If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Senate reaches deal allowing some nominations to proceed while preserving the filibuster   (foxnews.com) divider line 351
    More: Advice  
•       •       •

3752 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 May 2005 at 10:33 PM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



351 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-05-23 07:57:14 PM  
How can this be true? Put on CSPAN2 or watch the live online stream. This debate is continuing right now! If a deal was reached during the current speaker's time, then it should be announced very soon.
 
2005-05-23 08:08:11 PM  
As a Republican, I hope its not true. As a citizen of the USA, however, I really lost interest weeks ago.
 
2005-05-23 08:09:51 PM  
nekom: As a Republican, I hope its not true.

Just out of curiosity, do you honestly think your guys are going to be in power forever? Are people today that short-sighted?
 
2005-05-23 08:14:05 PM  
Here is an idea Dems, let the farking vote go to the floor, just like it has been done for over 200 years. Let them get a fair up or down vote. Your idiotic filibuster isn't getting them to the point that they deserve.

Morons.
 
2005-05-23 08:16:41 PM  
If this is true, I'm very glad to hear it. Its good to see reason win out over the extremists.

MrBigglesworth:

Here is an idea Dems, let the farking vote go to the floor, just like it has been done for over 200 years. Let them get a fair up or down vote. Your idiotic filibuster isn't getting them to the point that they deserve.

This hasn't exactly been the first time a filibuster has ever been used. Both parties have used the process to good effect for many years. Its a very good way that the minority can check and balance the majority, to prevent the majority from just rubber stamping things like these.

I for one welcome our new moderate overlords.
 
2005-05-23 08:20:09 PM  
Long live the moderates.
 
2005-05-23 08:24:19 PM  
MrBigglesworth

Here is an idea Dems, let the farking vote go to the floor, just like it has been done for over 200 years. Let them get a fair up or down vote. Your idiotic filibuster isn't getting them to the point that they deserve.

Morons.


I just couldn't help but notice how funny a statement like that is coming from someone called Mr. Bigglesworth.
 
2005-05-23 08:28:20 PM  
It's not news, it's FOXNEWS.com
 
2005-05-23 08:37:29 PM  
MrBigglesworth: let the farking vote go to the floor

You mean like when Conservative senator Strom Thurmond filibustered for over a day to block a farking CIVIL RIGHTS BILL?
 
2005-05-23 08:48:27 PM  
I'd say that Strom was... also... being a douche.
 
2005-05-23 08:51:30 PM  
Right, but calling it the Dems' idiotic filibuster is retarded. The Republicans have used it too. Bill motherfarking Frist has filibustered. If I recall correctly, they blocked 30 of Clinton's nominees compared to Bush's 10. Just sayin'.
 
2005-05-23 10:11:01 PM  
Any nomine that has majority support of the senate should recieve a vote, no matter the party affiliaton or party in contol. This compromise is complete and total bullshiat. If some of them are okay to pass now, then why the goddamn fillabuster in the first place, hmm? Did Priscilla Owens just become, ohhh not so bad now?

People can talk about checks and balances all the hell you want, but the way the federal goverment works is that each branch checks the other two. Not this minority can check the majority shiat in a body of congress. I hate to tell you but that is done through elections.

And if anyone thinks this is over, wait untill Rhenquist steps down. You want to talk about nuclear? The shiat will hit the fan about the Cheif Justice nominee.
 
2005-05-23 10:36:37 PM  
No nookular?
 
2005-05-23 10:36:41 PM  
You assholes saying that compromise is bad are exactly what is wrong with America these days. Sheesh.
 
2005-05-23 10:37:14 PM  
Why are Democrats so wimpy?
 
2005-05-23 10:37:24 PM  
"Advice" tag?

I believe it should be the "Advise and Consent" tag.
 
2005-05-23 10:37:53 PM  
The zealots on D.U. & FreeRepublic are both passing 24 pound kidney stones.
 
2005-05-23 10:38:04 PM  
What sort of would you like with this?
 
2005-05-23 10:38:08 PM  
Ha ha, Frist lost.
 
2005-05-23 10:38:40 PM  
jghiloni

Just out of curiosity, do you honestly think your guys are going to be in power forever? Are people today that short-sighted?


Yes.

Exhibit A: Iraq

Exhibit B: The Deficit
 
2005-05-23 10:38:50 PM  
2005-05-23 10:36:41 PM ProfessorGonad

You assholes saying that compromise is bad are exactly what is wrong with America these days. Sheesh.


No.

Ryan Seacrest is exactly what's wrong with America these days.
 
2005-05-23 10:39:22 PM  
Constitutional option my ass...

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2005/05/18/frist-implodes-on-senate-floor/

SEN. SCHUMER: Isnt it correct that on March 8, 2000, my colleague [Sen. Frist] voted to uphold the filibuster of Judge Richard Paez?

SEN. FRIST: The president, the um, in response, uh, the Paez nomination - well come back and discuss this further. Actually Id like to, and it really brings to what I believe - a point - and it really brings to, oddly, a point, what is the issue. The issue is we have leadership-led partisan filibusters that have, um, obstructed, not one nominee, but two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, in a routine way.
 
2005-05-23 10:39:54 PM  
Ok, I'm not getting into the argument here, but why the advice tag? Submitter got a loose scroll wheel or something?
 
2005-05-23 10:40:15 PM  
What a disaster for the party! We totally caved in.

We've been discussing this over at DU ever since the news was leaked, and the belief is that the Repuglicans got everything.

Oh, sure, 2 judges may be filibustered, Saad because he pissed off some people and I forget why the other will be, but the worse judges will slide right on. There is no way to paint a rosy picture out of this.

And if we ever filibuster in the future, the Reps will just say that we don't have a good reason and say we broke the deal. Then they will take away our right to filibuster anyways.

This sucks.

If the judges were considered too extreme yesterday, then they are still too extreme today. But we are caving in...
 
2005-05-23 10:40:40 PM  
a) "Advice"? What?

b) This is a loss for dems. Bad news to let these judges in. From the way it was worded on the news here tonight, anyhow, it sounds pretty bad.

c) The filibuster needs to stay. You republicans would be biatching and moaning day in and day out if the dems had a majority control and wanted to shove a bunch of pro-environment legislation through that would raise your taxes, and the GOP couldn't filibuster, wouldn't you...
 
2005-05-23 10:41:22 PM  
------------------
EatTheWorld
------------------

Great Post, this is not checks and balances.
I agree It is going to get crazy when Rhenquist retires.
 
2005-05-23 10:42:15 PM  
Bill Frist has proven that he is a dangerous radical who cannot respect the great traditions of this nation. The filibuster has a 200 year history. Did Bill Frist really think he knew better than the 1700+ senators who served before him?
 
2005-05-23 10:42:15 PM  
2wolves: The zealots on D.U. & FreeRepublic are both passing 24 pound kidney stones.

That means that this was a true compromise (for the present) if both sides are upset about it.

The door is open for a deja vu of this situation at a drop of a hat.
 
2005-05-23 10:42:28 PM  
That has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever read MrBigglesworth. You listen too much to neocon radio. There was a time when Reps were in the minority during Clinton and filibustered MORE nominees than the Dems have during Bush! Wow, that's just true ignorance, if you could have about 95% of what you wanted...you'd be a very happy man. The fact that Republicans are biatching about less than 10 nominees out of MORE THAN 210 is totally out of line.
 
2005-05-23 10:42:43 PM  
 
2005-05-23 10:42:58 PM  
As for Owens.... her getting a seat on that court will not change it a whit.
 
2005-05-23 10:43:26 PM  
*listen to too much
 
2005-05-23 10:44:12 PM  
Are people today that short-sighted?

Yes.
Exhibit A: Iraq
Exhibit B: The Deficit


Exhibit C: The last 5000 years or so of human history. Most of what came after the invention of the wheel shows the unmistakable hallmark of, "It seemed like a good idea at the time."
 
2005-05-23 10:44:12 PM  
Knew the BOFs would not stay up all night.
 
2005-05-23 10:44:17 PM  
Why are the radical Republicans against preserving our nation's political heritage??
 
2005-05-23 10:44:20 PM  
Isn't the fillibuster already limited? Can you fillibuster commitment of US troops? Can you fillibuster budget bills?

The answer is no. The Senate already has limits on the fillibuster. Limiting fillibusters of judicial nominees to appelate courts wouldn't exactly be a "nuclear option," despite how it has been portrayed. They were not talking about eliminating the fillibuster, just allowing a vote to go to the floor on a very small number of judicial nominees. This was VERY much misrepresented as some sort of fanatical abuse of power. It wasn't.

The Republicans played it wrong -- they should have made their objectives more clear in the court of public opinion. That's where they lost.
 
2005-05-23 10:44:24 PM  
So this is how democracy ....

to thunderous applause.

i forget the quote.

Sure rings true when filibusters can be dodged.

<<<<The issue is we have leadership-led partisan
<<<<filibusters that have, um, obstructed

That's the whole point, Einstein.
 
2005-05-23 10:44:28 PM  
2wolves: As for Owens.... her getting a seat on that court will not change it a whit.

Yeah but it still sucks that she's going to get a seat now. Friggin neocon Jesus freak.
 
2005-05-23 10:44:28 PM  
So, (hypothetical) if we have 51 Republicans and 49 Democrats, the democrats shouldn't be able to check the Republicans?

So, 49% of the population shouldn't have a voice? They should just abide by the 51%?

It stands as this: this has been done before- filibustering Judicial nominees. For the Republicans to point fingers at the Democrats, and for the idiot public to acutally listen to their drivel, is amazing. Just wait, motherfarkers. Just wait. When the Dem's are in power- and they will be, politics swing and shift, what's in is out and what's out is in -and they soak the Republicans to their goddamned toenails in their bukkake-cum-party, know what?

Fark it. Fark it. I don't care. It was asked, nay, begged for. So, when turn about comes, I'll laugh. Laugh at all of you.

.david
 
2005-05-23 10:44:30 PM  
ramblinwreck:

The fact that Republicans are biatching about less than 10 nominees out of MORE THAN 210 is totally out of line.

Most of this has been just show and bluster from the GOP to try to set themselves up for the real show this summer, with Supreme Court turnover.
 
2005-05-23 10:44:40 PM  
Ladies and germs, not much changed on this front. Simply putting off 'til tomorrow what they don't want to do today. Filibuster is still on the table, but so is the nuclear option. Nothing has changed except the time and date of the showdown.
 
2005-05-23 10:45:01 PM  
Fascinating...

A political thread that starts right off with the political flamewarring, completely bypassing the usual 25 rounds or so of people saying that a flamewar is about to start.
 
2005-05-23 10:45:42 PM  
The only reason Jesus Frist would want to end the fillibuster is if he was sure his party would always have complete control of government.

Now, why would he think that? Can anyone guess?

 
2005-05-23 10:45:56 PM  
It's funny how the Republicans have just recently decided to demand votes for all judicial nominations. When Clinton was president, the Republican majority blocked sixty of his nominees, as opposed to just ten blocked for Bush. Instead of the filibuster, the Republicans refused to give them a commitee vote, used the "blue slip" process to block them, or had several other means at their disposal. Once President Bush came to office, the Senate Republicans changed the rules, eliminating those means of blocking a nominee, leaving the filibuster as the only way for the minority to try to stop a nominee.
As someone else pointed out, Bill Frist has in fact voted against cloture in the past, so his newfound hatred of the filibuster is hypocritical at best.
If you're going to complain about the senate processes, at least take the time to learn them, and get the whole story.
 
2005-05-23 10:46:08 PM  
 
2005-05-23 10:46:18 PM  
I'm just glad this sordid affair is over for now. I can think of ways to waste time, and normally the senate can think of a few more, but this was a craptacular waste of time.

And for Republicans who think "every judge should get an up or down vote": You are stupid.

At no time in the history of the Senate has this been true, hundreds of nominees have been blocked one way or another.
 
2005-05-23 10:46:19 PM  
undflickertail

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1408993/posts

http://tinyurl.com/7mqcl (the D.U. linky)

Equal time and all that.
 
2005-05-23 10:47:12 PM  
So, 49% of the population shouldn't have a voice? They should just abide by the 51%?

Yes, this is called MOB RULE and is completely ANTITHETICAL to the notion of a REPUBLIC, which is what the Untied States is supposed to be.
 
2005-05-23 10:47:15 PM  
we beat those biatches!
/conservative
//what a game of chicken that was!
 
2005-05-23 10:47:28 PM  
Democrats: "You idiot moderates. None of these judges should be confirmed!"
Republicans: "You idiot moderates. Why are you preventing an up-or-down vote on some of these judges?"
Media: "You idiot moderates. We paid for blood!"

And in conclusion, I hate you all. Except the moderates.
 
Displayed 50 of 351 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report