost identical to Christian values, but what if something comes to debate that is fundamentally different, not only between Hindus and Christians, but what about people of the Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Behai etc faiths?? Remember all this before you bash the Democrats.
The minority must be heard by the majority. This is the reason for unlimited debate on the floor of the senate.
We do not live in a country of "mob rule".
Are you even joking when you say this site is slanted? I am so sick of hearing all of this about Democrats stopping judges. Republicans used the fillibuster to stop a ton of Clinton appointees. Democrats never tried to change the rules when they were in the majority. This is ridiculous. The fillibuster preserves democracy, and a number of Bush appointees that have been terrible got through without being fillibustered. Like John Ashcroft, for example.
Thomas Jefferson said "democracy is tyranny for those not in the majority". It is why we set up a democratic republic and not a democracy. The filibuster is the only way the minority, whoever is in the minority, to prevent a radical departure from the best for all citizens. This country was formed by people who were very sensitive to the tyranny of a ruling class.
Some of the responders have posted false statements. The Bush Administration has nominated candidates for the appellate court that have been rated unqualified by the ABA, none of those in question at the moment has recieved the highest ABA recommendation. It is too bad that people don't know and/or spread falsehoods.
Those that would weaken the protections afforded us by the founding fathers, when in power, should pause and reflect on how effectively they have used those protections when in the minority.
This republic is great. It has achieved its greatness because of its fair dealings with those in the minority. When we erode the protections we erode what has made this nation great.
Can Rock the Vote provide some real facts about this issue? Such as the number of Judges ACTUALLY being blocked by the Democrats and the number of Judges the Democrats have ALREADY approved. The Republicans are again screaming bloody murder because a handful of their radical Judges are not getting approved. It would be nice if Rock the Vote, working to educate young people about politics and goverment, would provide some real facts for us. I mean, I've met some real jerks who have been paid by Rock the Vote in the 2004 election. Maybe Rock the Vote could pay unbias researchers to look into matters such as this instead of just putting more propaganda in my e-mail. If you're gonna be a liberal in these days, you're gonna have to do it with facts, not with propaganda like how the Republicans do it.
The purpose of Rock the Vote has gone beyond getting out the vote. Voters need to be aware of what goes on in the Senate. If the Minority Party (either side at a given time) loses its 60 vote right, the electorate behind that minority party will be underrepresented. The majority party has become tyrannical and their attempt to break down the barrier between Church and State is the first step to a breakdown of Democracy as we know it.
Hey,
I've got an idea...
I believe that if a filibuster is important enough to last more than a week then the issue should be presented to the general population and voted on accordingly.
Allowing this method to be used would have two consequences:
1. If a filibuster is used for an unimportant reason then people will choose to vote out the senators using the unproductive filibuster.
2. If the people agree with the filibuster the people using the filibuster will gain influence and power.
The real solution is making the senators accountable to the people.
You guys love to talk about non-existent rights. The fact is the Minority have no rights in the senate under the constitution, go read the document and post the passage that claims minority rights in the senate to prove me wrong. Furthermore, the 60 vote super majority is CLEARLY laid out in the Constitution and judicial nominees are no where to be found among the instances where a 60 vote super-majority is required to pass the Senate.
As for the anon that claims the Republicans filibustered many of Clinton's judicial nominees I call on you to POST THEIR NAMES. The fact is the only other time in which the filibuster was used to stop a judicial nominee was well before Bush or Clinton and it was members of both parties that participated in the endless debate (hardly an example of one party being obstructionists).
Holy hell, some of you people are incredibly dense.
I think we should all know how far this generation (and RTV) has fallen when you have people (like Megan above) quoting MOVEONPAC as a source! I laugh and laugh.
The fact of the matter is that a Senate is only supposed to advise and consent. A filibuster is an unethical way to try to force a vote to go from majority (50+) to a supermajority (60+), something that is NOT in the Constitution. Whether you're a liberal or a conservative, you must answer to the constitution, and thus this filibuster is a blatant violation of it.
Once again, a REAL filibuster is fine, where you get up there and talk and talk. That one stalls all Senate operations, so a check is put on the use of the filibuster- those who want to use it will have to face the consequences. Meanwhile, the current fake procedural filibuster does nothing more than change the required votes for something from 51 to 60.
All of you are being blatantly partisan, particularly those on the left. Is there any doubt that you liberals would be complaining about "GOP abuse of the filibuster" if the DEMOCRATS were in the majority? Absolutely no doubt at all.
In fact, it's happened before, with liberals in the 1990s trying to get rid of the filibuster so Clinton's nominees could get through. Stop being hypocrites, and just follow the damned Constitution.
I, for one, hope the President gets all his nominees through, because the Rock the Vote "neo-hippie" generation sure could use a nice slap in the face from strict constructionist judges.
This country was founded on Democracy, voting and yes...sorry everyone, RELIGION. Did anyone here forget the "real" reason this country exist...religious freedom? Why is it if someone has faith in something we all of a sudden don't want them in office...yet someone who is known to have unethical practices or beliefs is so accepted...just because they are "open minded"
When do we as people practice what we preach....when? I see the gay and lesbian community get pissed at what people say and think about them and bring out lawsuits and public debates and discussions about how they are so mistreated and then they are the very ones who damn the presidant and his beliefs b/c he professes to believe in God and marriage...so who are the real closed minded individuals. Everyone seems to want their views made into policy and throw away what we have stood on and has made us a great nation of free speech, and opinions.
This fillabuster is absolutly judicial tyranny. I will tell you why. I know a minister who was jailed b/c he said he belived that marriage was between man and woman..and some judge decided to interpret that as illegal slander against the gay and lesbian community. So, let me get this straight...the gay and lesbians can say and believe whatever they want about christians and faith and marriage within that context...but a pastor speaking to his church, in which all came there of their own free will to hear him in church, given the freedom to go on their own by the USA and its foundation on religious freedon is then jailed b/c of his beliefs and sermon? So I ask...who is really oppressing freedom here?
The 81-to-18 vote ends Democratic efforts to prevent the Senate from approving Priscilla R. Owen for the federal bench.
this proves that it had nothing to do with the person not being worthy.
Dems voted yes
****Back in the 90's, Republicans blocked about 60 judges using the filibuster and the Democrats threw a stink about that****
not true- this is the first time in history the filibuster has been used aganist people and not policy. and btw all but 18 Democrates voted today to put the judges thru- so its not about them being unworthy of the post or a problem with their skills or record- this was a tactic to make a stick! When it came down to a VOTE which the judges deserved- all but 18 voted YES. So 18% didnt want them not 49%. SPEAK IN FACTS!!!
Get your facts straight. You said in the email I am replying to that:
> Democrats in Congress have used
> filibusters to block a lot of
> federal judge nominations.
The filibuster was never used in the history of our country for the purpose of blocking judges until George W Bush took office. It was never used - by Republicans or Democrats. So, it was an unspoken rule before the last 5 years that you didn't filibuster judge confirmation hearings. So it's the Democrat's that have changed the rules.
I do believe it is good that McCain's efforts avoided the changing of the rules, to get an agreement where members of the Senate can work together - basically, they won't filibuster unless they are real bent out of shape about a judgeship candidate. Hmm... not sure that should be either, but better than what took place GWB's first term.
It irks me that Democrats are acting like babies and, as you also said they:
> threatened to slow Senate
> business to a crawl if the
> nuclear option passes
I would think that your RockTheVote would be indignant about the Dem's threats. But seems from your mass email, you side with them.
Mike
The stat that I heard on ORielly last night was that over 200 Judges have been appointed and there are something like 10 that are being blocked by the 60 vote issue. Don't forget when Clinton wanted his Judges appointed ... the Republicans got in the way of something like 60 of them. They didn't use the same tactics ... they didn't need to ... they had the "real" votes or some such. It all sounds like polotics to me. Not like Bush's name is secretly "Dark Sith Lord Darth Sideous" ;)
Sean Foushee why do continue to speak ill about others knowledge when you are willfully ignorant yourself. Just because the right wing echo chamber told something doesn't make it true. Do you know why the Senate was created in the first place? Try reading and thinking for yourself. This might help you. http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/1787.htm
The Senate was created to give the minority equal representation. And though the Democrats are currently in the minority they represent the majority of people and got the majority of votes.
Besides that the filibuster was used by Republicans in 1968 for the Supreme Court appointment of Abe Fortas. They also blocked more of Clinton's nominee's with procedural rules that they have now gotten rid of.
Why did the Republicans get rid of rules that they used to block more of Clinton's nominees? Have you ever asked yourself that question? They also advocated the use of the filibuster for Clinton nominees.
How do you feel about Bill Frist, who voted to filibuster Clinton judicial nominee Paez in 1996?
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00037#position
The Nays and those Republicans that filibustered Paez:
NAYs ---14
Allard (R-CO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Craig (R-ID)
DeWine (R-OH)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Gramm (R-TX)
Helms (R-NC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Will you go away now or will you start thinking for yourself, Willfully Ignorant Sean Foushee? Stop listening to the right wing echo chamber for your information. Will you continue to trust those that make you look like a smacked ass?
Just because SeanInsanityFauxNewsRushBillOlielly say it doesn't make it true. Read and think for yourself.
EVERYONE. Can we please stop the name calling and personal insults. This debate is great and people are really getting heated. But its very hard to read as an outsider because its full of so much invective.
Disagree! Argue! But please try to be civil!
Let your facts speak for themselves.
Simple facts- no spin
1. Republicans have filibustered more Judges than Democrats. Reps only dislike filibuster when it's used against theit lackeys
2. Senate rules require a specific process to change the rules. Frist wants to break even THOSE rules to remove the filibuster. What ever happened to playing fair? If you dont like the result of a rule, just scrap it..and ignore any "rules for scrapping" in teh process
3. Power corrups and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Reps won the election, but that does NOT give them the right to trample on the rights of everyone else. It does not mean everyone must now be lock step in terms of religion, hate, politics, judges..We could go to Iran for that kind of government.
erik - you need to realize that the Senate was created to represent the STATES, nit set up some minority rights group. The fact remains that senators decided they would do best to keep their power if they answered to the people instead of the states they were to serve. They created this unconstitutional action by creating the 17th amendment...
United States Constitution, Article I, Section 3
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.
Amendment XVII
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures.
Now, I agree the concept of the Senate was to make sure all states had an equal voice, but again that concerns the wishes of the states not the people.
No one on either side should be alleging hypocrisy on the other side here, because the fact of the matter is that BOTH parties have displayed incredible hypocrisy. Here's the Democrats a mere 10 years ago- things stated by the very same Democrats who now support filibusters:
Barbara Boxer – 5/14/97:
“It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.”
Dick Durbin – 9/28/98:
“If, after 150 days languishing on the Executive Calendar that name has not been called for a vote, it should be. Vote the person up or down.”
Tom Harkin – 1/5/95:
“I do not believe that I as a member of the minority ought to have the right to absolutely stop something because I think it is wrong, that that is rule by minority.”
Ted Kennedy – 3/7/00
“The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court said: ‘The Senate is surely under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary time for inquiry it should vote him up or vote him down.’ Which is exactly what I would like.”
Pat Leahy - 6/18/98
“If we don’t like somebody the President nominates, vote him or her down. But don’t hold them in this anonymous unconscionable limbo, because in doing that, the minority of Senators really shame all Senators.”
It goes both ways, kids. Once again I maintain that the best way to handle this is to make a filibuster a REAL filibuster- change the rules back to how they used to be in the old days, where people were forced to talk to no end to continue filibusters, thus delaying Senate business. That would put a check on the use of the filibuster, and people would have to weigh the political consequences of using the filibuster then. This, compared to the current 'procedural' filibuster which has no consequences.
I am sick of this hypocritical organization taking sides and mass e-mailing dedicated volunteers about RTV's ideas of what's absolute truth.
Sean Foushee you need to read more about the history and facts that you tell others they don't know about. You obviously have gotten your ass handed to you because you make no mention of the other points that I made.
Why is it so hard for you to admit defeat and being wrong? Did you even bother to read the senate website(the republican controlled senate) link I gave you? Have you ever read books on the subject, taken history classes? Why no mention about the Republicans that voted for the filibuster?
And anonymous, I agree completely with what you say. It's called politics. The Dems decried the filibuster and rules that the republicans were at the time using in an unprecendented fashion. The Republicans gained control of the Senate and have proceeded to eliminate those rules so the Democrats cannot even be given the chance to use them. There only option is the filibuster. Now the Repubs want to eliminate that as well. What's hypocritical playing politics or eliminating the rules you once used so the other side cannot use them for the same purposes.
This is the same thing the House has done with the ethics committee. Change the rules so that the majority can break the rules that allowed them to rebuke the Dems. It's called tyranny of the majority. You should very upset that Republicans need to change the rules to stay in power.
I am sure people need to understand SUPREME COURT JUDGES ARE FOR EVER. THEY ARE NOT VOTED OUT! The ONLY reason a filibuster is cool is for this very reason. Think about it. The system may suck but it is still the best the world has to offer. You think it is OK to change the right for minority to object to a change like this? Check your facts people there is no way we cal alow ONE party to set social standards.
Sure we can. Dems have had free reign over this country for years. Through hard work and free elections, the republicans have managed to take the Presidency, House, and Senate. Now its time for the dems to shut up and stop whinning because they can't win any elections. If the dems want to choose judges, they should try winning an election. TOO bad, whinny dems. Sit back and stop crying.
If this isn't proof that this is all politics:
"Senators on Tuesday voted to invoke cloture — or an end to debate — on the nomination of Priscilla Owen (search) to a seat on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (search) in New Orleans. The vote was 81-18 to proceed toward a final confirmation vote."
If Priscilla Owen is so extreme, how could that many dems vote to invoke cloture. It wasn't even close. I'm interested to see what the vote will be tomorrow
I think that since the main issue being pushed is religion that our government needs to take a step back and look at what the are proposing the a free religion state there is no state religion and that is part of what makes this country so great we do not need religous zealots in our courts make ruling based on there religous beliefs and not that these beliefs are wrong, but our founders of this country put a seperation of religion and governement for a reason and this was one of them lets not make them roll over in their graves
Anonymous said...
****Back in the 90's, Republicans blocked about 60 judges using the filibuster and the Democrats threw a stink about that****
not true- this is the first time in history the filibuster has been used aganist people and not policy. and btw all but 18 Democrates voted today to put the judges thru- so its not about them being unworthy of the post or a problem with their skills or record- this was a tactic to make a stick! When it came down to a VOTE which the judges deserved- all but 18 voted YES. So 18% didnt want them not 49%. SPEAK IN FACTS!!!
3:43 PM
Thanks for the heads up about the the non-filibuster methods to block the 60 judges during Clinton's time. Yes, they WERE blocked but not by filibuster. Okay. (mediamatters.org) But, I posted my statement before a deal concerning the current filibuster was brought. Actually, the Dems (many of them) did originally disagree with the 10 judges being confirmed based on their politics; that's why the filibuster was set up in the first place. After the deal was brought to the table, many Dems voted yes for selected nominees. You sir or madam should now speak in facts.
I'm a little confused here. Maybe someone can clear this up for me.
Democracy is about majority rule, no?
The filibuster gives additional benifits to an opposing minority. What's democratic about that?
I think that everyone should get their chance to state debate their opposing points, but reading the telephone book ain't that.
In reference to the comments below... if Democrats have 50% of the majority, there wouldn't be a majority. The facts are there is a majority of republicans in the house, senate and executive level because THE COUNTRY WANTS THEM THERE. All you dumbass youngsters will soon be republicans to when you wake up and then understand when you vote a majority into office you don't want the kids who lose deciding what is best for the country. REMEMBER you had a majority for many many years, and what occurred? Let me think of one think, emmm NOTHING happened. You had your chance to fix things but what is great is FINALLY Americans are realizing your a bunch of wining no idea losers. Hence, the radical changes of power brought by the people. So, FRIST please do something. Americans voted you there and everyone else.
In regard to the message written (8:27pm). I agree that obviously the rock the vote journalism is very biased. However I do have to say that its important that the senate has this power. I feel much safer this way. Even though obviously it has its potholes (the civil rights movement) I feel much safer having things freeze up. It might save us from bad consequences someday. And this isn't against a person (7:49pm) its the issues and politics this judge brings to the table. Its a lifetime position, its very serious. Anyway regardless on views, I just think things shouldn't be changed so hastily due to partisan issues. I'm tired of the parties always fighting, theres a war going on and people are dying. ---Hstenquist
What a revolting pack of lies. Seriously, how do you people sleep at night? The Democratic party is persecuting Christians and people who just want to do their job the way the Constitution says it ought to be done, and you're feeding young people their press releases. Wait until the day comes when your religious or other “out of the mainstream” beliefs are used to keep you out of public places, schools, and polling places. Rock the Vote will be there.
erik - I followed the link to senate.gov, but had to search for the page you were referring to since comments in this blog don't seem to react well to long URLs. I assume based on the partial URL that you were directing me to the timeline, in which this is the first entry:
1787:On July 16, Framers of the Constitution created a bicameral legislature in which the Senate represents all states equally, while the House represents states in proportion to their respective populations.
Now, based on my post that pretty much ends the debate on what the Senate was created to do (the unconstitutional 17th amendment aside for the moment). The Senate was set up to represent the States, not the people, and as such there is no reason to filibuster a judicial nominee or require 60 votes from the states on this issue, because once again the Constitution setup the requirements for the states (read Senate) to use the 60 vote super-majority and judicial nominees are not included.
now if you agree with the 17th amendment and feel that states have no representation in the Senate and that senators are only beholding to their constituents in their part of their state then I can see how you would react to these filibusters as constitutional and any threat to end them unconstitutional. Now you claim I don't know my history, and I've backed up each argument with quotes or links, some you yourself never answered in other topics (those in glass houses...), however can you answer me this simple question:
If the framers of the constitution wanted the people to debate on judicial nominees why didn't they charge the House of Representative with the task of advise and consent?
If you can answer that question then you'll have realized why Senators have overstepped their authority when filibustering judicial nominees.
As for me being willfully ignorant, I suggest you keep that attitude in check, especially when presenting a roll call for a cloture vote that was 85-14-1 (McCain did not vote) on a judicial nominee as though it was a filibuster. You want to link to the actual story behind the filibuster and not the confirmation of Clinton's judge by such a wide gap?
Oh and as for Frist, when will you begin to understand that I'm not a republican, I don't like Frist, I think he's a spineless looser. Frist is the worst leader the Republicans have chosen in the Senate.
***The Democratic party is persecuting Christians and people who just want to do their job the way the Constitution says it ought to be done, and you're feeding young people their press releases.***
Uh Nathan, I really don't think the Dems are persecuting Christians, considering many of the them are Christians themselves. Many Dems favor a separation of church and state and feared that these judges would blur these lines. As for bias in this article (I'm addressing other comments, not necessarily yours), I personally think Hans gave the talking points of both sides. I believe the constitutional part was referencing "tyranny of the majority" (a talking point of the Dems, as you know) rather than whether the filibuster is constitutionally supported or not.
