Do You Oppose the "Nuclear Option"

[Ignatius J.]

This is probably useless and not worth doing, but hey, what are mondays for during the offseason?

John Kerry is doing an online petition that is going to be run in the USA today. Show some support for the fillibuster!

http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/usatoday.php

[Kilmer17]

It's got as much Constitutional validity as the Dems stalling tactics.

Opposing it means you oppose the Constitution.

[Funkyalligator]

Fillibusters....have long been a part of congress so why should the republicans railroad through rule changes so they can put religious nuts in the courts...

[Kilmer17]

The "nuclear option" has always existed as well.

Goose- Gander.

[Funkyalligator]

Fillibusters have been used by both sides for one side to decide that they don't like it and use their majority to push through rule changes so they can pack the courts is absurd.....the Republicans have already made rule changes that benefit themselves....it soon becomes tyranny if the minority isn't allowed to prevent the majority from doing what it wants all the time......if they push through this "nuclear option" it just shows how power greedy they are...

[Ignatius J.]

Kilmer,

You are 100% right that what the repubs are doing in no way violates the constitution.

But you are 100% wrong that opposing this measure means opposing the constitution.

[Kilmer17]

And yet filibustering is NOT a power grab?

Cmon.

[Ignatius J.]

I think the bigger issue funky is that it's short sighted. It's a bad idea to remove checks from our government which have served us well in the past. Everything that happens on the hill is a power grab. I think it's silly to think that power grabbing is somehow a bad thing.

[Kilmer17]

Originally posted by Ignatius J.

Kilmer,

You are 100% right that what the repubs are doing in no way violates the constitution.

But you are 100% wrong that opposing this measure means opposing the constitution.

I was paraphrasing the Dems contention that what they are doing by denying a vote is Constituional, and that the GOP shouldnt oppose the Constitution (one of the bobble heads said this on one of the Sunday shows.

[Ignatius J.]

Do us all a favor and stop quoting idiots to support your arguments then.

[Funkyalligator]

No its a balance....204 out of 214 judges have been approved...the only ones that their are problems about are ones that hold extreme views.....

[Funkyalligator]

Well.....the Republicans have certainly been trying to consolidate their power and remove and checks against their power structure....look what has happend with Delay and the ethics committee...how many chairs of it have been removed because they are actually looking at ethics violations.....

[Kilmer17]

Good grief, if I did that we wouldnt be able to quote any politico.

Seriously. The Dems are doing something that has NEVER been done before. It's a dangerous precedent. If they want to ensure more moderate Judges (read, not prolife) are appointed, they should do a better job of getting elected. As it stands, what they are doing is stomping on the will of the people as determined by the majority.

And dont think the GOP wont do the EXACT SAME THING next time the roles are reversed. But they will be able to say they didnt start it.

[Kilmer17]

Originally posted by Funkyalligator

Well.....the Republicans have certainly been trying to consolidate their power and remove and checks against their power structure....look what has happend with Delay and the ethics committee...how many chairs of it have been removed because they are actually looking at ethics violations.....

Yeah, how dare the GOP ignore a rule the Dems never had in the first place.

rolleyes.

[Funkyalligator]

Nope...the Dems are doing something that has been going on for centuries...all though not written into the Constitution the fillibuster has long been part of the political process....I'm perfectly fine with the Republicans doing the same thing.....why shouldn't they.....this leads to moderate constitutionalists being put on the bench....not activist judges.....

[Kilmer17]

Name one time where a party Filibustered the appointment of a Federal Judge.

[Funkyalligator]

Can't think of one off hand but so what....

[Kilmer17]

So what? So it's important. It's NEVER happened. The filibuster rule is an important one when discussing legislation. But the Senate has a role to "advise and consent" for Judges. They should ALL get a vote if they make it out of committee. What the Dems are doing is trying to force their minority views on the majority.

[Ignatius J.]

nevermind.

[Cdowwe]

Seeing that this topic is just an argument between 3 members, Id say its one of the worst ones Ive seen.

[Kilmer17]

Originally posted by Ignatius J.

nevermind.

Because it's still wildly entertaining.

[Ignatius J.]

I'd have to agree cd.

I was just trying to lest people know this existed..... I didn't even want to have an argument since we've already had that thread....

[Funkyalligator]

Yup...no point....Kilmer can have his opinion and I can have mine.....but mine is set in reality and deals with what happens when roles are reversed......moderation which is what this leads to is a good thing.....

[Ignatius J.]

so funky, did you at least sign the petition?

[Kilmer17]

And only your side get's to determine what the definition of "moderate" is?

No thanks. Bush won, the GOP won the Senate. The Dems should debate, vote and take their losses like men (and women). And not play the "IF I dont get my way Im taking the ball and going home" game.