Dems Dew Deal to End Filibusters

[NaplesX]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050527/D8AB6TRG4.html

"Democrats forced a delay Thursday in a confirmation vote for John R. Bolton, yet another setback for President Bush's tough-talking choice as U.N. ambassador and a renewal of intense partisanship in the Senate after a brief respite.
The vote to advance Bolton's nomination to an immediate confirmation vote was 56-42 - four short of the 60 votes that Bolton's Republican backers needed."

Including 4 of the magnificent 7 that signed the agreement just 2 days ago. So it would appear that the attempt at bipartisanship applies only to judges and the "extraordinary circumstances" clause has kicked in.

When will the Republicans learn that they can't make deals with Democrats. It will backfire every time. They got 3 nominees, that's it. Let the games resume!

[trick fall]

Let the games resume!

Its called leverage, the only leverage the Democrats have right now is to slow up business in the Senate. They would be abandoning their responsibility to their constituents by not using these tactics.

[midwinter]

Remember that time the Democrats shut down the government in 1995 because it was their only leverage? Oh, wait.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by midwinter
Remember that time the Democrats shut down the government in 1995 because it was their only leverage? Oh, wait. Did a group of republicans make a back door deal and the renege?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Did a group of republicans make a back door deal and the renege?

Nope. IIRC, they stupidly stuck to their guns and lost when Gore broke the tie, and it essentially cost them their Speaker, much as the current debacle is likely to cost them their Majority leader.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by midwinter
Nope. IIRC, they stupidly stuck to their guns and lost when Gore broke the tie, and it essentially cost them their Speaker, much as the current debacle is likely to cost them their Majority leader. Despite what you may think, this thread is about the Dems seemingly flip-flopping an a deal they made and not about what the republicans did in the 90's.

Besides, I don't get your point. Should we assume that what happened in the 90's is essentially the same thing? I am sure you you aren't saying that. Perhaps you are just being flippant, as usual.

[groverat]

Bolton was not included in the original agreement, was he?

Past that, a proposed UN Ambassador that is anti-UN is extraordinary without a doubt.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by NaplesX
this thread is about the Dems seemingly flip-flopping an a deal First, the deal was on judicial nominations. If you start going beyond that, then we could also talk about the fact that Santorum announced he was going to filibuster the stem cell research bill.

Second, the Dems have said that this isn't a filibuster to permanently stop the nomination from being voted on. They're waiting for specific information that Republicans requested from the White House. I'm not sure what happens if the White House doesn't provide the requested information, though...

[bryan.fury]

Originally posted by NaplesX
The vote to advance Bolton's nomination to an immediate confirmation vote was 56-42

quite frankly, i'm surprised (http://www.oldamericancentury.org/boltonun_300k.mov) they even got that many pro-votes.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by BRussell
First, the deal was on judicial nominations. Exactly. But why rely on facts when all you really want to do is start a misleading thread to bash Dems?("When will the Republicans learn that they can't make deals with Democrats. It will backfire every time.") Second, the Dems have said that this isn't a filibuster to permanently stop the nomination from being voted on. They're waiting for specific information that Republicans requested from the White House. I'm not sure what happens if the White House doesn't provide the requested information, though... Fact overload! Fact overload!

[NaplesX]

You guys are predictable but still amusing.

This is about presidential nominations. I do realize that the deal struck was specifically about judicial nominations. However, this is a battle that goes a bit deeper than just that.

It is a battle about some supposed "minority rights" in congress. The whole thing is just liberal hogwash. The majority has the option to change the rules and procedures as they see fit.

Filibustering is not new, but filibustering a simple yes/no vote on a presidential nominee is. Let's not tiddle our dinkies here, guys.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by groverat
Bolton was not included in the original agreement, was he?

Past that, a proposed UN Ambassador that is anti-UN is extraordinary without a doubt. Who cares. The Un is not a sovereign nation. The UN is not even effective at what it is supposed to do now.

Bolton is more pro-UN reform than he is anti-UN. More radical spin by the left.