The filibuster is an important part of the legislative process, but I understand the political reasoning behind it on the part of the Republicans. If put in the same position, I'm sure the Democrats would do the same. Let's face it, above all, these guys are politicians, regardless of what they believe or fight for. On the one hand, I don't want the filibuster gone, because it's a valuable tool for the minority party, but on the other hand, I am not fond of how the Democratic party has to single out judges. These judges should be confirmed on the basis of their competency and NOT on personal beliefs. A judge should be impersonal and an interpreter of the law. There's a lot more to be said, but that's all I'm saying.
I fell the filibuster is very important. It is part of right (or should be right) to disagree when we don't like somthing. The Nuclear issue shouldn't even be an issue, but since Bush came in to office it is either his parties way or the highway. His rules and his inability to remember there is a Bill of Rights and a Constitution has put a real hinderance on the nation's ability to grow and progress. The Nuclear issue should not even be an issue but the Republicans are now starting to become extremist. It is unfortunate that many democrats are showing a lack of ability to stand up for the fight.
I will also say that church and politics have no place in the same room and someone is being voted in that likes to have picnics with both at the same time than HE-- NO they're needs to be a vote to keep them out of the senate.
Let us drop the religious and anti-religious bickering here, and let us drop the ideological bomb throwing. Let us look at this from a point of logic:
- The American people elected Republicans into office since 2000. Congress has become more Republican since 2000, with wins in 2002 and 2004, and the President was re-elected. The will of the majority of America is clear.
- The filibuster was once something real that had consequences- use it at will, but be prepared to deal with the consequence of stalling all Senate business. This was an effective check on the filibuster from decades ago, but we changed it to a "procedural filibuster" which is essentially unchecked. All one has to do to increase the required votes to pass something from 51 to 60 is to launch a filibuster. Now I ask you- is that fair? I think not. Those who are talking about "checks and balances" are hypocritically disregarding how there is no check on the power of the filibuster.
- Public opinion supports having the judges voted up or down in the Senate. In fact, a poll came out today- with the vast majority of America (almost 70%) supporting voting judges up and down. A plurality- 35%- support banning the filibuster for judge nominations. Here's your proof.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/5/25/115435.shtml
No matter what your ideology, if you are a believer of democracy, you must believe in the will of the people. The will of the people, given the past three elections, and this polling data, clearly points towards the desire of America to have these nominations voted up or down.
"The Senate was set up to represent the States, not the people, and as such there is no reason to filibuster a judicial nominee or require 60 votes from the states on this issue, because once again the Constitution setup the requirements for the states (read Senate) to use the 60 vote super-majority and judicial nominees are not included."
This is your problem and why you prove your ignorance. Read the history of the senate and discover why the Senate was created. It wasn't created to represent states. The Senate has always represented the people. To think otherwise is undemocratic and ignorant.
"senators are only beholding to their constituents in their part of their state"
Senators are not beholden to their constituents in their part of the state. They are beholden to all the constituents in their state. Another moment of ignorance.
You talk about the intention of the framers...what about the Republcians who filibustered Abe Fortas? Whether you like it or not 14 republcians voted for a filibuster, what about them? You can claim that the constitution isn't intended to do anything but they're doing it. The point you should worry about is... is it alright to be a hypocrite? Are Republicans held to differnet a different set of rules in your book because you follow their beliefs? Did Dems raise a fit about this when Repubs held up more of Clinton's nominees?
Because they don't believe in tyranny of the majority. This is what our framers had in mind when they created our constitution and the "Great Comprimise" of the Seante. This is what you would know if you read. This was their initial intention when they created the Senate. Not to give voice to the states but to give voice to the people of the states with less representation. They also gave the power of electing senators to the states to "calm their fears about the dangers of a strong centralized government." States are inanimate objects, they don't exist without people. Now your logic and ignorance may say otherwise but don't you think that the our founders were smarter than you?
I answer all questions. If you don't like the answers and being proven wrong that is something you need to reconcile with yourself.
You claim not to be a republican but you think that Frist is a spineless loser. So you are a far right wing extremist and further out of the mainstream than Frist?
As stated before... the judges are for life! I defend the republicans right in the FUTURE to use filibuster as a means of check and balance! This is democracy in this SITUATION. Be real, times change the minority has a say in such a situation, your party's right to this is in jeoperdy and your sin of pride may haunt you. Peace BH
I'm still confused. Can someone please clear this up for me? I keep seeing people say stuff to the effect of, "The filibuster is democratic because it gives power to the minority." Democracy is about majority rule, no?
The filibuster gives additional benifits to an opposing minority. What's democratic about that?
I think that everyone should get their chance to state/debate their opposing points. Reading the telephone book ain't that nor is calling an "implied filibuster".
erick - you call me ignorant, but have proven yourself to be an outright idiot. I'm sorry, I don't usually resort to outright name calling, but if you can't read the following information from senate.gov, that clearly states that the Senate was created to represent the states then you sir deserve to be called an idiot:
1787:On July 16, Framers of the Constitution created a bicameral legislature in which the Senate represents all states equally, while the House represents states in proportion to their respective populations.
How more clear can that be? The senate was setup to represent the states, and by arguing that this FACT is wrong you've shown yourself to be as ignorant as you claim I am.
So tell me again that the Senate was setup to represent the people, then post the article in the Constitution that proves the above fact false.
Sorry, Eric. You obviously don't know your history. You are screaming ingnorance of everyone else like a good little democrat has been taught to do, but you are really the ignorant party by your own comments. Let's have a look at your comment.
"This is your problem and why you prove your ignorance. Read the history of the senate and discover why the Senate was created. It wasn't created to represent states. The Senate has always represented the people. To think otherwise is undemocratic and ignorant."
Sean posted the following info. for you, but you must have missed it. If you did read it, then you are proving yourself ignorant by not changing your comments.
"United States Constitution, Article I, Section 3
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.
Amendment XVII
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures."
It was never the intention of the founding fathers to have senators elected by the people, because they were supposed to be beholden to the state gov't.
The citizens representation lies in the House of Representatives. That's why there are more congressman in the House of Reps. The people have more local representation in the federal gov't.
