- #1
ComputerGeek
- 383
- 0
What should the Dems do?
I vote unsure for those reasons.loseyourname said:A politician should do what his conscience dictates. I haven't followed these hearings very thoroughly, so I don't have any personal opinion on whether Alito will make a good justice, but if some senator honestly believes in his heart of hearts that confirming him will do irreparable harm to the nation and voting against him isn't enough, then I suppose that senator should filibuster.
As a minority, if the majority threatens to strip you of the filibuster, then it is already stripped from you. At that point you must consider the future and hope that there will be balance of power once more.ComputerGeek said:What should the Dems do?
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/i/filibuster_2.htmUS Senate : Filibuster
From Kathy Gill,
Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events.
Senate Procedures
Republicans and Democrats alike have argued in favor or against the filibuster, depending upon their position (majority or minority).
----------
US Senate Republican leadership has publicly decried Democrat efforts to block Presidential nominations that require Senate approval. Senate leadership threatens to invoke a "nuclear option" which would ban the minority from blocking judicial nominees.
----------
The "nuclear option" which Republican leaders are threatening is actually a series of steps designed to bypass the two-thirds vote requirement to change rules.
----------
Involving both the President and the Senate in the nomination process was a compromise hammered out at the Constitutional Convention. CRS notes that "Those who defend the use of filibusters against nominations note that one of the dominant themes during debates on the Constitution was how to protect the rights of the minority, something a filibuster is designed to do."
Congressional scholars argue that a filibuster of a judicial nominee is critical because it ensures that a judge does not have an ideological bent -- helping ensure the independence of the judiciary as the third branch of government. It prevents a President from appointing partisan or ideological nominees when he and Senate leadership are from the same party.
Moreover, judges are appointed for life, so the decision to appoint a judge has long ramifications. The average tenure of a federal judge today is 24 years (that's four Senate terms, six Presidential terms or 12 House terms).
----------
…However, the filibuster is only one way that Senators can block a vote. For example, Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (UT) bottled Clinton judicial nominees "in committee" -- effectively denying them a vote on the Senate floor. The Judiciary Committee uses "blue slips" to obtain home state Senator opinion on the nominee; Hatch required two yes votes for Clinton nominees, but only one for Bush.
Dawguard said:The poll has skewed options. The second option, (No, he is well qualified and that is all teh senate should care about) is contrasted to the first and implies that, even though he is qualified he is not good for the country. Perhaps I'm reading to much into this, but it should say, No, he is not a threat to anything in the country. This would have been my choice.
ComputerGeek said:The ONLY thing that Alito supporters have said about him is that he is a well qualified judge based on his credentials. that is all they have to support him.
Qualifications in terms of experience, intelligence, etc., are the minimum expectation. That a conservative president nominates a conservative judge is also to be expected. Is Alito a threat to the country? If he is so conservative that he is an ideologue outside the mainstream, yes he is a threat and should not be appointed for life on the Supreme Court. What I have read indicates he therefore is not an appropriate candidate.Dawguard said:Then you obviously haven't listened to many of his supporters. Sure, you've got the big-name supporters who speak in bumper-sticker talk and sound bites: in this instance you're right. However, they don't represent all of his supporters, and are a relatively small number. I suggest you research it a little bit more before making such a sweeping statement.
Compare that to:SOS2008 said:Qualifications in terms of experience, intelligence, etc., are the minimum expectation. That a conservative president nominates a conservative judge is also to be expected. Is Alito a threat to the country? If he is so conservative that he is an ideologue outside the mainstream, yes he is a threat and should not be appointed for life on the Supreme Court. What I have read indicates he therefore is not an appropriate candidate.
That depends. I think they won't filibuster, but it could still be a legitimate strategy even if it generated some short term negatives.russ_watters said:Something I didn't go into before - the purely political ramifications of a filibuster:
Even if Dems think that Alito should not be confirmed, blocking his confirmation would have negative political consequences for them unless they can convince the public that he's so far off in right field that it is worth the filibuster. Otherwise it just looks like partisan bellyaching and obstructionism. So the purpose of the hearings (to the dems) is to try to generate controversy on which to base a block. Since they have failed to generate that controversy, the negative ramifications of blocking a candidate that few people have serious problems with will not be worth it.
ComputerGeek said:What should the Dems do?
Yes, let's do it.phcatlantis said:Filibuster. I want to see the nuclear option play out.
BobG said:That means the "nuclear option" is a ticking bomb for most Republicans. It would be stupid to utilize it in a year where they have the chance of becoming the minority. If extremist Democrats ever wanted to finally see their goals realized, a filibuster that spurs the "nuclear option" immediately before Democrats take over the majority is their dream come true.
SOS2008 said:Yes, let's do it.
Not planning to be around after 2008?phcatlantis said:Yes, let's. Anyone want to take bets on whether the Dems will reclaim the House? Even so, the GOP still controls the White House until 2008? Anyone want to take bets on whether the Dems secure a veto-proof majority in either House? Both?
In other words, the public don't know what they're talking about. They're delibertaly turning a blind eye to the truth. You few intellegent people, you elite group, you alone understand what is really going on. Since the people are to stupid to be trusted I guess we should abandon democracy: the majority can't possibly understand enough to run a country. No, we're all just dumb, ignorant idiots. We should let you guys do whatever you want since we obviously don't have the mental capabilities you do.SOS2008 said:In regard to public opinion, I ask Dawguard – Do you think most Americans have even a minimal understanding of parliamentary procedure, and how the filibuster tradition in the Senate is important to retain checks and balances, etc.? Because I very much doubt they do—they have been bombarded with propaganda and are tired of hearing about controversy in the news.