An official representative looking out for the country that appointed him. gasp! Not that.

He is the US' representative right?

[groverat]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Let's not tiddle our dinkies here, guys.

Pardon me, but it is you who started this thread on the foolish premise that the Dems are "flip-flopping" on their judicial nominee agreement because they are doing something else that has nothing to do with judicial nominees.

If you're really that concerned about dinky tiddling, you might want to reconsider what you post.

Splinters and logs in eyes, remember.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Gilsch
Exactly. But why rely on facts when all you really want to do is start a misleading thread to bash Dems?("When will the Republicans learn that they can't make deals with Democrats. It will backfire every time.") Fact overload! Fact overload! So you believe what a politician says, simply for saying it?

If that is true then why all of the "Bush lied" and continuous uproar over any given subject.

We need to just listen to what politicians say to us.

Or is he ever so much more believable because he is a Democrat?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by NaplesX
The majority has the option to change the rules and procedures as they see fit. They can try, but the Senate rules specifically say that motions to change the rules of the Senate require a 2/3 vote to cut off debate. That means you must have 67 votes to make a Senate rule change, even more than the 60 required to cut off debate on a nomination or legislation.
Filibustering is not new, but filibustering a simple yes/no vote on a presidential nominee is. If it's so new, then how do you explain Frist's vote to filibuster a Clinton nominee? And if you're concerned about an up-or-down-vote, how do you explain the fact that although 5 or so of Bush's nominees have been denied an up-or-down-vote, 60 of Clinton's nominees were denied it?

It's true that Democrats in the last few years have used that particular parliamentary tactic more frequently than others have in the past, but the reason for that is that Republicans, when Bush got into office, stopped the use of other tactics that they had used themselves against Clinton (i.e., the blue slip).

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by groverat
Pardon me, but it is you who started this thread on the foolish premise that the Dems are "flip-flopping" on their judicial nominee agreement because they are doing something else that has nothing to do with judicial nominees.

If you're really that concerned about dinky tiddling, you might want to reconsider what you post.

Splinters and logs in eyes, remember. These 7 democrats have been touting that they have brought civility and decorum back to the senate as a result of this worthless deal.

2 days later, under very similar circumstances, 4 of the 7 have voted to halt a simple yes/no vote until after a vacation. This means more partisan debate and demonizing and thus little forward motion on other important issues. Now don't you think that if they were determined to move things along they would have voted to have the simple yes/no vote on the nominee?

It just so happens that all that was needed to vote on the nominee was 4 more votes.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by BRussell
They can try, but the Senate rules specifically say that motions to change the rules of the Senate require a 2/3 vote to cut off debate. That means you must have 67 votes to make a Senate rule change, even more than the 60 required to cut off debate on a nomination or legislation.
If it's so new, then how do you explain Frist's vote to filibuster a Clinton nominee? And if you're concerned about an up-or-down-vote, how do you explain the fact that although 5 or so of Bush's nominees have been denied an up-or-down-vote, 60 of Clinton's nominees were denied it?

It's true that Democrats in the last few years have used that particular parliamentary tactic more frequently than others have in the past, but the reason for that is that Republicans, when Bush got into office, stopped the use of other tactics that they had used themselves against Clinton (i.e., the blue slip). No, it can be changed by a ruling from the chair, upheld by a simple majority vote.

Those 60 were nominated to late in Clinton's term... more tiddling.

[groverat]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Those 60 were nominated to late in Clinton's term... more tiddling.

What difference does that make?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by NaplesX
No, it can be changed by a ruling from the chair, upheld by a simple majority vote.

And over the objections of the Senate parliamentarian, who is, you know, the guy who tells them whether or not they're playing by the rules.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by groverat
What difference does that make? Come on, try to be honest. It will set you free.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by NaplesX
No, it can be changed by a ruling from the chair, upheld by a simple majority vote. Are you saying that Senate rule changes are not subject to filibuster? That's incorrect, and it's why Trent Lott used the term "Nuclear option." Here's a link (http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule22.htm) to Rule XXII of the Senate, the filibuster rule:

And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting...Please provide evidence to back up your statement if you wish to argue that Senate rule changes are not subject to 67-vote cloture.