Makes sense? Simple isn't? That wasn't hard?
If you choose to ignore this, you prove yourself to be ignorant.
Erik, here is the definition of ignorant in case you were confused.
ignorant:
1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed
Sean and RA the ignorant brothers. I know the meaning of the word ignorant that's why I am using it. You talk about the changing of the constitution as if a concrete thing set in stone and how that it's unconstitutional to change. I have provided a history lesson among other things for you to read yet you choose to be willfully ignorant and ignorantly hypocritical.
The framers did not set up the senate to be chosen by the state legislature for the purpose you claim. They set it that way because they wanted to give the power of electing senators to the states to "calm their fears about the dangers of a strong centralized government." States are inanimate objects, they don't exist without people. Now your logic and ignorance may say otherwise but don't you think that the our founders were smarter than you?
They allowed for equal representation in the senate simply because this was the called the "great comprimise." They had already decided that the senate would have the greater power what they needed to decide on was how the people would be represented. States with greater representation wanted the same representation as the house. Smaller populated states wanted representation in the senate differently to equal rights to those people that lived in less populated states. Please I urge you both to go read a history book.
Do you know why the 17th ammendment was ratified? Read a history book.
So let me get this straight so everyone here can understand your hypocrisy on the filibuster issue. You don't believe that the constitution should have been changed to having the people elect their senators but you do believe that Republicans can change the constitution to eliminate the filibuster against the wishes of the intent of the framers? And thus another ass whooping has been handed to the two LD(local dummies) students.
You also dodged the other questions that made you look like a hypocrite again.
I see where you are misinterpreting the authors of both the constitution and the history of the senate at senate.gov.
You believe that this statement:
the Senate represents all states equally=The senate was setup to represent the states=The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state(I beleive this is what you believe it equals in the constitution but their is no clear wording in the constitution to back up what you are saying because none exists other than illogical linkings done in your head that no Republican would even agree with)
The first and third statements are equal. It was set up this way to comprimise with less populated states to give equal representation to all in one of the legislative branches. The fact that state legislatures picked them was for the reason I already stated. This became a mess and was fine tuned to give the people the power because(and you both being conservative should agree with this) government made a mess of their power to appoint senators.
Your statement, "The senate was setup to represent the states", doesn't equal anything in any history or the constitution because you believe that states are a living breathing thing. Completely illogical. I have never heard this come out of anyones mouth, it is never taught anywhere not even among far right wing extremists. That Senators represent states and only states but don't represent people is not something that our founding fathers would ever even think about they possessed and believed in logic. They are smarter than you give them credit for. Give it up while you have no credibility left. You keep digging yourself a deeper hole.
Erik, check yourself. When referring to the state, an infant could understand that I am talking about the State Gov't, which happens to be an animate object.
Here is a good read of what the intent of the senate was under the founders setup as opposed to our current setup.
"Few people today know that the Founding Fathers never intended for senators to be popularly elected. The Constitution originally provided that senators would be chosen by state legislatures. The purpose was to provide the states — as states — an institutional role in the federal government. In effect, senators were to function as ambassadors from the states, which were expected to retain a large degree of sovereignty even after ratification of the Constitution, thereby ensuring that their rights would be protected in a federal system.
The role of senators as representatives of the states was assured by a procedure, now forgotten, whereby states would “instruct” their senators how to vote on particular issues. Such instructions were not conveyed to members of the House of Representatives because they have always been popularly elected and are not expected to speak for their states, but only for their constituents.
When senators represented states as states, rather than being super House members as they are now, they zealously protected states’ rights. This term became discredited during the civil-rights struggle of the 1960s as a code word for racism — allowing Southern states to resist national pressure to integrate. But clearly this is an aberration. States obviously have interests that may conflict with federal priorities on a wide variety of issues that defy easy ideological classification. Many states, for example, would probably enact more liberal laws relating to the environment, health, and business regulation if allowed by Washington.
Two factors led to enactment of the 17th amendment. First was the problem that many state legislatures deadlocked on their selections for the Senate. The upper house and the lower house could not agree on a choice, or it was prohibitively difficult for one candidate to get an absolute majority in each house (as opposed to a plurality), which was required by federal law. Some states went without representation in the Senate for years as a consequence.
The second problem involved a perception that the election of senators by state legislatures made them more susceptible to corruption by special interests. The Hearst newspapers were a major force arguing this point in the early 1900s.
The pressure of public opinion eventually forced the Senate to approve a constitutional amendment changing the election of senators to our current system of the popular vote. The fact that many states (such as Oregon) had already adopted a system whereby legislatures were required to choose senators selected by popular vote was ignored.
The 17th amendment was ratified in 1913. It is no coincidence that the sharp rise in the size and power of the federal government starts in this year (the 16th amendment, establishing a federal income tax, ratified the same year, was also important). As George Mason University law professor Todd Zywicki has noted, prior to the 17th amendment, senators resisted delegating power to Washington in order to keep it at the state and local level. “As a result, the long term size of the federal government remained fairly stable during the pre-Seventeenth Amendment era,” he wrote.
Prof. Zywicki also finds little evidence of corruption in the Senate that can be traced to the pre-1913 electoral system. By contrast, there is much evidence that the post-1913 system has been deeply corruptive. As Sen. Miller put it, “Direct elections of Senators … allowed Washington’s special interests to call the shots, whether it is filling judicial vacancies, passing laws, or issuing regulations.”
Erik, you truly are a moron. You concede the whole argument in your own post without even realizing it.
"The framers did not set up the senate to be chosen by the state legislature for the purpose you claim. They set it that way because they wanted to give the power of electing senators to the states to "calm their fears about the dangers of a strong centralized government." States are inanimate objects, they don't exist without people. Now your logic and ignorance may say otherwise but don't you think that the our founders were smarter than you?"
Before I disect your post, I would like to explain why I have been laughing at your post for the last 10 minutes. The following statement you wrote is contradicted by yourself in the same paragraph:
" States are inanimate objects, they don't exist without people. Now your logic and ignorance may say otherwise
The sentence just before that, you wrote:
"They set it that way because they wanted to give the power of electing senators to the states"
Wait a minute, are you giving "states", an inanimate object, the ability to elect senators? Now your logic and ignorance may say yes, but that sure would be contradictory. What a joke. In the same paragraph, man. Please, keep it up!!!!!!
