gbear Posted May 27, 2003 Author Share Posted May 27, 2003 Kilmer, in the senate, they also have the right to filabuster. It's in the senate rules. If the opposition has enough votes, they can break the filabuster. If not...they can wait it out. There is no entitlement to not be filabustered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 The rules also allow for the rules to be changed. The "nuclear option". Will you support it if the GOP goes to that extreme? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted May 27, 2003 Author Share Posted May 27, 2003 No. I'll see it a power grab by changing the rules (that have been around for hundreds of years). I believe the filabuster predates our Senate. In general, I hate making long term changes to rules to accomplish one partisan goal (even partisan goals I happen to support). If the Senate wasn't in a situation where there were obvious partisan reasons for a rule change, I would consider it. However, I have always thought one of the great strengths of our politcal system is the care we take to empower/respect minority opinions. As a result, I probably still wouldn't be for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 So the Dems can use the veil of "Hey it's in the rules" but the GOP cannot? Why doesnt that suprise me. I'll see it a power grab That is EXACTLY what the filabuster is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted May 27, 2003 Author Share Posted May 27, 2003 I didn't say can't. Do I have to support it? no. I take it you are for getting rid of the filabuster? The only thing I can caution you is that political power in this country seems to be on a pendulum, swinging from liberal to conservative. I view things like filabusters as a built in mechanism to keep our government from going too far to either extreme. Do you really want to remove that built in safety over a few judges? If history is a judge, it may not be too long before you pine for the days when you could atleast keep the most abhorent of views opposite your own from becoming fact. In truth, things filabustered should be a warning to the small majority that they are pulling the government out of tollerance for some. I'll grant you that it's an option that can be abused, or in some cases overused for the wrong things. Appointing very conservative judges might make my top 2 or 3 things to be fought at all costs if I were a Senator, but it would be in my top 10. However, if I were a senator and Pickering came up with a prospect of passing, I'd take my turn up at the podium with the phone book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 If the GOP was really concerned about the filibuster - then they would require the rules of it to be correctly carried out (no breaks period). The fact is, they realize that if they do it, so will the DEMS in a few years. I bet you the GOP loves the fact that the DEMS are filibustering. This way, they can grandstand on it and not have to accept any negative ramifications of whomever they placed in position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 I totally agree with you TEG, and I pointed out in another thread, I think they did this purposefully. gbear, I do think we should get rid of the filibuster rule for the confirmation of judges. IT can remain for other votes and bills, but for the confirmations a majority is all that should be necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 While comparing nomination approvals to those during the Clinton administration, keep in mind that this re-nomination of Pickering is nothing more than a blatant “up-yours” to the Democrats. Having fought this once and lost, if Bush had wanted to avoid this battle he could easily have chosen another nominee. This was inflammatory and he knew it. I suspect this is part of the appeal to some of you guys, “Go get’em, George! Shove it right down their throats!” Fine, but if you kick sand in somebody’s eye please don’t squeal like a stuck pig when they get up in your grill about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.