Those 60 were nominated to late in Clinton's term... more tiddling.Look at the end of this article (http://hnn.us/articles/12012.html). It has a list of Clinton judicial nominees denied an up or down vote by Republicans. It looks to me like about 2/3 were nominated prior to the year 2000. Most of those nominated in 2000 were nominated in the first half of the year. Where do you get this idea that "those 60 were nominated too late"?

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by NaplesX
So you believe what a politician says, simply for saying it?
If that is true then why all of the "Bush lied" and continuous uproar over any given subject.
We need to just listen to what politicians say to us.
Or is he ever so much more believable because he is a Democrat? WTF has this post to do with mine? LMAO. You spin "stuff" so much after your arguments are rightly, and quite easily, torn to pieces every time that you have to come back with something from way out of left field. Brilliant!

Don't you do anything other than read wacky sites and rush back here to post something? I keep forgetting. In your world you don't like Bush and you're not a Republican. :D

And to answer your question. I don't believe politicians any more than I believe the uninformed.

[midwinter]

Wrong on Iraq/WMD.
Wrong on Abu Grhaib.
Wrong on Koran flushing/Newsweek (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=796640).
Wrong on Social Security (http://www.pollingreport.com/social.htm).

[MaxParrish]

Originally posted by NaplesX
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050527/D8AB6TRG4.html

"Democrats forced a delay Thursday in a confirmation vote for John R. Bolton, yet another setback for President Bush's tough-talking choice as U.N. ambassador and a renewal of intense partisanship in the Senate after a brief respite.
The vote to advance Bolton's nomination to an immediate confirmation vote was 56-42 - four short of the 60 votes that Bolton's Republican backers needed."

Including 4 of the magnificent 7 that signed the agreement just 2 days ago. So it would appear that the attempt at bipartisanship applies only to judges and the "extraordinary circumstances" clause has kicked in.

When will the Republicans learn that they can't make deals with Democrats. It will backfire every time. They got 3 nominees, that's it. Let the games resume!

No, the 'written deal' does not include a ban of filibusters on non-judicial nominees. However, we all know there are understandings that allude to what we may expect, as well as promises of 'a new era' of reconcilation and cooperation...and 'starting over in the realations between the parties'...blah blah.

For example, we know that the democrats will likely filibuster two of the judges (the agreement says as much).

But it is interesting what some thought were 'gentlemens agreements'. Graham and McCain both said they thought there was an understanding to let Bolton go through, earlier this week the press reported that Biden told Boxer to lift the hold on Bolton, regardless of her request for more info, cause everything was now hunky dory...everyone 'thought' this was going through without a hitch.

So, the 'peace' lasted 48 hrs. Over Dodd's objections, the democratic radicals jettisoned the 'understanding' and demanded a filibuster till they got the records they were fishing for.

And Graham is mumbling and walking around confused, Frist is pissed at everyone. And recall that Graham also recently said that 'all the judicial nominees will get a floor vote, the democrat 7 just didnt want that in writing'.

So we are returning to the screaming chimp cage, with everyone disagreeing what was understood...

The Senate is the most pathetic institution in the Republic - pinheads all!!!

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Gilsch
WTF has this post to do with mine? LMAO. You spin "stuff" so much after your arguments are rightly, and quite easily, torn to pieces every time that you have to come back with something from way out of left field. Brilliant!

Don't you do anything other than read wacky sites and rush back here to post something? I keep forgetting. In your world you don't like Bush and you're not a Republican. :D

And to answer your question. I don't believe politicians any more than I believe the uninformed. You quoted some politician essentially saying "hey, he says it's not a filibuster, so let's just go with that".

Do you really expect anyone on the left to say otherwise? Max nailed it, there was an underlying understanding with this new deal, if you listened to the constant back-patting these guys gave themselves afterwards.