Anyway, your wrong. The founders DIDN'T want the senators to be elected, and they absolutely were not elected until the 17th amendment.
Now to the real issue.
Of course, when speaking of a state, one is inferring a state gov't. If that is the foundation of your rebuttal, this is going to be as easy as kicking someone in the nuts that has elephantitis.
You are right in the sense that states were given equal representation in Washington to control the federal gov't. Where you are wrong is the senators role in this setup. The senators were to go to Washington and vote on issues the way the STATE GOV'T instructed them to. This was to ensure the STATE GOVERNMENT'S role in the federal gov't and to keep a check on the federal gov't's power. The citizens of the state were to vote for a congressman in the House of Representatives to represent them in the federal gov't. Again, this is why you have more congressmen than senators. Congressman are supposed to have smaller districts so that they can be more in tune with citizens particular issues.
Now you have a system where we basically have 2 house of representatives. The state gov't no longer has direct participation in the federal gov't. The senators are not beholden to the state gov't directly. This has disrupted the checks and balances of the Congress and has created more federal gov't intrusion in our lives. You can trace the expansion of the federal gov't directly to this one amendment.
By the way, I don't argue that the Constitution should never be changed. Do I think the filibuster for judicial nominees is ridiculous? Yes. Should the 17th amendment be repealed? Yes. These are my opinions and they are separate from eachother. You may disagree with me, but that of course is America.
Oh yeah, are you going to claim an ass whooping EVERY TIME you write a post. I know it makes you feel good, but seriously. Get out of your mommie's house some time and enjoy the freedom you live in. Meet a real woman, not a virtual woman. Let the air out of the blow-up doll. Go on a date. Relax. There is more to life than a self proclaimed ass whooping on a blog site.
PLEASE RESPOND
I'm really failing to comprehend on this. Please some insight. Please.
I'm still still confused. Can someone PLEASE (really) clear this up for me? I keep seeing people say stuff to the effect of, "The filibuster is democratic because it gives power to the minority." Democracy is about majority rule, no? The filibuster gives additional benifits to an opposing minority. What's democratic about that?
I think that everyone should get their chance to state/debate their opposing points. Reading the telephone book ain't that nor is calling an "implied filibuster".
RA already pointed out much of what I wanted to say so I'll just address a few points:
1) THERE IS NO article or amendment in the CONSTITUTION governing filibusters in the senate. I dare you to post it if you think otherwise. What the republicans are wanting to changes are senate rules, which in the Constitution are available to be changed by the senate at any time of their choosing. In fact the last Senator to change the filibuster rule you're harping about was Senator Byrd (D), and he did the last three times!
2) Senators were to be elected by an electoral college, something many Americans do not understand and due to that reason alone the 17th amendment passed. Our founders realized the dangers of a true democracy, and so forged a republic where the people and states were all represented equally. The 17th amendment changed that and since then the decline of state's rights have led to some of the problems our country currently faces. I'll have more time to go back and retype some quotes this weekend, but for now I feel RA has the subject covered.
"They set it that way because they wanted to give the power of electing senators to the states"
After states" it should be followed by "legislatures." As I pointed out before it was specific for the reason stated previously. I know it's hard for dumd and dumber to comprehend but that's what happens to the propangandized.
The constitution also says that it can be ammended. Thats what happened with the 17th and other ammendments. So again you believe that every ammendment is unconstitutional but the filibuster should be eliminated altogether because Democrats are using it at this time against Republicans. But when Repubs used it, it was okay. Elimination of the unlimited debate which has been a senate rule since the founding of our country in against the intents of our framers. The framers of the constitution believed in unlimited debate. This was changed to a first 2/3 then 60. So elimination is against the intents of the framers of the constitution. So you can start eating more crow.
I guess you don't plan on answering why the 17th ammendment was passed? Considering dumber dumberer's leaning you would appreciate government mess being cleaned up and power being given to the voters of each state.
Still no comment on why you think that senators represent people in THEIR PART of the state. I can't even tell who's more ignorant anymore, probably one in the same person. You guys must be a couple.
"The citizens of the state were to vote for a congressman in the House of Representatives to represent them in the federal gov't. Again, this is why you have more congressmen than senators. Congressman are supposed to have smaller districts so that they can be more in tune with citizens particular issues."
No the senate was structured as such to give equal representation to the people of less populated states. These are the compromises that allowed the constitution to be ratified. Don't continue to be willfully ignorant.
"Senators were to be elected by an electoral college, something many Americans do not understand and due to that reason alone the 17th amendment passed."
No the 17th ammendment passed because the citizens of states already elected their senaotrs in 29 states. If you knew the rules of how the constitution could be ammended than you would understand why it passed. I guess that's why you dodged the question earlier about why the 17th ammendment passed. As two idiots that cry for state rights you can surely appreciate this fact. But the right wing echo chamber didn't tell you guys that when they gave you your talking points. Like I said maybe this is what they teach you in the conservative religious right institute. But in reality we base how and why on facts not revisionist history.
To the anony:
"Democracy is about majority rule, no? The filibuster gives additional benifits to an opposing minority. What's democratic about that?"
Our founders were well read and influenced by the greeks. So much so that most of our federal buildings are designed according to that time period. They also followed the greek philosphers who spoke frequently of the tyranny that can exist in a democracy. That is why they set up our system with checks and balances so the tyranny of the majority could not oppress the minority. Some people claim that we are a democratic republic. But words change and develop different meaning over time. Democracy is one such word that has developed more than one meaning. According to webster's dictionary, democracy has the following meanings:
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S.
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
So while the greek form of democracy may have been described as majority rules, the American form of democracy has taken on a much greater meaning.
"To see the filibuster in action, check out Jimmy Stewart in Frank Capra's classic film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."
And to see "evil" Republican Abolitionist oppress "poor defenseless" slave owners, see the classic film Gone With the Wind.
Of course if you want to get your history from _reading_ instead of watching movies, you could look up the word "Filibuster" in the dictionary. Mine says it is
"1. A freebooter or soldier of fortune who engages in unauthorized warfare against a foreign country with which his own country is at peace, in order to enrich himself: First applied to buccaneers in the West Indies who preyed in the Spanish commerce to South America.
2. A member of a minority group of a legislative body, especially the Senate, who obstructs the passage of a bill by making long speeches, introducing irrelevant issues, ect.
3. The deliberate obstruction of the passage of a bill by such methods."
If the filibuster was so respected in the past, why did our grandparents name it after pirates? Of course, you don't have to take the word of a random stranger. You can check your dictionary and see what it says.
Uhhhhh. Erik, are you mentally with us. Everything in your post has been answered. I know its hard to read the responses to your child-like posts with your head inside your ass, but lets take it slow so you can comprehend.
I'll address all your points one-by-one.
1) The constitution also says that it can be ammended. Thats what happened with the 17th and other ammendments. So again you believe that every ammendment is unconstitutional but the filibuster should be eliminated altogether because Democrats are using it at this time against Republicans.
I already responded with the following:
"By the way, I don't argue that the Constitution should never be changed. Do I think the filibuster for judicial nominees is ridiculous? Yes. Should the 17th amendment be repealed? Yes. These are my opinions and they are separate from eachother. You may disagree with me, but that of course is America."
Also, i think you're a little confused. Stopping the filibuster for judicial nominees is a Senate rule change, not an amendment to the constitution, but I'm sure you knew that, retard.
2) I guess you don't plan on answering why the 17th ammendment was passed?
I responded to this already with the following:
"Two factors led to enactment of the 17th amendment. First was the problem that many state legislatures deadlocked on their selections for the Senate. The upper house and the lower house could not agree on a choice, or it was prohibitively difficult for one candidate to get an absolute majority in each house (as opposed to a plurality), which was required by federal law. Some states went without representation in the Senate for years as a consequence.
The second problem involved a perception that the election of senators by state legislatures made them more susceptible to corruption by special interests. The Hearst newspapers were a major force arguing this point in the early 1900s.
Prof. Zywicki also finds little evidence of corruption in the Senate that can be traced to the pre-1913 electoral system. By contrast, there is much evidence that the post-1913 system has been deeply corruptive. As Sen. Miller put it, “Direct elections of Senators … allowed Washington’s special interests to call the shots, whether it is filling judicial vacancies, passing laws, or issuing regulations.” "
I guess you can argue which system was more susceptible to corruption, but there has been enough time to evaluate both systems in practice. All I know is that everyone keeps saying that politicians have never been as beholden to special interests as today.
3) No the senate was structured as such to give equal representation to the people of less populated states. These are the compromises that allowed the constitution to be ratified. Don't continue to be willfully ignorant.
I answered this with the following:
"You are right in the sense that states were given equal representation in Washington to control the federal gov't. Where you are wrong is the senators role in this setup. The senators were to go to Washington and vote on issues the way the STATE GOV'T instructed them to. This was to ensure the STATE GOVERNMENT'S role in the federal gov't and to keep a check on the federal gov't's power. The citizens of the state were to vote for a congressman in the House of Representatives to represent them in the federal gov't. Again, this is why you have more congressmen than senators. Congressman are supposed to have smaller districts so that they can be more in tune with citizens particular issues."
Answer this. What is the role of the House of Representatives under your perception of the structure of Congress? Why do we have two arms of congress if they are both in Washington to represent the same constituents? Why not have one?
I doubt you will answer or respond to this post becuase it will inevitably show your limitations of thought and knowledge. Anyway, take a shot. I could use a little more entertainment.
By the way, I appreciate you not claiming an ass whooping on your last post. It seems maybe you are taking my advice. Have you met a woman yet? In case you're wondering, women are those pretty creatures that you've been seeing walk by you that don't seem to want to talk to you. Good luck!
Are you still going to claim that no one wants to answer your infantile points? Try reading the posts, you might learn something.
So RA you seem to agree with me on all point then. Problem is this discussion wasn't with you moron. I already know that the filibuster wasn't an ammendment but the the constitution doesn stiplulate that the senate make it's own rules. One of those rules from the outset of the constitution was unlimited debate. So according to your logic(or sena foushee, I can't tell you two butt buddies apart considering you weren't a part of this conversation) any changes away from that are unconstitutional. We should revert back to unlimited debate as the framers and original members intended.
But I will answer your last question adn make a fool of you once again.
"Answer this. What is the role of the House of Representatives under your perception of the structure of Congress? Why do we have two arms of congress if they are both in Washington to represent the same constituents? Why not have one?"
Your logic doesn't equal up. Let me see if I can fnally turn the light on in your head. According to only your rep represents you. You are the only one to think so. Because your Senators also represent you. Even if you revert back to pre-seventeenth ammendment, they still represented you not a state or state government. state or state government are inanimate objects that don't exist withouit people in a democracy. The elected or appointed reps/senators always represented the will of the people. Even when they were appointed by the state legislatures. State legislatures were duly elected. To think any other way is illogical. From someone with a degree in computer science I know about logic.
Go to senate.gov and read about the history of the senate among other sources. I'm not your tutor. Although you do need one.
As for your childish posts about women on a political blog that usually comes from someone who sniffs their sisters underwear and jerks off to their mommies friends. I'm content enough with myself that I feel no need to explain my personal life to you. I have a self-esteem. Can you say the same?
So take mommies underwear off your head and go tell your sister you're sorry for sticking the pages of her yearbook together. Then go outside and live life a little bit and develop you own thoughts and opinions before you let the right wing echo chamber tell you how to think.
erik - by calling us dumb and dumber you brought RA into the conversation, sorry if you don't like his responses, but you did antagonize him.
I'm still waiting on the post from you to show us all where in the Constitution it puts forth that the Senate can debate endlessly. Of course if you're having problems finding said passage allow me to show you why that might be...
1) When the Constitution took effect in 1789 it called for the Senate to adopt their own rules. They did so, however it was hardly an endless debate:
"In 1789, the First US Senate adopted rules allowing the Senate "to move the previous question," ending debate and proceeding to a vote." - wikipedia on filibusters
2) Note that it wasn't until 1806 that the RULE was CHANGED, strike that, ELIMINATED paving the way for endless debate, ie filibusters. 1806... hmmm, kinda hard to find a Senate rule change from 1806 in a document that was created and ratified in 1789... but keep looking.
3) 1917 saw yet another change in the Senate rules governing debate, this time they saw how ridiculous it was to allow for an endless debate with no means to stop it. So the Senate CHANGED the rules once again to add the cloture vote. In 1917 a 2/3 vote of those voting (not the entire senate, just those who cast a vote when cloture was called) was required to end debate.
4) in 1949 the rule was CHANGED again, this time requiring 2/3 of the ENTIRE Senate membership, not just those voting.
