Contact them today!
 

Thank Snowe, Collins, McCain and Chaffee for opposing the nuclear option.

Urge Hagel, Spector, and Warner (who want to vote against the option but are being pressured to vote against their own convctions) to vote their conscience on this issue. Remind them of Madison's admomishments about the dangers of factions, including factions in the majority :

Federalist Papers Number 10

Some extracts, though the whole is definitely a must read.

[ QUOTE ]
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

[/ QUOTE ]
He then provides arguments that lead to the following conclusions:

[ QUOTE ]
The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.

[/ QUOTE ]
On controlling the runaway faction:

[ QUOTE ]
If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Contact them today!
 

Your ignorance is amazing. Your point works just as well to support the nuclear option as it does to oppose it.

In fact it probably SUPPORTS the "nuclear" (read CONSTITUTIONAL) option more than it does oppose it. It's not the Republicans who have radicalized on the issue, its the Democrats.

From your "support"

[ QUOTE ]
If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read, if the minority is obstructing, relief is supplied in the republican principle which allows the majority to defeat the minority with a regular vote. Which, in the end, is all the Republicans want, a vote. Not obstruction.

Re: Contact them today!
 

Read the document again.

Re: Contact them today!
 

[ QUOTE ]
Read the document again.

[/ QUOTE ]

He won't understand it, no matter how many times he reads it.

Re: Contact them today!
 

[ QUOTE ]
Read the document again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I have read it and the argument is just as powerful AGANIST your postition as it is for it. If you cannot see that, you are even less intelligent than I had previously believed.

[ QUOTE ]
measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that this is what you are basing your nonsense on. Well, here goes. The rights of the minority party and the rules of justice are NOT being infringed upon. In fact, they are being validated more than anything. Here is what I mean. By using the "consitutional option" the RULE OF JUSTICE is being restored and the rights of the minority are being recognized. The rights they have, as opposed to the rights they do not have. In the 200+ years of the history of the Senate, at no time, up till now, has a filibusted been used on Judicial appointments. The RULE of JUSTICE is being confirmed IF the Senate changes its rules to forbid the filibuster of judicial nominees. Why? Because the Constitution GRANTS each branch of Congress the POWER to make its own rules. Furthermore, at NO point in the Constitution does it state the a SUPERMAJORITY is needed to confirm a judicial nominee.

[ QUOTE ]
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is straight from the Federalist papers. Do you at least admit that the rogue Senators who are intolerantly filibustering these nominees (many of which are minority) fall into the definition of a faction?

[ QUOTE ]
If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is all we are really talking about here. A vote. The Democrats are OBSTRUCTING the work of the Senate and FAILING in their RESPONSIBILITY to provide ADVICE AND CONSENT to the Presidents nominees.

Re: Contact them today!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Read the document again.

[/ QUOTE ]

He won't understand it, no matter how many times he reads it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I understand it troll.

Re: Contact them today!
 

The papers warn of factions that are both in the majority and in the minority. Of course when the Dems gang up to oppose a nomination they fit the definition of a faction. Similarly when the Dems gang up (when they are in control of the govt) to push a candidate they are a faction. He explicitly warns of the danger of all factions. He further points out that those in the minority can only obstruct, it cannot change the rules or pass legislation. The danger of the majority is that it can pass legislation and force its viewpoint. This is the insight he offers. He says that there is a danger when a faction in the majority can impose its views that may be detrimental.

The fedeal structure was implemented with this in mind. Which is why Mr Zee's has a bigger voice in the senate than do I. WHich is why even though a majority of votes went to Al Gore Bush became president.

Which is why, it is a long term danger if the majority can always push through anything in Congress. Specially if that is changes to rules or lifetime appointments.

The papers are an exercise in nuance. Your bludgeoning approach needs to be modified to understand it, IMO.

Re: Contact them today!
 

[ QUOTE ]
The papers warn of factions that are both in the majority and in the minority. Of course when the Dems gang up to oppose a nomination they fit the definition of a faction. Similarly when the Dems gang up (when they are in control of the govt) to push a candidate they are a faction. He explicitly warns of the danger of all factions. He further points out that those in the minority can only obstruct, it cannot change the rules or pass legislation. The danger of the majority is that it can pass legislation and force its viewpoint. This is the insight he offers. He says that there is a danger when a faction in the majority can impose its views that may be detrimental.

The fedeal structure was implemented with this in mind. Which is why Mr Zee's has a bigger voice in the senate than do I. WHich is why even though a majority of votes went to Al Gore Bush became president.

Which is why, it is a long term danger if the majority can always push through anything in Congress. Specially if that is changes to rules or lifetime appointments.

The papers are an exercise in nuance. Your bludgeoning approach needs to be modified to understand it, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I understand them just fine. However, I wanted you to admit that the papers are talking AS much about an intolerant minority (the current Senate Democrats) as a oppressive majority (which I don't think the cowardly Republican Senators qualify as).

