The issue that seems to be getting lost in this debate is that the Senate is, by design, NOT a majoritarian institution.

The House is the more (but not purely) majoritarian element of Congress with representation proportional to population.

The Senate, with its fixed representation per state (regardless of size), was intended from it inception to be a moderating influence - hence the longer 6 year terms (compared to 2 year terms for representatives).

In a purely majoritarian Congress (Senate or House), any party controlling 51% of the seats would be able to control 100% of the Agenda. Not only was this not intended in the design of the U.S. government, it is antithetical to a healthy democracy (think: rule of mob).

whew...back to the good ol' 1.6 party system.

Ajakk:

Why is it that Democrats avoid noting that every one of the judges that they have filibustered have been appeals court judges? The fact that they have not filibustered any of the district court judges shows where the stakes are.

First, the courts can function even with judicial vacancies. Judges do very little of the legal legwork - most of the legal research is done by teams of clerks and lawyers.

Second, any logjamming crisis is likely inevitable given that conservatives seem to have little better to do than express their hatred towards the courts. If their inflammatory rhetoric doesn't encourage some nutbags to knock off a few judges, the attempts by Republicans in Congress to cut judicial budgets will likely cause problems.

Third, the biggest problems are actually at district courts due in part to worthless bulk lawsuits. The MPAA, RIAA, DirectTV have no remorse at filing thousands of federal lawsuits at a time. Not to mention, the "class action reform" that will essentially burden district courts with hundreds of lawsuits will do no better.

So quit whining. The Dems gave Bush all the personnel necessary to keep the judiciary running.

I'm a Republican. I think the filibuster is retarded. I thought the filibuster was retarded when Clinton was President and it was the Republicans using the filibuster.

And I'm pretty tired of being told what I "would" want if the Democrats were in charge. The filibuster is just a stupid tradition, plain & simple. It's not the Will of the Founding Fathers certain people keep saying it is; it's a bastardization. Anybody in office who says outright, or for that matter even implies that the filibuster was a mechanism intentionally put into our government back in Day One, should be impeached and convicted and barred from holding any position of public trust, forever, for lying.

2005-05-23 11:11:05 PM Lehk

From their FAQ:

...and eliminating laws that stifle the economy...

Which works out, in the real world, to the party wholeheartedly supporting the corporations who are funding/supporting/encouraging most of the secular authoritarianism that abounds in our government in the last couple decades.

The market is inherently Totalitarian. I believe that our society should not be totalitarian, so I think that there should be some, small government regulation of market players. Libertarian party philosophy does not agree on this point.

/Economic moderate

Why are the only 2 political parties in the United States?

You wouldn't accept 2 choices for a vehicle to purchase, why would you accept it for your choice of government?

Party politics has got to be the stupidest idea ever contrived.

McCain, Warner, Graham, Chaffee, Collins, Snowe, and DeWine

These people have made a huge mistake. I suspect a couple of them will flake on this agreement almost as fast as the dems. Email is a biatch.
The MINORITY now has the power to dictate judicial appointments. What freakish bizarro-world are we living in?
I wish I could find hope in the prospect of a 60-40 senate, but I can't. What good is winning the elections, if the cost is electing rinos?
Can I vote for Jack Bauer?

Why are the only 2 political parties in the United States?

There are 4 recognized by the CIA, however, the libertarians and greens combined make up less than one percent.

So the Democrats didn't have the votes to overcome a Republican filibuster, so they changed to rules so they had enough votes. Why are the exact same people now acting like this is the most vile, evil power grab ever? Is it not the same thing?

Actually, no. It isn't.

In 1975, the rule change to change the number of votes for cloture was passed. Being that the Senate is a continuous body (which retains two-thirds of it's previous membership each new session, rule changes require a two-thirds majority. That's how the rule was changed in 1975.

In 2005, Bill Frist voted on the Senate Rules normally, with one exception. In a highly unusual move, he lodged an objection to the cloture rule which remained unresolved. This was his "wiggle room" with the rules.

Now, he threatened to pass a point of order (which unlike the 1975 change only requires a simple majority) to change the rules in the middle of the game. He would have had to steamroll the Senate Parliamentarian, who would have informed the Senate that this was against the rules. Clever trick, huh?

//If Frist were a baseball player, he'd be threatening a loophole that will allow him to run across the infield from first base, directly to third, right over the pitcher's mound, even bulldozing the pitcher if necessary. When the ump objects, he'll overrule the ump. That's how ball was being played here. It's that absurd.

"Party politics has got to be the stupidest idea ever contrived."


Agreed...

The FEC must die...

PopeBenedictXVI:

There are 4 recognized by the CIA, however, the libertarians and greens combined make up less than one percent.

So, why should an agency tasked with spying on foreign powers be an authority on "official" domestic political parties?

"Party politics has got to be the stupidest idea ever contrived."

Well, the way they do it in Japan's pretty good. Namely, they have 5-10 major ones going at once, they constantly change, get formed and die, and nobody has enough time to get radical enough to any one side. I liken it to alliances on Survivor.

"Why are the only 2 political parties in the United States?
You wouldn't accept 2 choices for a vehicle to purchase, why would you accept it for your choice of government?"

It sort of works, in the long run. Just having two political parties forces a lot of compromise and stifles any BIG extremist policies. I don't like having only two choices when I vote. But, I know that if the "crazies" have too much off a say in the political process everything will go to crap (and that goes for right and left wing crazies).

/A pragmatic moderate hoping the country maintains some sense of sanity.

ironically, if John F. Kennedy were alive today - he'd be a neo-con...

1. Huge War Hawk - he beat Nixon because people thought Nixon was too soft on defense.

2. Huge Tax Cut'r

edverb

I'm not arguing with you here, merely seeking information. The sources I've read have said that the 1975 rules change was implemented by a simple majority, a 56 - 27 vote.

Can you cite a source to the contrary?

If this is a compromise, it would entail a change in the rules for a filibuster in exchange for stopping some of the current filibusters. However, it says that filibusters will only be used in "extraordinary circumstances". If 10 out of 218, 4.59%, is not "extraordinary circumstances," then what is??? This "compromise" just gave Republicans what they wanted, without making them lose the respect of the public, made Democrats look weak, and is vague enough that the majority party will be able to kill a filibuster at any time in the future by saying that a situation does not constitute "extraordinary circumstances" and/or declaring the deal null and void. Regardless, I still need someone to explain to me why Frist is so against a tool that he used and how 4.59% is too big to be considered "extraordinary circumstances"...

edverb: //If Frist were a baseball player, he'd be blah, blah, blah.

If Reid were a baseball player, he'd lay mines along the basepaths. Then he'd claim that, since the rules don't expressly forbid mines, players objecting to their use were somehow radical. Then he would probably add a personal insult with no basis in realty.

Sang-Froid666:

Regardless, I still need someone to explain to me why Frist is so against a tool that he used and how 4.59% is too big to be considered "extraordinary circumstances"...

He was for it before he was against it.

Dr_Professional:

In 1975 the Senators changed the filibuster requirement from 67 votes to 60, after concluding that it only takes a simple majority of Senators to change the rules governing their proceedings.

Please, someone tell me how I'm taking this out of context or something.

1. In '75, it waws at the start of a 'new' Senate; which is the only time you are allowed to change rules.

2. It was aimed at changing the rules, not just doing an end run around them for one thing. (Remember how when congress made the Schiavo Law, and the judge ruled that it probably wasnt constitutional? same here)

3. The nuclear option goes around the Constitution by breaking other rules to let the Vice President rule that the constitution gives him the power to cut off debate and hold a vote when the business is the confirmation of judges. That didn't happen in '75.

Son of Thunder

h to the 'ojo:

After what happened in parliament last week, no Canadian has any place mouthing off about US party politics.


By no means do I think Canada has the best system as evidenced by the shameful way our parliament has been working recently.

I am not against voting coalition type things where people who share similar ideology support each other in an election what I don't like is voting for a corporation in effect where party lines dictate the vote and they become so powerful they can muscle out others.

I would like to see a system where I can elect a person who will use their honest, impartial perspective to vote and work on matters for my election riding's best interest and for the greater good of the city/province/country. Whenever an election comes around you don't here enough about what your candidate thinks, well because it doesn't matter what they think. It's what their party tells them to think/do.

That way you can have a representative market style government that is not crippled by minority coalition governments.

Dang, I was hoping for a more disasterous, government destroying outcome. This decline and fall stuff isn't interesting at all.

I'm not asking for that much. All I really want is a sudden governmental collapse into civil war.

I'm not arguing with you here, merely seeking information. The sources I've read have said that the 1975 rules change was implemented by a simple majority, a 56 - 27 vote.

I just learned something. You are correct, the final vote was 56-27. My mistake.

Actually, a multiparty system works to promote compromise while dealing more directly with the interests of the people. Parties must form alliances to get legislation passed- a sort of you do for me and I do for you relationship. However, radical or extreme legislation from one special interest party (ex. The French National Front) will be met with sufficient opposition (One party does not depend on permanent alliances, whereas a two party system allows for cohesion of interests that may even contradict Ex. pro-life v. pro-death penalty.)

leathermidget:

Which works out, in the real world, to the party wholeheartedly supporting the corporations who are funding/supporting/encouraging most of the secular authoritarianism that abounds in our government in the last couple decades.

The market is inherently Totalitarian. I believe that our society should not be totalitarian, so I think that there should be some, small government regulation of market players. Libertarian party philosophy does not agree on this point.


How is the market inherantly totalitarian? how would eliminating corporate welfare and other laws that unfairly dump buckets of taxpayer dollars into the hands of corporations totalitarian.

I suggest you ignore what the D's and R's say and read a bit more from the Issues Page

Maybe we should get rid of party afiliations. Then, people will have to actually look into the people they vote for rather than saying 'i'm a democrat." or "I'm a republican"

of course it wouldn't work but ideally it'd be for the best.

Thanks LocalCynic, but i know there is some Republican-lifer here who can explain the other part of it to me.
I mean, yes Frist is a hypocrite, and yes he comes from a party that not only is criticizing things it used to do, but in doing so it is doing things that it criticized (i.e. flip-flopping).
But i still want someone to explain to me what "extraordinary circumstances" are and how they differ from the way the filibuster is currently used...

How can any Republican with any sense of how and why our government works the way it does be upset about this? Oh, wait, I think I just answered my question. BTW, I'm not a Democrat.

Everybody who comments in this thread (except for me of course) is an idiot.

If I were a senator, I wouldn't vote for anybody who considered his religion more important than the law he was meant to interpret.

marsupial, I was hoping for that too, because it would be amusing, and because we might have the chance to start over and maybe stop all the partisan squabbling at some point...

BillCosby

So you'll be cool with things if the Republicans in '06 change the rules by simple majority to implement the rules changes they now seek? Because that would be *exactly* the same instead of just *pretty much* the same.

I dunno, this whole thing just seems like "You suck because you're X!" "No, you suck because you're Y!"

songbird

Interesting Fact of the Day:
Senator Robert Kleagle Byrd (D-WV) has never voted for a black man for the Supreme Court although he has had two opportunities.

I LOVE this. I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE when Republicans try to make "Democrats are the party of racism!!" arguments. It's so so so fundamentally stupid it really just makes me laugh out loud.

Songbird, guess what? Al Gore got about 85% of the black vote. John Kerry got about 90%. The only black Senator is a liberal Democrat. Just quit while you're ahead, ok?

PopeBenedictXVI

Why are the only 2 political parties in the United States?

There are 4 recognized by the CIA, however, the libertarians and greens combined make up less than one percent.


Thanks. I knew Ross Perot had been running for president way back when but I think it must have to do with some public funding for the parties that you need a minimum number of votes before you qualify. It seems like people on FARK favour the libertarian party at least, although I have no idea as to the extent how many candidates exist and at which levels.

I just figured there would have been some party developed by someone with bags of money that could meet the needs of America's voters and their own better than today's parties do. After all America does have groups of people extremely rich relative to the rest of their population and with that comes power and influence (and the girl if your name's Tony Montana.)

wadems

You have far more than two choices. You have three...YAY!
Unfortunatly, there is very little support for the Green Party, which I vote for in every election.

Too bad no boobies seceded from the American political view and ran for president. They would probably win by a landslide if they could intigrate religion, science, foreign affairs, and budgeting. But than again, what politician wouldn't?

Sang-Froid666:

But i still want someone to explain to me what "extraordinary circumstances" are and how they differ from the way the filibuster is currently used...

I doubt anyone can. It's not like that's a term of art - the "compromise" was written in an intentionally vague fashion because both parties will want to hold it over the other's head. The debate isn't going to end here, no doubt "extraordinary circumstances" is going to be the pundit's favorite talking point buzzword for way too long.

Also, don't forget that the 7 members of each party bucked their party caucus on this one. They need some leeway to ensure that there's no backlash against them from within their party.

Umm, all this does is push the big confrontation back a few months until there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court. When the President nominates a pro-lifer to the SCOTUS, Dems will consider that "extraordinary circumstances" and we'll be right back where we were.

You ever wonder if all the people in government actually do get along?

And what if their only objective was to destroy the government? Maybe by collectively undermining the trust the populace has in it?

It's like reverse psychology, vote for me and I will make sure you won't want to vote for me again until my opposite does the same thing and lowers the bar even further.

2005-05-23 11:37:02 PM Lehk

How is the market inherently totalitarian?

To the victor go the spoils. Unrestrained capitalism (the corporate/authoritarian model), creates a situation where wealth and power consolidates. These wealth and power centers do all they can to protect that wealth. Democracy/Justice are not a concern.

How would eliminating corporate welfare and other laws that unfairly dump buckets of taxpayer dollars into the hands of corporations

unfortunately, that's not all the (L)s propose. Let's take just one issue, Social Security (http://www.lp.org/issues/social-security.shtml)


I'm sorry. I've talked to my great grandmother and understand what retirement was like before S.S. Government has a legitimate place in the market. It is legitimate because the goals of our nation, our society should be a complete clone of the goals of the marketplace. And in fact, I believe aren't.

I suggest you ignore what the D's and R's say and read a bit more from the Issues Page

I have, there was a time when I fervently believed in the Libertarian party-line, was a member. But as I learned more about economics and how economic theory (bot left and right wing) has worked out historically, I came to see that any extremist economic doctrine was a bad one.

Just as extremist Left-wing economic dogma through the 60's and 70s crippled us, in the 70s, so has extremist right-wing economic dogma throughout the 80s and 90s farked us over quite handily today.

/2 cents.

The thing that pisses me off is that this debate has been raging in the media for a while and both sides still haven't agreed to even the facts of the history of the filibuster. I mean, there is an actual number of judges who have been filibustered. There is a number of judicial nominations killed in committee, but people who just watch mainstream media are ignorant of the basic facts. Also, they seem to be blissfully ignorant as long as their understanding of the facts supports their desired result.

The Republicans who led this compromise and are looking to run for Prez in '08 (McCain) are going to get hammered by the religious right in the primaries.

Diabolic: Too bad no boobies seceded from the American political view and ran for president.

Classic. Instant classic.

Whoopsies!

2005-05-23 11:51:13 PM leathermidget
.....It is legitimate because the goals of our nation, our society should NOT be a complete clone of the goals of the marketplace.

"I'm not arguing with you here, merely seeking information. The sources I've read have said that the 1975 rules change was implemented by a simple majority, a 56 - 27 vote."

Edverb, what is this source of yours? I am curious in light of a law review article I'd like to share.

I hear a lot of people telling me the filibuster "forces debate". Really and truly? What kind of high-falutin' debate have we been oh so blessed with in the history of the filibuster?

Hey I got an idea. I'll put together a millionaire's club. I'll get a hundred of 'em, pay them an ENORMOUS salary EACH -- out of YOUR POCKET. And I'll make sure that to earn this salary they sit around and do precisely NUTHIN'.

I'll call it a "filibuster".

Songbird:

The difference this time is that these candidates have made it to the floor and are being prevented from receiving a vote.

I hope you have a better distinction than that. I've heard it over and over, though, so I don't think you do. What's the difference there? One parliamentary procedure is ok (dumping them in committee) and one is unspeakable (filibuster)...ok, that's just a lame argument.

DOSman:

When the President nominates a pro-lifer to the SCOTUS, Dems will consider that "extraordinary circumstances" and we'll be right back where we were.

Exactly. The language of this agreement is so vague, it's near meaningless.
But, short-term, it's the Republicans who caved. This is because we are now willing to support people whose only Conservative bona fides are votes for tax cuts.

this wasn't a compromise, the dems rolled over on the nominees now and as soon as bush decides to nominate another possibly even worse judge and then when the dems say this is the extreme situation of the deal. the republicans will claim the democrats broke the deal, and coincidently this will happen at some time when the republicans polls are up.

god i hate parties, what kind of retard can't think independantly.

wow i need to learn how to speak english

micah476:

One parliamentary procedure is ok (dumping them in committee) and one is unspeakable (filibuster)...ok, that's just a lame argument.

Being that one requires an elected majority, and one requires a guy who likes to talk, I mean threaten to talk, I'd say yes. These are completely different measures.

The purpose of the Senate is to be a more deliberative body than the house (where majority rules). The Senate needs to wrangle and get a larger majority to agree, thereby (in theory) making sure that more representatives think a given policy/candidate are what their constituents want.

And NO president should get "everyone they want" for judges. They put up candidates, and the Senate gives thumbs up or thumbs down. I don't want to live in a country where a president of any ideology gets to pack the courts with whoever he thinks reflects his views to a "T."