5) In 1959 the Senate again CHANGED the rule to allow for 2/3 of those voting to end debates, taking the rule back to its pre-1949 standing.
6) In 1975 the Senate voted once again to CHANGE the rule governing cloture, now only 3/5 of the Senate membership or approx. 60 Senators were required to end debate.
So, in the long history of the Senate, the Constitution did not once or has since its inception governed the Senate rules on debate. In the beginning the Senate allowed a call to move on, no vote of the membership, no filibuster. Only when that rule was tossed out in 1806 did the Senate become the place where you could hear what's happening in the latest telephone directory.
The point here is that the Senate rules governing cloture (which is what this debate is really about) have been changed numerous times in the past, and have gone from unlimited debate, to 2/3 of those voting to 2/3 of the membership back to 2/3 of those voting then finally a 3/5 of the membership, all without calls of minority rights, unconstitutionality, etc. Time for you to produced your copy of the Constitution for us to see.
-----------
On to the Senate and the 17th Amendment...
You seem to be splitting hairs and playing "Riemer Semantics" with the whole 'the people elect the state legislatures so really the people have always elected Senators' bit. Lets take into consideration a few points not already addressed by RA:
1) The Connecticut Compromise which led the way to the creation of the Senate was approved by the convention based on the premise that the small states would lose their liberty if they were outvoted by their more populous neighbors. The concept was to give each STATE EQUAL representation rather than create another House under proportional rules.
2) "The framers of the Constitution believed that in electing senators, state legislatures would cement their tie with the national government, which would increase the chances for ratifying the Constitution. They also expected that senators elected by state legislatures would be able to concentrate on the business at hand without regional pressure from the populace." - wikipedia
This outlines the whole point, Senators were there to do the bidding of the State, and by representing the State maintain the original frame of government which supported strong independent states under the constitution. It didn't matter that the people elected their state congressmen, the States were each left to choose how they wanted to elect their Senators, just like today each state is allowed to choose how they elect their Presidential Electors. Many people don't understand that there is no right to vote for the President, and in fact today they really vote under a unanimous system by which each state elects their representatives to the Electoral College via popular vote. If the State wants this done differently then the people have no say in the matter (Colorado last year talked about splitting up their electors based on the vote, if 60% went to Kerry and 40% went to Bush then they would split their Electoral candidates up based on the percent won by each candidate... in this case 60-40).
The 17th Amendment, might have been a good idea when corruption and bribery wasn't an easy thing to dig up, but who can argue that in today's world where even the sexual affairs of the President are made public that allowing the states to once again regain a foothold in the Federal Government as dictated by the Great Compromise is a bad idea?
"The concept was to give each STATE EQUAL representation rather than create another House under proportional rules."
You continue to highlight STATE EQUAL. the word before it though is EACH not THE. You conitnue to look at it entirely in the wrong context of what the wrods are telling you. This is a lack of comprehension skills. Everything that you write proves no point for you.
erik - you are ignorant, you want to continue making personal attacks claiming that RA and myself are not posting facts, backing up our arguments, etc. yet when I posted the above information all you continue to do is play "Reimer Semantics". Give it a rest, I've proven in the above post that the states were to receive equal representation in the Senate, not the people and yet you continue to argue and look like a fool doing so.
I've asked you to produce the relevant paragraphs in the Constitution where you claim the framers gave the Senate the ability to have unlimited debate, you have not done so. I've pointed out the lie that such a refrain in our highest document even exists, yet you have no response. I've even laid out the history behind the filibuster and how its been changed time and again over the course of senate history and you have nothing to say.
I think you are right in one regard, this thread does appear to be over, but let me correct you in that it was not RA who got his 'ass handed to him', it was you.
What I think Is that Dem. are fearful of haveing some one who will counter there movements in the Government and saying that some one of Christan Faith will try to bring the Chrich and State as one is just BS it has Already happend Just look at how much power the Pope still has over many nations and ferther more how do they know that theis women will do so in the first place to me it is just another try to push power in one way or an other.
I cant beleve that people who clame to be "Open Minded" can be so Closed Hearted on this matter. The Dem.s would love to put an AF.AM, on the Suprem Court as long as her views go a long with the rest of the DEM. mind set and same goes for the REP.s.
and by the way Democracy is slowly dying because we alow most of our appointed Leaders to slowly corrupt our way of life. we are all beings of free will stuck in a battel for power, this is an endless war for power this has ben going on for many years it is we who blind our selfs from the truth of the matter, and that fundemental truth is that Politics today have lost the purpose of what they do, for politian means one who protects the people and not ones own aggenda. and it is Time we faced the truth this government which was for the people and by the people is now for the money and by the money. for now we enter a new era of pandemonium.
Good Night, Good Morning, till we meet again.
Erick your foolish antics give people the worng impression of you you are entitled to your views and your feedom of will but to blaintly disregaurd the Facts that this Government was based on is not ingnorance but stupidity all on it's own.Ferther more you go head long with out knowing all the facts here here is a reminder of what the Government is truly like for bolth sides 75% of what they say is a lie and 25% truth.
Our country is currently so divided because our leaders have resorted to drastic right or left wing propaganda. Doesn't anyone remember our history and think about where we have been. In the 1600's the Mass Bay colony hung Mary Dyer for being a Quaker and entering the colony to support fellow Quakers. Our founders looked at our early history and English history and couldn't help but see the dangers in ruling a country through religion. In England , Catholics leaders killed Protestants and Protestant leaders killed Catholics because they feared the influence and power of another religion. The issue here isn't even the filibuster, it is the fear of so many Americans that we are becoming what so many Middle East countries have become - Fundamentalist Powers with no tolerance or acceptance of other points of view.
Yes, these judges are being questioned for ideological reasons - but these are reasons that go back to the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. We are becoming a country ruled by one religious view. Even though a majority of senators do not agree with this view, they are all afraid of the minority powerbase that threatens their positions. Any poll of Americans shows that we value our freedoms, but the financial and political power of the far right is destroying our America. I am a Republican turned Democrat because I fear the destruction of the freedoms that make us Americans. My views on controversial topics vary - some are very conservative, others are more liberal - but I don't believe MY religious believes should determine what other people do with their lives if what they are doing does not hurt me. It is not my place to FORCE my religious views upon others. I believe this is the basic fear that caused the fillibustering of the judges. I am not happy with the compromise, since nothing that matters has truly been addressed.
Post a Comment
<< Home