I don't see how you can have a problem with the Rep's changing the rules and NOT have a problem with the Dem's using filibuster on Judicial Nominations. The CONSTITUTION CLEARLY DEFINES the cases where a SUPERMAJORITY is needed. IT is not with Judicial nominees.

Re: Contact them today!
 

However, I wanted you to admit that the papers are talking AS much about an intolerant minority

That is the first thing I did in my post.



I don't see how you can have a problem with the Rep's changing the rules and NOT have a problem with the Dem's using filibuster on Judicial Nominations

Because I recognize that the filibuster is a break against a runaway majority. It is not important whether in this case the majority is in the right or the wrong. I also recognize that we are moving towards a system where the executive has more power than the other branches and that this is dangerous. Take the nominiations being sent up for renomination -- the senate rejected the nominees following the rules in place, the president insists on further polarization of the body politic by resubmitting the nominations, and then gets his sycophancts to change the rules to ensure passage.

The consititution does not address, as far as I know, what kind of majority the senate needs to exercise its role.

I do see that the role of the senate on nominations is less about advice and consent and more about pushing the President's appointments.

Re: Contact them today!
 

[ QUOTE ]
I also recognize that we are moving towards a system where the executive has more power than the other branches and that this is dangerous. Take the nominiations being sent up for renomination -- the senate rejected the nominees following the rules in place, the president insists on further polarization of the body politic by resubmitting the nominations, and then gets his sycophancts to change the rules to ensure passage.


[/ QUOTE ]

Heart of the matter.

Re: Contact them today!
 

The ignorance about the history of the filibuster truly amazes me.

Did you know that the filibuster was not allowed in the US Senate from 1789 to 1806? (psst - that's when the "founding fathers" were serving in the Senate).

Clearly there was no intent of having such a rule as part of the checks and balances. As mentioned in anearlier post, checks and balances are between branches of government, not between political parties inside one branch.

As usual, the liberals lie about history and just make up whatever suits their cause de jour. Byrd the filibuster killer as majority leader, becomes Byrd the filibuster backer. Since they are making it up as they go, they deserve no respect.

I, for one, support democracy. The people elected the Senate and the President. Lets let the people's elected representatives do their jobs. When the Democrats have the White House, they can appointjudges. When they control the Senate, they can vote nominees down. Today, however, the American people do not trust them in the White House or controlling the Senate - let the people's will prevail. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Writes a storm, though
 

[ QUOTE ]
That is the first thing I did in my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

They already warned you he can't read.

Re: Contact them today!
 

GOOD NEWS!!

The wall is beginning to crack. Reid is throwing all sorts of nominees to the GOP. All of a sudden, they are ready to concede to the confirmation of more than half of the blocked nominees (4 of 7).

Read about it here.

This will be all over by next week. Democracy will prevail. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Contact them today!
 

I emailed my Senator (Lugar) since it was reported he was on the fence a few weeks back, but his office never responded.

It's a shame. I spent a lot of time on that email, despite his being a (R), I like the guy, and my ex-girlfriend and I used to work with him and his office.

Re: Contact them today!
 

No nuclear explosion by the GOP would be a good thing.

Perhaps one of the two parties will act responsibly. I doubt if the GOP will be the one -- at least not the GOP of the last 4 years.

Re: Contact them today!
 

[ QUOTE ]

Perhaps one of the two parties will act responsibly.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the parties is acting responsibly. Voting on nominees is what the Senate has always done.

If we were talking about blocking one wacko nominee, that would be one thing, but there has never been a mass blockage of nominees before. The Democrats overplayed their hand by going after multiple good upstanding nominees, not just the one rotten egg. The GOP is doing the responsible thing of restoring the process to what it always has been.

Re: Contact them today!
 

The responsible thing is to let the rules stand. The rest is the partisan bickering on both sides.

Resending the nominations to the senate after they were not confirmed was irresponsible partisanship and a clear statement that idealogues and not leaders are running the new GOP.

Re: Contact them today!
 

The responsible thing to do is to vote on nominees. The Senate can vote down anybody they want, they've done it throughout history, but never has a majority of Senators been denied the right to vote.

There is nothing magical about the rules. When the Senate was founded, the filibuster did not exist. It was created later. When used sparingly, it has some merit. When used in as a blanket blocking technique, it loses its value. The Democrats are killing the filibuster by using it irresponsibly. Shame on them.

When Democrats abused the filibuster over Civil Rights, enough rules changes were made to break them. The same is happening now. The Democrats are fully responsible for killing the filibuster through their irresponsibility.

Re: Contact them today!
 

OK. You get the bickering prize for Best Defender of the GOP position.

Now, I just hope they dont change the rules, at least not in this way.

Re: Contact them today!
 

He's doing a lot better than his fellow Republican Senator Chuck Hagel:

"The Republicans' hands aren't clean on this either. What we did with Bill Clinton's nominees - about 62 of them - we just didn't give them votes in committee or we didn't bring them up."

Re: Contact them today!
 

[ QUOTE ]

Now, I just hope they dont change the rules, at least not in this way.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize the GOP doesn't want to change the rules either. The Democrats are forcing them to. Why don't you ask your buddies to act responsibly on nominees? Then we can preserve the rules.

The Democrats play brinkmanship, and then complain when they don't get their way.

Newsflash: Americans elected a GOP Senate. Get over it.

Re: Contact them today!
 

Hagel for Prez in 2008! I might even vote for him -- back to the GOP for me.

He is one of the reason that Frist will likely (hopefully?!) back down from the pulling the nuclear trigger.

Re: Contact them today!
 

The Democrats play brinkmanship

Is this new in politics or just a Democrat thing?

If Frist truly believes that the Nuclear Option is best for the country he should pust that. If he was pushing it for a short term fix, then SHAME ON HIM.

If the Nuclear Option was the right thing for the senate, then getting a few judges past the Democrats should come far behind doing the right thing. Specially as with the Nuke Option in place he could get them all in.

So, was he willing to put something dangerous in place that he did not believe in so that he could suck up to Bush?

If he believes the rules are bad then why back down? If he thinks that the rules as they are are right for America then why the drama, let the rules work the way they were intended.

Two faced, unprincipled, Frist.

Re: Contact them today!
 

The Nuclear option has been used before. It was used to change the filibuster rules in the past by Bob Byrd.

You make a mistake by assuming that using it again will wipe the filibuster away. It will only restore the nominee process to what is always has been, a vote on the nominee once released by committee.

There are a lot of rules that can shut down the US Senate. It operates only because of the convention of agreeing to allow work to continue after adequate debate (it operates mostly on unanimous consent (UC) - adopting whatever short term rules agreed upon).

I'm serious when I tell you that the Democrats refusing to agree to floor procedures under UC is very unusual. Failing an agreement, a rules battle is inevitable, that is just the way the Senate has been set up to operate.

The "nuclear option" is just a fancy name for what happens whenever the UC operation of the Senate falls apart. It is not unusual and not at all dramatic except in the rhetoric.

If you follow the way the Senate operates closely, you would know this is no big deal. It's been used before several times. The majority always prevails eventually, read the history of the Senate and you will understand this.

Re: Contact them today!
 

Cool, so the Senate has been operating as intended over the past weeks, months, years. Just as I thought.

Carry on.

Re: Contact them today!
 

[ QUOTE ]
Cool, so the Senate has been operating as intended over the past weeks, months, years. Just as I thought.

Carry on.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the day they implement the nuclear option, it will be just like any of the other times too. Like always.

Re: Contact them today!
 

Yep, right up there with when they amended the constitution so the Feds could collect taxes. Yet another turn for the worse.

Awaiting your counter bicker.

Re: Contact them today!
 

[ QUOTE ]
Because I recognize that the filibuster is a break against a runaway majority.

[/ QUOTE ]

Appointing minority judges to higher positions is a runaway majority? You make an arbitrary statement here, yet what does it mean? The filibuster is also intended to FORCE dialogue on a topic, yet in this case its being used to RESTRICT dialogue.

[ QUOTE ]
I also recognize that we are moving towards a system where the executive has more power than the other branches and that this is dangerous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[ QUOTE ]
Take the nominiations being sent up for renomination -- the senate rejected the nominees following the rules in place, the president insists on further polarization of the body politic by resubmitting the nominations, and then gets his sycophancts to change the rules to ensure passage.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not at all the case. The judges being filibustered have not been rejected because they haven't even been allowed a vote.

[ QUOTE ]

The consititution does not address, as far as I know, what kind of majority the senate needs to exercise its role.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are specific cases in the Constitution where it demands a supermajority to pass. Otherwise, its a simple majority. At least that has been the practice until these rogue Senators came along. Interesting note, Robert "KKK" Byrd has used loopholes in Senate rules to break filibusters with a simple majority in the past when he was the Democratic leader of the Senate...

[ QUOTE ]
I do see that the role of the senate on nominations is less about advice and consent and more about pushing the President's appointments.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that they are there to either confirm or reject his appointments. Traditionally appointments are confirmed in MOST cases because its granted that the President should have control over his own administration. However, they are certainly there to vote on the appoinments.

Re: Writes a storm, though
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That is the first thing I did in my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

They already warned you he can't read.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you weren't so stupid you would have understood what I wrote. My point was that I wanted him to admit to it. And then pointed out that he did so. You idiot.

Re: Contact them today!
 

It's important to point out that George Mitchell is on record as saying that when he was Senate majority leader, he was encouraged to use the nuclear option, but he declined, saying that it would wreak havoc on the collegial atmosphere of the U.S. Senate.

Screw anger management
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you weren't so stupid ...you idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we should petition our webmaster for additional emoticons.

Re: Screw anger management
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you weren't so stupid ...you idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we should petition our webmaster for additional emoticons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like an irony one?

Re: Contact them today!
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's important to point out that George Mitchell is on record as saying that when he was Senate majority leader, he was encouraged to use the nuclear option, but he declined, saying that it would wreak havoc on the collegial atmosphere of the U.S. Senate.

[/ QUOTE ]

And Democrat obstructionism hasn't already ruined it?