You bought it, hook line a sinker, so I am asking, are you justifying that with the fact he is a politician, or, as I suspect, he is a democrat and thusly beyond questioning?

[midwinter]

But, Bill Clinton!

[trick fall]

You bought it, hook line a sinker, so I am asking, are you justifying that with the fact he is a politician, or, as I suspect, he is a democrat and thusly beyond questioning?

Do you have any clue what its like to negotiate? I mean besides asking for a raise at the fast food joint? You use what means are at your disposal. Democrat, Republican, who gives a shit. Each side has its position and its leverage and come a November soon you can decide which side executed its position and used its leverage better.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by trick fall
Do you have any clue what its like to negotiate? I mean besides asking for a raise at the fast food joint? You use what means are at your disposal. Democrat, Republican, who gives a shit. Each side has its position and its leverage and come a November soon you can decide which side executed its position and used its leverage better. Man I love when people resort to baseless condescension.

Anyway, you are right about november being a tell tale indicator of public sentiment. Haven't dems been loosing steadily in this regard for many years.

Who is in the majority in the senate? The Congress? The white house? Governerships? State legislatures?

[trick fall]

You condescend yourself with the juvenilia of your arguments. If Republicans were in the minority you would be applauding them for the same actions.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by trick fall
You condescend yourself with the juvenilia of your arguments. If Republicans were in the minority you would be applauding them for the same actions.

It's not juvenilia. At this point, NaplesX makes parodies of arguments, rather than the arguments themselves.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by NaplesX
You quoted some politician essentially saying "hey, he says it's not a filibuster, so let's just go with that". I quoted some politician?? Which politician did I quote? Is BRussell a politician? Stop hanging out at freerepublic. Not healthy for you.You bought it, hook line a sinker, so I am asking, are you justifying that with the fact he is a politician, or, as I suspect, he is a democrat and thusly beyond questioning? Mr. Clinton Body Count is telling me about hooks, lines and sinkers. :lol:

One more time....where did I quote "some" politician?

Don't you get tired of making shit up? Thread after thread you either attribute me quotes I never posted, comments I never made or you simply make up stuff. And I've called you on it every single time. Not once have you been able to back up your trollish or ridiculous made up crap. Not once.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by trick fall
You condescend yourself with the juvenilia of your arguments. If Republicans were in the minority you would be applauding them for the same actions. That is where you are wrong.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Gilsch
I quoted some politician?? Which politician did I quote? Is BRussell a politician? Stop hanging out at freerepublic. Not healthy for you. Mr. Clinton Body Count is telling me about hooks, lines and sinkers. :lol:

One more time....where did I quote "some" politician?

Don't you get tired of making shit up? Thread after thread you either attribute me quotes I never posted, comments I never made or you simply make up stuff. And I've called you on it every single time. Not once have you been able to back up your trollish or ridiculous made up crap. Not once. You're so right. You simply quoted Brussell who quoted a newspaper quoting politicians. it was more of a paraphrase, to be accurate. Was I over the line to assume that you agreed not only with BRussell but also the politicians that he quoted? I don't think so. You used it to bolster his argument.

If you guys continue to answer for the other collective members I am going to continue to assume you are in total agreement. Sue me.

[BRussell]

About whether the filibustering Dems should be believed that this is temporary until they get the requested info - I guess we can only wait and see. It's also important to note that McCain and Lugar (the committee chair) also think the White House should release the requested info, and that at least one other Republican on the committee (Voinovich) is going to vote against Bolton.

NaplesX, you ridiculed (something about diddling or twiddling) my points on changing the rules and on Clinton's nominees, and I responded. You never addressed the points I made.

Here's the problem - it seems like you're just making stuff up that sounds good and hoping no one calls you on it. I understand if you read those things from some source that was inaccurate, or if you thought you had read it but you didn't. That's happened to all of us. But until you either say "I was wrong" or "here's why I'm right" or whatever, it just looks like you're making stuff up and trying to get away with it, and then just moving on when you get called on it.

So what's it gonna be?

FWIW, I think too many judicial nominees have been blocked, both by Dems and (far more) by Repubs. Here's my solution, taken from things I've read elsewhere:

1. Filibusters should have more impact, not less. They should require actual talking and they should stop all Senate business. That would put more pressure on the filibusterers to have a good reason for what they're doing.

2. The president should take the "advice" portion of "advice and consent" seriously. He should request that the Senate provide a list of names that would be acceptable. The president shouldn't be bound to those names, but if one of them is not chosen, all bets are off in terms of blocking the nominee.

[BRussell]

Oops, hit quote rather than edit.

[MaxParrish]

Originally posted by BRussell
About whether the filibustering Dems should be believed that this is temporary until they get the requested info - I guess we can only wait and see.

NaplesX, you ridiculed (something about diddling or twiddling) my points on changing the rules and on Clinton's nominees, and I responded. You never addressed the points I made.

Here's the problem - it seems like you're just making stuff up that sounds good and hoping no one calls you on it. I understand if you read those things from some source that was inaccurate, or if you thought you had read it but you didn't. That's happened to all of us. But until you either say "I was wrong" or "here's why I'm right" or whatever, it just looks like you're making stuff up and trying to get away with it, and then just moving on when you get called on it.

So what's it gonna be?

FWIW, I think too many judicial nominees have been blocked, both by Dems and (far more) by Repubs. Here's my solution, taken from things I've read elsewhere:

1. Filibusters should have more impact, not less. They should require actual talking and they should stop all Senate business. That would put more pressure on the filibusterers to have a good reason for what they're doing.

2. The president should take the "advice" portion of "advice and consent" seriously. He should request that the Senate provide a list of names that would be acceptable. The president shouldn't be bound to those names, but if one of them is not chosen, all bets are off in terms of blocking the nominee.

Although how many has been blocked, by which party, and from what position (i.e. as a majority party using blocks rather than a minority party)and at what level (district vs appeals courts)is open to dispute, I can agree this has gone on too long and too far.

There was a time (e.g. before Nixon) where court appointments were so routine that even Supreme Court judge nominees spent, typically, a half day or day in hearings and was given the rubber stamp. The custom was barring horrible moral or legal failings, the nominee was approved.

Presidents are, by the way, taking advise and consent of nominations seriously. The President submites to the Senate his nominees, the Senate sends them to a committee for review and recommendation (advicee to both its body and the president), and the Senate votes on it. What you are really saying is that BEFORE the name is OFFICIALLY submitted he should get PREADVICE on a POTENTIAL nomination...that is not a constitutional process.

I think the whole filibuster system needs revised, either by elimination or by progressive reduceded threasholds on cloture votes or by lowering threasholds (e.g. 55, that sounds perfect).

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by BRussell
About whether the filibustering Dems should be believed that this is temporary until they get the requested info - I guess we can only wait and see. It's also important to note that McCain and Lugar (the committee chair) also think the White House should release the requested info, and that at least one other Republican on the committee (Voinovich) is going to vote against Bolton.

NaplesX, you ridiculed (something about diddling or twiddling) my points on changing the rules and on Clinton's nominees, and I responded. You never addressed the points I made.

Here's the problem - it seems like you're just making stuff up that sounds good and hoping no one calls you on it. I understand if you read those things from some source that was inaccurate, or if you thought you had read it but you didn't. That's happened to all of us. But until you either say "I was wrong" or "here's why I'm right" or whatever, it just looks like you're making stuff up and trying to get away with it, and then just moving on when you get called on it.

So what's it gonna be?

FWIW, I think too many judicial nominees have been blocked, both by Dems and (far more) by Repubs. Here's my solution, taken from things I've read elsewhere:

1. Filibusters should have more impact, not less. They should require actual talking and they should stop all Senate business. That would put more pressure on the filibusterers to have a good reason for what they're doing.

