Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 100

Thread: The Judicial Filibuster

  1. #46
    Gone Fishin' ukulele's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Southern Most Point in US
    Posts
    6,260
    Originally posted by tantone
    Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

    Run for office. Maybe you'll make it.

    I guess that joke was a bit above you. The fact is that is exactly what a filibuster would do. It would force a vote and require a higher majority to end the filibuster (actually 67 votes which the Republicans did not have). That is exactly what the Republicans were whining about. They couldn't win playing by the rules. A filibuster would prevent a nomination vote and they didn't have the two thirds majority need to change the filibuster rules. They were forced to compromise and suddenly cried foul because they no longer liked the rules. In other words they were all crying like spoiled sports. It just goes to show you that the Republicans have no more integrity then then that dirt bag Michael Moore. A bit like the pot calling the kettle black.

  2. #47
    Banned tantone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1999
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,897
    Uh, apparently you missed the in my post?

  3. #48
    EX Moderator-May He Rest in Peace rangeral's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    staten is.,ny
    Posts
    4,583
    When was the last time a filibuster was used in presidential nominees, never. Every judge who gets a nomination deserves an up or down vote. We played there game now there threatening filibuster again when they said they wouldn't unless extreme circumstances called for it.

    How many timeS are you going to try a softie in the UN and get nowhere, maybe bolton will wake up these people, show some kind of life, rattle a few cages.

    No way do republicans share some affinity with moore, he's part of the attack on repubs while dems keep calling repubs all sorts of names, Dean certainly embarrassed himself on "meet the press" recently with all his attacks. I'd bet he'd be worse than bolton in the UN.

  4. #49
    Gone Fishin' ukulele's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Southern Most Point in US
    Posts
    6,260
    When was the last time a filibuster was used in presidential nominees, never.
    Presidents aren't elected by the Senate. A filibuster is is only a part of the senate rules. As for Bolton, a man's qualifications have nothing to do with senate rules. The rules that define the right to filibuster have to do with overriding a simple majority vote in cases were the minority party believes it is warranted. It is a legal aspect of the senate rules. Why is this suddenly so hard for only Republicans to understand? Are they just dumber then they were when they were sworn in and handed the rule sheet? The senate can change the rules every time they convine.

  5. #50
    Gone Fishin' ukulele's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Southern Most Point in US
    Posts
    6,260
    Here's another type of senate rules.

    http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/...lls/index.html

    Here a group of self serving senators want to override a veto Bush is threatening over stem cell research. Now we get to listen to the president and the senators whine for while. Of course the Republicans won't call it whining, they will call it informed debate. Only the Democrats whine.

    Why do I say self serving? Consider the benifactors. 90% of the Senate already has alzhiemers disease or are brain dead. If there is a breakthrough who do you think will get the first new brains? Your aunt Bessie?

  6. #51
    EX Moderator-May He Rest in Peace rangeral's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    staten is.,ny
    Posts
    4,583
    Sure I know the senate can change the rules but why all of a sudden make threats of filibustering when it hasn't been done in over 200yrs, they've constantly expressed disdain for repubs since they lost the election, its been non-stop, when everybody was for bipartisan gov't now its all partisan.

    Why is it professors ram the democratic view down students throats and if they don't agree get bad grades, why is it a conservative comes to lecture and they get pies thrown at them. Add it up, whose been doing all the name calling and again Dean the mouth that roared screaming for cheney's arrest, rice, bush. This guy has to get a grip on himself and the rest of his cohorts kennedy, reid, etc.

    Is this the way an elected official conducts himself?

    As far as the stem cell research there's no mandate that all repubs should agree on everything the president wants to do, I don't agree with it also but it also calls for us to fund it which means it also has to be monitored by gov't to make sure it doesn't get out of hand, this is alot of money and I'd prefer business fund it themselves instead of us picking up the tab all the time.

  7. #52
    Gone Fishin' ukulele's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Southern Most Point in US
    Posts
    6,260
    why all of a sudden make threats of filibustering when it hasn't been done in over 200yrs
    Actually it has been not just threaten quite a few times in the more recent past, but actually used several times. Sen. Theodore Bilbo (in 1939), Sen. Strom Thurmond (in 1957) and Sen. Robert Bryd (in 1964) all actually did filibuster. In addition, the threat of filibuster has been used quite a few times since it's last actual use and for some very beneficial uses.
    Read this article for More about that. As for the teachers today forcing liberal views down our throats and using the grading system against students for disagreeing with them, that's a load of bull. I am back in college right now myself and the teachers, in one of the most liberal states in the union (Hawaii), are more conservative then the average student by 10 to 1. This whole idea of liberal brainwashing is purely a product of whining Republican bible thumpers that think an alcoholic is someone who drinks two beers a day and someone with a tattoo is an ex-con. These are the same brilliant rocket scientists that think evolution is morally objectionable and beating their kids with their pants down in the wood shed with a belt is their duty as a parent. Now, just because they gained a five man majority in the senate, suddenly all the Democrats are no longer entitled to their say? That 5 man majority is only three men away from being a minority themselves. It would be unconscionable for any party to deny the other party a chance to full debate on any issue, especially a majority party, but that is exactly the mindset of today's Republican. Funny though how they are the first to sneak their daughters off to the abortion clinic when they get pregnant just to save face.

  8. #53
    EX Moderator-May He Rest in Peace rangeral's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    staten is.,ny
    Posts
    4,583
    Maybe I'm missing something here but I didn't see anything in that article about filibustering judicial presidential nominations of judges, legislation of course but not nominations which has been the right of all presidents.

    Some students I've spoken too complained about it over here and didn't like it and happens alot, columbia uni here is noted for having radical communist professeurs who in there time after communism started supporting radical islamists among other uni's around here, its a hotbed in the nyc area for radicals who are in the teaching system.

    Where do you think hamas, hezbollah and al quaeda via iran all got started, got funding and recruited for terrorism, right here in nyc. A mosque on atlantic ave here in brooklyn was used as a front for various organizations and aided by these wannabee college radicals who are now lawyers and whatnot. The ACLU and national lawyers guild drop everything and run to there aid when they get into trouble.

    Check the news tonight they just caught 2 radical islamists working out of nyc, one a doctor who got his degree here and was headed for the middle east to treat wounded terrorists. In the meantime that they were training recruits here how to be a terrorist.

    So please don't tell me its all a bunch of bull cause it goes alot deeper, other dems are appalled by the way there colleagues are acting and have never seen this before. The media here in nyc is biased towards democrats but I have never heard of repubs spouting off like the dems instead dems try to constantly bring up anything they can use to malign repubs, too bad dan rather missed the mark.

  9. #54
    Gone Fishin' ukulele's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Southern Most Point in US
    Posts
    6,260
    Considering how many teachers there are in America it would be reasonable to assume that hundreds if not thousands are on the radical left. As many are on the radical right. Were it any other way we would have a dictatorship by whatever party was in power. A diverse political base is an asset not a detriment to any country. A some good examples of a majority party gone bad from an uneven balance was the communist party in Russia, the Nazi party in Germany and the Facists of Italy. China is now struggling with lack of political diversity too. The United States nearly went blind in the 50's andf 60's with the McCarthy inquisition. Had it not been for the ACLU we would have faired much worse. The Civil Right Ammendment would have never been signed for one. Long hair for men would have never been allowed nor would wearing bikinis in public, which was draconian legislation at it's worst. Much of what you are saying is perhaps more prevelant in NY but that is not liberals you are talking about, that is muslim activists and if they are Americans they have rights too. To deny them them their beliefs is against the constitution and that is what the ACLU is getting involved about. This whole problem about appointing judges has nothing to do with any presidents rights being trampled and everything to do with appointing judges who are fair and unbiased. A president is free to nominate anyone he or she wishes, but not free to appoint anyone they want (in spite of what conservative talk show hosts preach). That is a matter for the senate to confirm and that is why fair debate is mandated by senate rules. There is no one more biased then someone who is influenced by religion and there is no better example of that then the radical Islamic and radical Christian fundamentalists. If you take away the rules those kinds of judges will be running the country.

  10. #55
    EX Moderator-May He Rest in Peace rangeral's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    staten is.,ny
    Posts
    4,583
    Due process is fine til it borders on aiding the enemy, some of them got close others crossed the line concerning islamist terrorists. The fbi were after these very islamists that hit the towers the first time and other bombings they did but in comes the ACLU prior to these bombings tieing the hands of the fbi where they couldn't do anything so that they could carry on freely walking amongst us with what they were planning to do to america. Almost a case of misplaced justice, now they have the patriot act to help them in there investigations.

    I have nothing against following beliefs but there's a point you don't cross over. Talk about long hair, in the 50's elvis scared alot of adults at that time and thought he was some kind of devil, I mean people were very mad at his sort and he didn't have long hair.

    If dems are so concerned about civil rights why are they giving nominee brown a hard time when there suppose to be for racial equality and all that good stuff. Brown came from a sharecroppers family in poverty and worked her way thru college and all to rise to high level and then in comes barbara boxer a white spoon fed rich woman giving brown a hard time. Doesn't sound rite to me.

    Every nominee past has had the rite to an up or down vote whats so different now or is it the dems hatred for bush cause they lost all there power? Repubs are wondering why bush has been quiet about it though there is something he can do which eludes me at the moment as the president knows nothing about what the repubs are planning and may not want to step on any toes.

  11. #56
    Gone Fishin' ukulele's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Southern Most Point in US
    Posts
    6,260
    Every nominee past has had the rite to an up or down vote
    Where in the constitution does it say they have a right to a nomination vote? The only rights a nominee has is the right to go before the senate for confirmation. If you want to talk about rights, the senate has the right to establish procedural rules. Bush does not have the right to appoint any judge. His only right is to nominate them. If he expects to get them appointed without a confirmation hearing, he is in the wrong country.

    BTW- The ACLU had nothing to do with the attack on 911. They are not an underground terrorist organization. They are a non-profit non-partisan legal aid team that works for nothing. The ACLU is the only defense the country has now against unconstitutional laws that are being pushed through every day by congress and the president. Name one other legal organization in the country that has the financial backing of the people to stand up for the little guy? Why do you thing the present administration hates them so much? I'll tell you why, because they keep winning in court against high priced lawyers with massive corporate bankrolls. In other words, they are right 90% of the time. Of course the Republicans hate them. The ACLU is comprised mainly of student lawyers and legal aids and still they win cases in court with amazing ability, especially concerning constitutional matters, but still the Republicans have the balls to put them down. They should be happy someone is donating their time to keep politics honest. You really need to listen to someone besides Hannity, Medved and Limbaugh as your sole source of political education. These guys are a radical as the bimbos and bone heads on Air America. They are selling sensationalism, rarely research their sources, never let any opposing viewpoint talk that has them cornered and all of them hate half the country. These kinds of people are as dangerous to the American ideals of freedom of religion and political affiliation as any any terrorist that uses a bomb. Hating people because they think differently is the worst kind of blind prejudice. What makes them think they are so much smarter? They are not fooling me. It is obvious to me that all they are all trying to do is stir up more muck to divide the people for their own partisan interests. Why can't any of them ever do a show about what's right about America?

    As for Brown, I Know nothing about her, but suspect she is no middle of the road judge if Bush nominated her and more likely then not she has some debts owed to the "good ole boys of Texas" too.

  12. #57
    EX Moderator-May He Rest in Peace rangeral's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    staten is.,ny
    Posts
    4,583
    Its been a long standing tradition(maybe I should have said that before) to let the presidents nominees go to the senate for a vote which is one way for every president since the beginning to leave his legacy on gov't. Instead all I see is the dems utter contempt or hatred for the bush administration which seems to reflect there attitude over the last 3 decades.

    I'm not worried about what the ACLU does for people and protecting constitional rights, its the questionable lawyers that have been involved with them that have come to the aid of suspected terrorists and some who have crossed the line of aid abusing there priviledge of being in the ACLU to further their beliefs in communism from the 60's to the present. Now all these people are lawyers, professeurs and politicians to some extent who are only interested in tearing down democracy and capitalism if you give them enough rope.

    BTW you won't hear those talk shows talk about this cause its too strong. I do look for corroboration based on the past and see how it adds up, what I hear now sounds typically of how these radicals have expressed themselves and to me its dangerous.

    Yea I've tried listening to air america and have to agree, when I get to listen to the repub station I also don't like when they cut people off but I don't hear anything thats dangerous and the live interviews of senators et al seem well grounded which is what I'm interest in from the horse's mouths.

  13. #58
    Gone Fishin' ukulele's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Southern Most Point in US
    Posts
    6,260
    It is not the peoples decision to allow filibuster. It is the senates decision to change or uphold. Tradition has nothing to do with it. So what? Bush is asking for it when he blatently tries to get people in the supreme court that are ultra right. No one is preventing him from nominating moderate Republicans. Any judge should be moderate. Radicals on either side should be block with every trick in the book.

    The whole idea of the Patriot Act is to snoop on peoples private affairs and find out who is advocating terrorism against the country and it's citizens. It was not intended to be a witch hunt for communists. Communist are not Muslim fundamentalists. So what if there is communists in the ACLU? They have rights to their beliefs too. In order to remain non-profit, the ACLU cannot exclude communists from it's organization. Communism and socialism is not unconstitutional and by all rights should be tolerated in any free country whether the majority likes it of not. I will never understand Americans even though I am one. They call themselves free and yet, the ones who wave the flag the most hate everyone else in the country but people like themselves. Why divide the country that way? What is to be gained by hating each other? What legal behavior we have enjoyed for generations is going to be outlawed next?

  14. #59
    Banned tantone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1999
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,897
    What legal behavior we have enjoyed for generations is going to be outlawed next?
    Unfortunately, it won't be your ability post here.

    Personally, I'm willing to give up a few, seldom-used "freedoms" if it means that there are fewer holes through which terrorists can sneak.

    Also, the Patriot Act is just putting into law what has already been done for years. Anyone who thinks that the gov't spying on everyone is new is in serious denial.

  15. #60
    Gone Fishin' ukulele's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Southern Most Point in US
    Posts
    6,260
    Originally posted by tantone
    Unfortunately, it won't be your ability post here.

    Personally, I'm willing to give up a few, seldom-used "freedoms" if it means that there are fewer holes through which terrorists can sneak.

    Also, the Patriot Act is just putting into law what has already been done for years. Anyone who thinks that the gov't spying on everyone is new is in serious denial.
    OIC...Big Brother knows best. Welcome to the brave new world. Join the Marines and see the real world through the eyes of a trained killer in an armored Humvee.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •