Nuclear option

[kurto]

Braawwwkk Braaawwwk

[MtSmalls]

[ QUOTE ]
I feel like the dems have picked a fight for no reason here.

[/ QUOTE ]
They picked this fight for a very specific reason. The use of the filibuster has been a mainstay of the Senate since Rule XXII was put in place. It is a significant tool for the protection of Minority Rights. Whether used for judicial nominees, executive/cabinet appointments or ordinary legislation, it provides a check on the power of the majority, which is exactly what it was designed to do.

[ QUOTE ]
A filabuster of a judicial nominee that has a majority of the votes has only been done once in our history.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Many nominees, judicial and otherwise, that would have had majority votes have never gotten to the floor for "an up or down vote". Many have been blocked in committee, and never sent to the floor. Dozens were "blue slipped" during the Clinton administration alone, that is blocked by the candidates home state senator (ONE PERSON).

The average American may not care about the filibuster today, but the fight that the Dems are in today has nothing to do with these 7-10 judges, but the 1-3 potential nominations to the Supreme Court coming in the next 3 years.

And the Dems didn't pick this fight. Bush did by re-nominating judges that had already been denied.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]

Wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, you are wrong and you provide no support for your position in the rest of this post. The posters point was that the filibuster hadn't been used on judicial nominees. This IS the fact.

[ QUOTE ]
Many nominees, judicial and otherwise, that would have had majority votes have never gotten to the floor for "an up or down vote". Many have been blocked in committee, and never sent to the floor. Dozens were "blue slipped" during the Clinton administration alone, that is blocked by the candidates home state senator (ONE PERSON).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this is standard Senatorial proceedure. However, filibustering (in the LOOSEST sense of the word) has not been used against judicial nominees.

[ QUOTE ]
The average American may not care about the filibuster today, but the fight that the Dems are in today has nothing to do with these 7-10 judges, but the 1-3 potential nominations to the Supreme Court coming in the next 3 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

I somewhat agree with this. However, the appellate court is where Supreme Court nominees traditionally come from. So, this fight IS about these 10 judges in a way. The Dems are threatened by them.

[ QUOTE ]
And the Dems didn't pick this fight. Bush did by re-nominating judges that had already been denied.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which ones were denied? Which ones were given a vote on the Senate floor and denied? Do you see where you are wrong here? Owen (I believe) has been in this state of limbo for FIVE YEARS.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, the GOP has been craftily maneuvered into this position by the Democrats by winning every congressional election since 1994. The GOP is in real trouble now.

The filibuster isn't going to be much of an issue in the '06 congressional elections. Your average voter doesn't give a damn about it. The only thing that could matter is if a specific judicial nominee, especially for the Supreme Court, becomes very controversial (like Clarence Thomas).

[/ QUOTE ]http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=243

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/17/102753/916

Something's dragging the Republicans down.

[/ QUOTE ]

I kind of like that you've got your spark back. It took a while.

But, you're still not making much sense. Your comparing polls to election results? When will Democrats learn not to do that?

[Felix_Nietsche]

Tuesday could be the day the Repubs actually try to govern as the majority. They certainly need to get more originalist in the judicial branch.

[twowords]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

jaxmike: No, you are wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

More of Clinton's nominees were interfered with by the GOP minority than Bush's are today by the dems. And yet the republicans are "shocked, shocked" to find democrats opposing Bush's condidates today (the ones who are not just conservative, but tend to make up their own laws in court, ie "judicial activism"). This is the truth, of course, the GOP does not seem particularly interested in the truth.

http://www.factcheck.org/article324m.html

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
More of Clinton's nominees were interfered with by the GOP minority

[/ QUOTE ]

Better get this checked out at factcheck because the GOP was in the majority in the Senate during this time period.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

<shrug> as a libertarian, I hope the Democrats win this one. Fillibusters cause gridlock, and any good libertarian loves gridlock.

[MtSmalls]

[ QUOTE ]
No, you are wrong and you provide no support for your position in the rest of this post. The posters point was that the filibuster hadn't been used on judicial nominees. This IS the fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another right wing talking point that is completely erroneous. Republicans initiated a filibuster against a judicial nominee in 1968, forcing Democratic president Lyndon Johnson to withdraw the nomination of Associate Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas to be chief justice. Then-Sen. Robert Griffin (R-MI) recognized at the time that denying nominees a vote was already an established practice. "It is important to realize that it has not been unusual for the Senate to indicate its lack of approval for a nomination by just making sure that it never came to a vote on the merits. LINK

[ QUOTE ]
Which ones were denied? Which ones were given a vote on the Senate floor and denied? Do you see where you are wrong here? Owen (I believe) has been in this state of limbo for FIVE YEARS.

[/ QUOTE ]
Denied, as in either held in committee, or filibustered in previous congressional sessions. Hence Ms. Owens limbo like status....

[vulturesrow]

There is a little more to the fortas story than you posted..but keep reciting your lines, youre doing great! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]