POL - YES!! Republicans are going to CHANGE Protocal to win

[Flasch186]

I love it when they expose their sick underbellys. They are going to actually change protocal to remove filibustering so that they can get their way. Now I know JIMG, is for this, but this is a democracy and minority's rights not only are protected but should be listened to (considered). Oh well, an explosive couple of weeks will be due for the capital when this comes up....considering the WH wont release all the info. about this candidate, he refuses to answer some questions, basically asking to be confirmed in the dark with a pat on the back, and a "trust us." Horse shit, I wouldnt want this done to the right if the left were in power and it shouldnt be done now...ESPECIALLY considering that the pendulum is beginning its swing back.

***Perhaps Dr. Frist should try to make some more free diagnosis from the senate floor by "watching video of the patient" LOL


Frist Says He's Ready to Block Filibuster

1 hour, 1 minute ago

WASHINGTON - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Sunday he is prepared to strip Democrats of their to ability to filibuster if they try to stall Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court.


"The answer is yes," Frist said when asked if he would act to change Senate procedures to restrict a Democratic filibuster. "Supreme Court justice nominees deserve an up-or-down vote, and it would be absolutely wrong to deny him that."

In recent weeks, Senate Democrats have questioned whether Alito, a federal appeals court judge, has the proper judicial temperament and ideology to replace retiring Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor.

Several Democrats have said that Alito's views on issues such as voting rights and abortion could provoke a filibuster unless he allays their concerns about his commitment to civil rights. Alito's confirmation hearings begin Jan. 9 in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Frist, R-Tenn., said Alito is qualified for the high court, noting that Alito was confirmed by the Senate for the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"Sam Alito, who has a modest judicial temperament ... is someone who deserves advice and consent by the Senate," Frist told "Fox News Sunday."

The filibuster is a parliamentary tactic whereby senators use their right to virtually unlimited debate to block measures, legislation or nominations. It takes 60 votes to stop a filibuster.

Passing a bill or confirming a nominee requires a simple majority — 51 senators if all 100 senators are present. The vice president can break 50-50 ties.

Under Frist's scenario, the GOP would seek a parliamentary ruling that declares filibusters are not permitted against judicial nominees. That ruling ultimately would go before the full Senate for a vote, with a simple majority required to prevail. Republicans hold 55 seats.

If that plays out, it then would take a majority of senators present to vote to approve a nominee such as Alito.

Such a move carries great risk. Democrats have threatened to retaliate with a fight that could snarl Senate business for months. Also, it could backfire on Republicans if they were to lose majority control of the chamber.

[Joe]

tell us how you really feel

[Greyroofoo]

I really hate this "If I can't win by the rules I'll just change them" crap

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Much more constructive use of the Senate's time. Unless you're of the opinion that Congress needs to be meddling in the BCS and MLB.

EDIT for clarification - the discussion on whether or not the constitutional option and the use of the filibuster is appropriate for a SCOTUS nominee is a better use of the Senate's time.

[Bonegavel]

One name for you:

ruth bader ginsberg

[KWhit]

Politics suck.

[Noop]

This is why I dislike these bunch of disconnect assholes we have has elected officals. I really believe these people represent the narrow minded people who voted for them.

[Blade6119]

Im all for it...republicans control the majority, they have enough to get him by law confirmed into SC if im not mistaken, but becuase the minority doesnt like the canidate they will try to block it with a filibuster. It would be like Reggie Bush having more then enough votes to win the heisman, but young supporters prevent people from counting the ballots so no one is named. Im sorry, but the democrats could make their own rules if people elected them the majority. But no, we elected repubs so get over it. If you dont like it, make sure democrats win the next senate election.

[Dutch]

Thank God we have a press corp that will expose the Republicans for what they really are.

[sterlingice]

Um, Blade, the Heisman comparison doesn't make it out of the gates because of the simplicity of the Heisman balloting system versus complicated Parlimentary rules. It'd be like me saying "I can spin the world on my finger, just as I do with this basketball" or "See how well I can hit a wiffle ball, Steinbrenner, so sign me to a 7 year $100M contract." It's just such a bad comparison it's not even funny.