2. The president should take the "advice" portion of "advice and consent" seriously. He should request that the Senate provide a list of names that would be acceptable. The president shouldn't be bound to those names, but if one of them is not chosen, all bets are off in terms of blocking the nominee. You know haw it works here, no matter trhe source, call someone "winger" and accuse them of cruising the "blogs".

There is no proving anything here, you should know that.

Anyway, what am I making up? Seriously. I have been accused of making up who I am and what I do for a living and what it is I actually think. I am just asking because I can't keep up with it all, and I am tired of guessing. Be specific.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by NaplesX
You're so right. You simply quoted Brussell who quoted a newspaper quoting politicians. it was more of a paraphrase, to be accurate. "To be accurate". lol Good thing you admitted the BS. If you guys continue to answer for the other collective members I am going to continue to assume you are in total agreement. Sue me. We are answering for "the other collective members"? Wanna know what the "other collective members" (whatever that means) think, just ask them.
Maybe then you will realize that this isn't freerepublic and people "kinda" like to think for themselves and not en masse.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by MaxParrish
There was a time (e.g. before Nixon) where court appointments were so routine that even Supreme Court judge nominees spent, typically, a half day or day in hearings and was given the rubber stamp. The custom was barring horrible moral or legal failings, the nominee was approved. That's true - I believe it started going downhill in the 70s and 80s. And it's interesting to speculate about the cause of that. It's possible that the Senate became more partisan and wanted to block judges that they never would have blocked previously. But the other theory is that the kinds of judges that were nominated changed - that the judges themselves became more partisan or extreme. I honestly don't know which it is, but I don't think it's a coincidence that things started going bad after Roe v. Wade.

Presidents are, by the way, taking advise and consent of nominations seriously. The President submites to the Senate his nominees, the Senate sends them to a committee for review and recommendation (advicee to both its body and the president), and the Senate votes on it. What you are really saying is that BEFORE the name is OFFICIALLY submitted he should get PREADVICE on a POTENTIAL nomination...that is not a constitutional process. I don't think we're doing it right. Here's the relevant passage from Article II of the US Constitution: he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United StatesI think we are doing the "consent" portion but not the "advice" portion. The prez sends up a name and the Senate either consents or doesn't consent. Where's the advice? Advice is something that happens before a decision is made, i.e., prior to a nomination in this case.
I think the whole filibuster system needs revised, either by elimination or by progressive reduceded threasholds on cloture votes or by lowering threasholds (e.g. 55, that sounds perfect). I've heard about the progressive reduced thresholds, but I don't get it. What's the point, if eventually you'll get your way anyway? You might as well just lower it to the final vote minimum and be done with it.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by NaplesX
You know haw it works here, no matter trhe source, call someone "winger" and accuse them of cruising the "blogs".

There is no proving anything here, you should know that.

Anyway, what am I making up? Seriously. I have been accused of making up who I am and what I do for a living and what it is I actually think. I am just asking because I can't keep up with it all, and I am tired of guessing. Be specific. The points are above and very specific - you said I was wrong and the Senate can change the rules with a simple majority, and I said no, there is a 67-vote cloture rule. You said I was wrong about Clinton's nominees and that they were too late to be considered, and I provided a list with the names and dates showing they weren't too late. If you can prove something, I promise I'll either accept it or honestly challenge it. Try me.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Gilsch
"To be accurate". lol Good thing you admitted the BS. We are answering for "the other collective members"? Wanna know what the "other collective members" (whatever that means) think, just ask them.
Maybe then you will realize that this isn't freerepublic and people "kinda" like to think for themselves and not en masse. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Right.

[Gilsch]

I like that answer. That's what most people do every time they read one of your "posts" Naples. ;)

So care to explain the part about the "collective members" Naples? Maybe we could learn something from you and be united in our ignorance or fanaticism ala freepers :D

With us or against us.With us or against us.With us or against us.With us or against us.With us or against us.With us or against us.With us or against us.With us or against us.With us or against us.With us or against us.With us or against us.With us or against us.With us or against us.With us or against us. :smokey: