When you don't get your way change the rules!
 

AKA GOP wants to end Fillabusters in Judicial hearings

Is it just me or do I see a reoccuring trend with the current administration?

Eh politics as usual, grab as much power as you can and try to solidify it - Republican Democrat it doesn't matter, they both use the same strategies.

You need to do more research before getting all ticked off- it was the DEMS who changed the rules, the GOP wants to put them BACK as they were for almost 200 years. It never used to require a super majority to pass a judicial nominee through the system- that was a rule change- I believe it was Byrd who pushed it through. A nominee should require only a simple majority (by Constitutional law) and the Dems blocking this process by threatening fillibusters that never occur and whining about rule changing are being dishonest and hypocritical.

The process that will be pursued is completely Constitutional. The founders intended the Senate to "advise and consent" on nominees and vote with a simple majority, not a super majority.

Interestingly, Nancy Pelosi admitted that the other day in something I heard on the radio - have no link to a transcript. She basically said that since these judges are life time appointments, they should have to have a super majority vote. Well, if that's what you think, fine - change the Constitution. It isn't how the Constitution is currently written.

Thank you Leo!

Howzabout the way the GOP changed the rules to cover Tom DeLay's unethical ass? Do ya'll Repubs have a defense for that?

Yeah- and when you lose the argument change the subject. :rolleyes: LOL

No. But I don't believe that is the subject of the OP. Sac - it is beneath you to change the subject of the OP, and in fact I believe you have oft chastized others for doing it.

We can play the game all day of unethical politicians and attempts to cover them. lLike Barney Frank's boyfriend running a brothel from his home. How about John "money in politics is bad" McCain getting 200K from a cable company he went to bat for recently? The unethical politician is omnipresent regardless of party affiliation, and the attempt to cover is typically there as well. Is it right? No. But it is an unfortunate fact of life.

I thought we were talking about changing the rules?

Alright - I can see it that way. Consider my chastizement officially purged. I saw the OP more as to a single issue, being the Senate votes on judges.

As to the specific point addressed in the OP, I find it all to be disgusting. If my memory serves, the Repubs were pissed about Bork so they blocked Clinton at every turn. The Dems answered by, wrongly, changing the rules to benefit them. Now the GOP, wrongly, is changing the rules back 'cause it benefits them.

It all sucks eggs.

My memory is not what it used to be....but what judicial nominations were blocked during the Clinton years?

I recall Zoe Baird, but she wasn't for a judgeship, and ethical concerns caused Clinton to pull her nommination.....I think.

But I honestly can't think of continuous blocking of any appointee.

Maybe that should read "attempted to block Clinton at every turn"? My memory is also a bit faulty -- it feels to me as if the Bush years have lasted an eternity.

I fail to see how it is wrong to go back to the Constitutional Rules that were in place forever before the Dems changed it to suit them.

But naturally- if you want to continue to allow your dems to be obstructionst hypocrites, please, do so. And then sit back and enjoy the results in 2006.

It's not wrong to keep, or return to, the rules put in place by the Constitution. *cough* gay marriage *cough*.

I just question that they'd be all fired up to change the rules back if the current rules benefitted them.

I gotta go with Leo and Cas on this one.

Did it just get really quiet in here??

:eek: :eek:

Oh my god- the earth just shifted rotation! ;)

LOL

Maybe one day we'll all be on the same boards when things swing around for the dems to be in power. I assure you I can be just as hard on them.

Oh, by then we will be much much older and wiser, hell, you'll be conservative by then. :p

(staring ahead with a blank stare) Blink.........blink........blink........

No - not surprised. I'm only surprised when people don't agree with me. :)

Pfft If older and wiser comes as a matched set, I've already got both of them on you, you young whippersnapper.

Now where did I put my epson salts. Oh, it's over here by the heating pad.

tish tosh old man- I use a heating pad daily. :p and you don't want epson salts, you want a swedish massage. :D

Hmmm

*Scrooge is lost in thinking about getting a massage from a tall blonde swede*

One of the reasons I was looking forward to Kerry winning (besides the obvious 13,424 reasons) was so people here could see what a non-partisan bitcher and moaner I can be. Hell, in this thread alone, I took the Dems to task for changing the rules to suit them. But I still got no love from the neo-cons.



Hahaha....you said hard on.

I'm tall, danish, but not quite your type :p

Well, that and the whole covering up your red hair thing. That's a crime I may never get over ;)

Nephy's a redhead......and a conservative.....hmmm.......

So, uh, Nephy.....where in CO do you live exactly? ;)

Scrooge dear- that pic you saw was 2003- my hair is almost totally grown out and I have not touched a thing. I need to get a new pic for you.

Leo- you're married, behave! I have a better chance with the gay guy! :)

I fear this is all too true. I still stand behind most Republican ideas, but since they have gained power some of their strategies seem all too similar to what I used to critizize the dems for doing.