Don't put words in my mouth. Americans are tired of the conflict and want to move on to other matters, like gas prices or what ever is an obvious problem for them at the moment.Dawguard said:In other words, the public don't know what they're talking about. They're delibertaly turning a blind eye to the truth. You few intellegent people, you elite group, you alone understand what is really going on. Since the people are to stupid to be trusted I guess we should abandon democracy: the majority can't possibly understand enough to run a country. No, we're all just dumb, ignorant idiots. We should let you guys do whatever you want since we obviously don't have the mental capabilities you do.
Also, in regard to the right being extremist and corupting the courts, tilting it far out of the mainstream, I ask you one question. What of Briar, Ginsburg, Souter and the other liberal judges? I suppose you say that they're all in the mainstream, and it's only the conservitives that are extreme. After all, who could ever imagine an extreme liberal? Why, they don't exist, since they are all smart, fair-minded, intellegent people. No, its only those horrible religious people who can ever be extreme!
BobG said:Not planning to be around after 2008?
The point is that it would be short sighted for Republicans to push for a tool that's only guaranteed to work for them for a year or two. Regardless of how the judicial vote turns out, the "Gang of fourteen" did a good thing by short-circuiting it last summer.phcatlantis said:Not bothering to predict 2008. No incumbants, strong potential GOP field, and a lot can change in two years.
SOS2008 said:As for the religious right, may I ask why religion is being mixed into government? The religious right is more than willing to plow under separation of church and state for their holy grail of making abortion illegal. Here a blind eye is turned.
SOS2008 said:As for the religious right, may I ask why religion is being mixed into government?
ComputerGeek said:Hail Grand Iatolah Robertson
Ah thanks I will make sure to correct that.phcatlantis said:"Ayatollah," and yes, Robertson is a learned Christian.
ComputerGeek said:and you know what I meant. I was striking on the emotional response that Americans have to words used to describe holy men in Islam. Heck, if you listen to the crap that comes from Robertson's mouth it is almost exactly the kind of crap you hear out of the religious leaders of Islam.
Sure they are, since things like gas prices are extremely important. They're sick and tired of being told how horrible everything is, and that we're loosing our country when all they see is life continuing on as normal.SOS2008 said:Americans are tired of the conflict and want to move on to other matters, like gas prices or what ever is an obvious problem for them at the moment.
Perhaps I have more faith in the public then you do. I'm not saying their political genuises, but they aren't stupid. Most know what the filibuster is and how it works. As for propaganda, I think you're dead wrong. The media is not controlled by one person or group. You've got conservative radio, liberal radio, Fox News, CNN, not to mention the internet where pretty much everything is available. No, I don't think the country is getting propagandized. People can just turn on CSPAN and watch the entire procceedings live without any editorialising.SOS2008 said:So skip the rant–-Do you believe most Americans understand the filibuster versus the nuclear option, and how this is important in view of our history and basic premises of checks and balances? They might if they were interested in it, and if they were given real information instead of propaganda.
Religion isn't being mixed into government. It is an illusion, nothing more. Show me one instance, give me proof and I will believe you. Turn my blind eye to the truth. I don't think you can. However much you might hate the religious right you have to understand that they aren't really a threat. Sure, Pat Roberston is a git and a moron, but what harm has he done? He might rant and rave all day long, but isn't that just free speech? Can't anyone do the same thing on any issue? He's got no political power, no more then Jesse Jackson or Al Sharptin. Even with Alito in the supreme court the numbers will still be five liberals to four conservatives, so how's the religious right going to corupt the country when they're still outnumbered?SOS2008 said:As for the religious right, may I ask why religion is being mixed into government? The religious right is more than willing to plow under separation of church and state for their holy grail of making abortion illegal. Here a blind eye is turned.
Sure, he's called for the Naziesque destruction of the Jews, the anhiliation of every infidel on the planet and the murder of innocent children. I'm sure he'd like nothing better then to send fourteen year old children into market places with bombs strapped onto their back. Yeah, he's just like the extreme muslim terrorists, isn't he?ComputerGeek said:and you know what I meant. I was striking on the emotional response that Americans have to words used to describe holy men in Islam. Heck, if you listen to the crap that comes from Robertson's mouth it is almost exactly the kind of crap you hear out of the religious leaders of Islam.
Dawguard said:Sure, he's called for the Naziesque destruction of the Jews, the anhiliation of every infidel on the planet and the murder of innocent children. I'm sure he'd like nothing better then to send fourteen year old children into market places with bombs strapped onto their back. Yeah, he's just like the extreme muslim terrorists, isn't he?
ComputerGeek said:Almost... he has called for the death of all Muslims as they are Satan's followers...
...he has called for the murder of foreign leaders...
He has said that God will destroy cities in the US because they do not teach ID in their schools.
He owns Diamond mines that work people to death...
No, he does not need to strap bombs on people because he has the power to influence things without resorting to such atrocities.
Temper tantrum? :rofl:phcatlantis said:"Religion...mixed into government" is a pretty ambiguous statement, one I doubt the religious right would accept as a description of their aims without clarity of definition and severe qualification. Insofar as the religious right sees Establishment clause issues differently from you, I imagine its because they feel that is the best path, socially, politically and legally, for the country. On the other hand, don't you think random temper tantrums over your disagreements with conservatives deserve their own thread?