SI

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

Im all for it...republicans control the majority, they have enough to get him by law confirmed into SC if im not mistaken, but becuase the minority doesnt like the canidate they will try to block it with a filibuster. It would be like Reggie Bush having more then enough votes to win the heisman, but young supporters prevent people from counting the ballots so no one is named. Im sorry, but the democrats could make their own rules if people elected them the majority. But no, we elected repubs so get over it. If you dont like it, make sure democrats win the next senate election.

I am all for trying to simplify things to make them more understandable, but you are far, far off here.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Bonegavel

One name for you:

ruth bader ginsberg

What about her?

[Schmidty]

I love it when they expose their sick underbellys.

Are you so blind that you don't realize that both parties are just as conniving and corrupt?

I guess I'll never understand the hypocracy of party-liners acting as if they are on higher moral ground than the other side. Newsflash: Both parties are equal in scumminess. Sure you might agree with a few (or if you're a robot, all) of your pet parties topical issues, but when you get right down to it, both parties are a collection of bloated, crooked mercenaries who don't care about you any more than they would a gnat. All they care about is your vote.

[JW]

They are all by and large corrupt and more interested in their own parties and their own re-election than in what is best for the country. All of them, Democrat and Republican, with a few exceptions. A plague on both their houses.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by JW

They are all by and large corrupt and more interested in their own parties and their own re-election than in what is best for the country. All of them, Democrat and Republican, with a few exceptions. A plague on both their houses.

Yep, and this country will spiral further and further out of control until people stop buying what they're selling. But I don't see that happening, since people are like sheep who only want easy answers.

[MrBigglesworth]

If you really think that the Dem's when they were in power abused it as much as the GOP currently is is either a partisan Republican or is completely ignorant of what is actually going on.

[Havok]

someone needs a tissue

[CraigSca]

News Flash - this political crap has happened since the dawn of time. Somehow, we've managed to get by for the past 200 years and I'm sure we'll continue to do so.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

If you really think that the Dem's when they were in power abused it as much as the GOP currently is is either a partisan Republican or is completely ignorant of what is actually going on.

Ah, the typical condescending Democrat answer. If someone disagrees with you, they are either "from the other side", or "completely ignorant". It must be nice to see life in such a black and white way.

Yes, I know the crappy things that are going on, and it pisses me off. I wish Bush and his regime were booted, but at the same time I don't want anyone to be in power, since I don't have faith in either side. We only have two real choices and they both stink.

[Havok]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

News Flash - this political crap has happened since the dawn of time. Somehow, we've managed to get by for the past 200 years and I'm sure we'll continue to do so.

ohhh... but the Republicans do it more!!!!.... then next time the Dem's hold the Senate, then they'll do it more... blah blah blah.

If the Filibuster was actually used how it was inteneded to be used, none of this would be happening.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

News Flash - this political crap has happened since the dawn of time. Somehow, we've managed to get by for the past 200 years and I'm sure we'll continue to do so.

And that's the exact attitude that keeps things from changing for the better.

Anyway, I'm out of this thread.

[CraigSca]

Is there such a thing as a viable candidate who doesn't play this political game? It's an oxymoron - it's not going to get better because it's the very nature of the sport. Stop being so naiive.

[JW]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

If you really think that the Dem's when they were in power abused it as much as the GOP currently is is either a partisan Republican or is completely ignorant of what is actually going on.

Or you are someone with the common sense to see things objectively. Silly little arguments about who is more corrupt and abusive, the Dems or the Reps, are just that -- silly. The Reps have the upper hand in corruption and abuse of power now because they are in power. Please don't try to tell me the Dems were less corrupt and abusive in the past and will be in the future. (Of course I forget Bill and Hillary and company were models of honesty, modesty, propriety, and humble application of power.) Anyone who believes that is either a partisan Democrat or is completely ignorant of what is actually going on.

[Swaggs]

Anyone know when the last filibuster took place anyway?

Right now, this is a lot of "what if" posturing, as far as I am concerned.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

Ah, the typical condescending Democrat answer. If someone disagrees with you, they are either "from the other side", or "completely ignorant". It must be nice to see life in such a black and white way.

Yes, I know the crappy things that are going on, and it pisses me off. I wish Bush and his regime were booted, but at the same time I don't want anyone to be in power, since I don't have faith in either side. We only have two real choices and they both stink.

Let's see, right now there are two senior administration officials either under indictment or facing indictment. The leader of the House has been indicted for campaign fundraising abuses (and faces more charges in the Abramoff scandal). The leader of the Senate is under investigation by the SEC. Duke Cunningham has already resigned for taking millions in bribes. The Abramoff scandal is just blowing up, threatening to take down DeLay, Ney, and maybe half a dozen more congressmen. All of those are being investigated by the Republican Justice Department.

The House holds votes open for hours, well after midnight in some cases, outright bribing members to change their votes (one GOP congressman was told that his son was finished because he wouldn't change his vote). The Senate is threatening to do away with the fillibuster. GOP state legislatures have gerrymandered their states. The GOP has created the K Street Project, which punishes DC lobbyists for hiring non-Republicans, ensuring that the lobbying money goes to the GOP. The executive has held people without charging them with any crimes for several years and, just recently, have started to implement, I kid you not, secret laws! Link.

If you can come up with a similar list of Democratic abuses, I'd love to see it.To just throw your hands up with 'a plague on both their houses' does not make you part of the solution, but rather part of the problem.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Let's see, right now there are two senior administration officials either under indictment or facing indictment. The leader of the House has been indicted for campaign fundraising abuses (and faces more charges in the Abramoff scandal). The leader of the Senate is under investigation by the SEC. Duke Cunningham has already resigned for taking millions in bribes. The Abramoff scandal is just blowing up, threatening to take down DeLay, Ney, and maybe half a dozen more congressmen. All of those are being investigated by the Republican Justice Department.

The House holds votes open for hours, well after midnight in some cases, outright bribing members to change their votes (one GOP congressman was told that his son was finished because he wouldn't change his vote). The Senate is threatening to do away with the fillibuster. GOP state legislatures have gerrymandered their states. The GOP has created the K Street Project, which punishes DC lobbyists for hiring non-Republicans, ensuring that the lobbying money goes to the GOP. The executive has held people without charging them with any crimes for several years and, just recently, have started to implement, I kid you not, secret laws! Link.

If you can come up with a similar list of Democratic abuses, I'd love to see it.To just throw your hands up with 'a plague on both their houses' does not make you part of the solution, but rather part of the problem.

Are you seriously suggesting that there is some sort of moral superiority in being a Democrat?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

Are you so blind that you don't realize that both parties are just as conniving and corrupt?

I guess I'll never understand the hypocracy of party-liners acting as if they are on higher moral ground than the other side. Newsflash: Both parties are equal in scumminess. Sure you might agree with a few (or if you're a robot, all) of your pet parties topical issues, but when you get right down to it, both parties are a collection of bloated, crooked mercenaries who don't care about you any more than they would a gnat. All they care about is your vote.

I clearly and consistently point out the neredowells on both sides of the aisle. Just because the Right does something awful right now should not allow it to be ignored under the "party line" bias argument as I do not follow it. I hammer the ball from both sides of the plate. this time this softball has the Republican majority machine and steamroller all over it.

[CraigSca]

But Flasch, though your moral posturing is not without merit, this is almost like posting everytime a batter leaves a runner in scoring position. This is par for the course.

[Flasch186]

but its what riles me up. Some always tow the party line and excuse these things when theyre done. I think that that is wrong, no one should be excused from their morals and ethics no matter the party. I cant accept that par for the course attitude...at some point there has to be a backlash wherein moral and ethical people, not cowtowing to the donors and idealogues, get into office. There has to come a day, hopefully in my lifetime....if the stinkin' libertarians weren't so nutty on some issues I'd say theyre closer but they just have too many wacky ones.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Are you seriously suggesting that there is some sort of moral superiority in being a Democrat?

Well, duh, don't you read the papers?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Well, duh, don't you read the papers?

Never. Maybe the funny pages.

[Havok]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Well, duh, don't you read the papers?

lol.... perfect

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Are you seriously suggesting that there is some sort of moral superiority in being a Democrat?

Well yes, the Dem's are much more moral on their social platform, which is why I am a Democrat, but I guess that isn't what you meant. All I am saying is that the GOP has abused its power much more than the Dems ever have, and I think that point is undeniable. Whether that is because of a couple of 'bad apples', or because the level of power they have wasn't acheived by Dems, or because of a fundamental moral difference in how they see the world, or whatever, is debatable. I think though that the 'might makes right' point of view is much more prevalent on the right than on the left (JIMG, HA for example).

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Well yes, the Dem's are much more moral on their social platform,

... which attitude is why I hate and distrust the Democrats.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

... which attitude is why I hate and distrust the Democrats.

Why is that? I'm confused by this. Don't you decide what social policy you are in favor of by whether or not you think it is the most moral option?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Why is that? I'm confused by this. Don't you decide what social policy you are in favor of by whether or not you think it is the most moral option?

It depends; there is an aspect of policy that should be governed by moral criteria. There are other aspects of policy that should be governed by pragmatic criteria, and other aspects of policy that should be governed by science (particularly economics).

But take the 99th percentile left wing nut, and the 99th percentile right wing loony, and the moral differences between them are so small they can't be measured. What is a significant moral question facing Americans? Whether to overturn Roe v. Wade? Whether to pull the plug on somebody in Florida? Don't bring up Iraq, either, because that is clearly a question of pragmatism: How to bring Peace to the Middle East in general and Iraq in particular. Taxation policy is, on both sides, pragmatic - how to maximize prosperity in America.

It may seem like I was singling out the Dems with my one-liner, but I can say the same thing about the Republicans and their demonization of the word 'liberal.' I support pragmatic politics, and consider morality in America to be largely a settled matter, and where it is NOT a settled matter, I consider it to be outside the domain of what I expect from a politician. I hope that is clear.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

It depends; there is an aspect of policy that should be governed by moral criteria. There are other aspects of policy that should be governed by pragmatic criteria, and other aspects of policy that should be governed by science (particularly economics).

I was specifically talking about social policy, not economic policy, but you are bringing morality into economics by saying that it should go to promote the prosperity of all Americans. That's your view of morality, but others' view of morality is diong what is best for them specifically. Tax cuts for an industry that gives them campaign dollars, for example, or tax cuts for your own business over the welfare of the country.

[JW]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Are you seriously suggesting that there is some sort of moral superiority in being a Democrat?

Yes, he is. (giggle) As a Democrat from (snicker) Louisiana (guffaw!) I find that suggestion very, very, very, very, very funny.

[Glengoyne]

So Frist says he's ready to block the Fillibuster. How many Democrats are seriously talking about Fillibustering Alito. Doesn't "the gang of fourteen" have a lot more to say about this than Frist?

Some Dems throw out the possibility of a fillibuster, Frist takes the bait, and declares he's prepared to quash it. Lots of folks, like Flasch, get all lathered up. I think it is much adoo about nothing. Sometimes Frist is just a moron. As much as I didn't like Trent Lott, I don't think he'd play into this.

I just don't think the Dems will do it. Alito is seriously qualified, and competent. They just confirmed him. I think it'll take some doing to drum up "extraordinary circumstances" regarding him.

Or did I miss something, and the Democrats in the Gang of Fourteen have declared that they are ready to fillibuster?

[Flasch186]

the dems. are upset because more things come out that point Alito towards being open to overturning Roe. When pressed the WH has not been open to providing ALL the information regarding Alito and he ahs been less than forthcoming in one on one's in this regard, FWIH.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I was specifically talking about social policy, not economic policy, but you are bringing morality into economics by saying that it should go to promote the prosperity of all Americans. That's your view of morality, but others' view of morality is diong what is best for them specifically. Tax cuts for an industry that gives them campaign dollars, for example, or tax cuts for your own business over the welfare of the country.

You're wandering astray here. Your examples (

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Tax cuts for an industry that gives them campaign dollars, for example, or tax cuts for your own business over the welfare of the country.

) are not justified *by* morality - which is why they are normally done away from public view.

Even in terms of social policy, you just can't find moral differences between the two parties. Democrats and Republicans may quarrel over, for example, affirmative action, but the quarrel is not about morality: It's about the application of a shared morality, that it is unfair to discriminate based on ethnic or sexual differences.

[Bad-example]

I thought protocal referred to pre-statehood california.

[JPhillips]

Without getting into this argument, I do believe its time to radically change the Supreme Court process. I'm not sure I'd agree with Robert Bork if he said the sky was blue, but I agree with him that the campaign style nominations are detrimental and not at all what the founders wanted. Its appalling that we now have system where information is hidden and views on issues are kept secret so that candidates might slip through.

The problem is that I don't have a solution. Maybe a ten or fiftenn year appointment instead of lifetime. That would at least lessen the stakes. Something needs to be done because we now have a system that sees the court as more important than the presidency and a process that relies on campaign style misrepresentations and obfuscations.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Without getting into this argument, I do believe its time to radically change the Supreme Court process. I'm not sure I'd agree with Robert Bork if he said the sky was blue, but I agree with him that the campaign style nominations are detrimental and not at all what the founders wanted. Its appalling that we now have system where information is hidden and views on issues are kept secret so that candidates might slip through.

The problem is that I don't have a solution. Maybe a ten or fiftenn year appointment instead of lifetime. That would at least lessen the stakes. Something needs to be done because we now have a system that sees the court as more important than the presidency and a process that relies on campaign style misrepresentations and obfuscations.

I agree with this.

Once again, Mr Biggle proves why he best to be ignored. What a delusional person.

I agree with JW and Schmidty: you either have a very short-sighted view of the political process or you were born yesterday.

A solution? Vote for libertarian-minded candidates. Be active locally and protest giving more powers to a corrupt federal govt system. Don't waste your energy complaining to your congressperson about a SC nominee but why there is so much waste and why they have so much powers over your state and locality.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Without getting into this argument, I do believe its time to radically change the Supreme Court process. I'm not sure I'd agree with Robert Bork if he said the sky was blue, but I agree with him that the campaign style nominations are detrimental and not at all what the founders wanted. Its appalling that we now have system where information is hidden and views on issues are kept secret so that candidates might slip through.

The problem is that I don't have a solution. Maybe a ten or fiftenn year appointment instead of lifetime. That would at least lessen the stakes. Something needs to be done because we now have a system that sees the court as more important than the presidency and a process that relies on campaign style misrepresentations and obfuscations.

I agree with this too.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I was specifically talking about social policy, not economic policy, but you are bringing morality into economics by saying that it should go to promote the prosperity of all Americans. That's your view of morality, but others' view of morality is diong what is best for them specifically. Tax cuts for an industry that gives them campaign dollars, for example, or tax cuts for your own business over the welfare of the country.

How can you separate social policy from economic policy? Unless you are implying that social policy will not utilize tax dollars or dollars taken from people and applied where they do not want it applied.

Since you mentioned tax cuts, I'm assuming you intend to use tax dollars to pay for social policy. In case you have not noticed, the U.S of A. government does not have any money of it's own. They take it from their citizens and the argument starts with how much and ends with how it is spent. Social policy is right in the middle.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

A solution? Vote for libertarian-minded candidates. Be active locally and protest giving more powers to a corrupt federal govt system. Don't waste your energy complaining to your congressperson about a SC nominee but why there is so much waste and why they have so much powers over your state and locality.

Oh yes, this will work. It's worked so far right?

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Without getting into this argument, I do believe its time to radically change the Supreme Court process. I'm not sure I'd agree with Robert Bork if he said the sky was blue, but I agree with him that the campaign style nominations are detrimental and not at all what the founders wanted. Its appalling that we now have system where information is hidden and views on issues are kept secret so that candidates might slip through.

The problem is that I don't have a solution. Maybe a ten or fiftenn year appointment instead of lifetime. That would at least lessen the stakes. Something needs to be done because we now have a system that sees the court as more important than the presidency and a process that relies on campaign style misrepresentations and obfuscations.

You currently have a constitutional solutioin. Congress has the constitutional right to impeach and remove a justice from office. It is just something that has not been completed. Congress did impeach Samual Chase in 1805. The house impeached him and the senate acquitted him.

Bottom line is, the system exists. Judges were not intended to change the laws written by congress by legislating from the bench. The power to impeach exists, but is very difficult to do. Of course you probably have as good a chance in changing the lifetime appointment as you do of getting an impeachment.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Since I know 'legislating from the bench' = those damn evil commie judges, here's some actual numbers..

new york times op-ed (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/op...06gewirtz.html) discussed the question of judicial activism. It gave the percentages of times that justices on the current Court voted to strike down Congressional statutes:

Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O’Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %

Hmm....

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Oh yes, this will work. It's worked so far right?

Because too many people are not willing to accept personal responsibilities and are willing to maintain the status quo (or downward spiral) because it relieves them of responsibilities.

You know which Democratic administration was the worse? The next one.
You know which Republican administration was the worse? The next one.