The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex

Is filibuster wrong (should the health care bills be allowed to pass on a straight majority vote), or did you mean 40 of your colleagues?

Filibustering is not wrong whatsoever and it is quite constitutional.

The "filibuster" of nominees, however, is typically done in committee by refusing to allow them to be voted on in committee, which prevents them from coming to the Senate floor for a vote. That is what I believe to be wrong. That being said, though, how is it that Shelby has the power to do that...I would suspect he isn't the committee chair nor do the republicans have the majority on that committee? I suppose I haven't read enough up on it.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

The "filibuster" of nominees, however, is typically done in committee by refusing to allow them to be voted on in committee, which prevents them from coming to the Senate floor for a vote.

That's incorrect. You can't filibuster in committee. All a hold is, is an announcement that should the Senate leadership attempt to bring a nominee (or anything else, holds aren't unique to nominations) to a floor for debate the person placing the hold will object to the unanimous consent decree which establishes the terms and duration of debate. In other words, the person placing the hold will filibuster creating a need for a vote on cloture which will require 60 votes to pass and add several days to the process for each nominee even if that happens.

As an example, Joseph Greenaway. Nominated by Obama to the Third Circuit on June 18, 2009. Passed out of committee unanimously on October 1, 2009. Still waiting to be brought to the floor of the full Senate due to an anonymous hold.

As another example, Jane Stranch. Nominated by Obama on October 21, 2009. Passed out of committee 15-4 on November 19, 2009. Still waiting to be brought to the floor of the full Senate due to an anonymous hold.

[scaeagles]

Right - I got the hold thing down after I read something and edited a post. However, it is also possible for a committee - such as the judicial committee - to hold up a vote with only a simple majority of the committee and not release the nominee for a vote. A committee chair can also refuse to schedule the nominee for a committee vote. This practice has been somewhat common. That's why I put the filibuster in the earlier post in quote. It's not a real filibuster, but is often more effective and allows a smaller group of senators, or even the committee chair, to stop a nominee from going to the floor.

I suppose I might need a government 101 class (maybe this is 200 level), but that's how I think it works frequently.

[Alex]

Quick correction, a rules change requires 67 votes (though some parliamentarians think there are ways around that).

[€uroMeinke]

So do the Republicans really think Sarah Palin is a contender? Or is that just a way to cover up the fact they already think Obama will be a 2-termer?

[Gemini Cricket]

'Family Guy' Actress Responds to Sarah Palin Criticism.

In my family we think laughing is good. My parents raised me to have a sense of humor and to live a normal life. My mother did not carry me around under her arm like a loaf of French bread the way former Governor Palin carries her son Trig around looking for sympathy and votes.

Palin just got served!


I think it's cool that McFarlane got an actress with Down Syndrome to play a character with DS.

I'm not a huge fan of the show, but does Palin need to respond to every little thing? I watched the episode because it ticked the Palins off. She's just helping Family Guy get viewers.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I don't think Sarah Palin thinks Sarah Palin's a contender at this point. That's why she's courting the Teabaggers, so she can claim that the reason she's not taken seriously in 2012 is because of the good-old-boy mentality of the two party system.

[scaeagles]

There was great controversy over the Tim Tebow Focus on the Family pro-life ad prior to it airing on during the SuperBowl. Whatever one thinks of the organization or the ad, I'm finding the response of the leadership of NOW to be absolutely hysterical. (by the way, I'm so paranoid now that I had to go check the Drudge Report to make sure there wasn't anything on his page about this.)

From this article -

NOW president Terry O'Neill said it glorified violence against women. "I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it," she said. "That's what comes across to me even more strongly than the anti-abortion message. I myself am a survivor of domestic violence, and I don't find it charming. I think CBS should be ashamed of itself."

Granted, this is not a common reaction, but come on....violence against women? Because a football player playfully tackles his mother????? How about something reasonable, like -

"I am so happy that the story of Tim Tebow turned out the way it did, as he is truly a remarkable young man. What I am concerned about, though, is that the full story involves a woman ignoring the advice of her doctor, and while it turned out this way, it's very possible that it might not have. I would encourage women to take the advice of their physicians for their own safety."

Even though I am prolife, I would hear that and say "that's a reasonable response". I don't know much about O'Neill, but if this common to her, those concerned about NOW might want to consider removing her.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

There was great controversy over the Tim Tebow Focus on the Family pro-life ad prior to it airing on during the SuperBowl. Whatever one thinks of the organization or the ad, I'm finding the response of the leadership of NOW to be absolutely hysterical. (by the way, I'm so paranoid now that I had to go check the Drudge Report to make sure there wasn't anything on his page about this.)
...snip...
"I am so happy that the story of Tim Tebow turned out the way it did, as he is truly a remarkable young man. What I am concerned about, though, is that the full story involves a woman ignoring the advice of her doctor, and while it turned out this way, it's very possible that it might not have. I would encourage women to take the advice of their physicians for their own safety."

Yeah, some groups definitely go overboard with the freaking out. I'm not above criticizing groups just because I agree with their overall goals and calling the mom-tackle violence against women is too much.

I'm not pleased with the ad, and I think the super bowl is somehow not the right place. Can't state the logic for that, just a feeling that it's somehow not right.

And I do dislike the implication that all women should ignore the advice of their docs and risk death because it worked out pretty well in this one case. This is an issue where the stories that get told are the ones for whom it worked out- the dead don't get their stories told. It's a self-selecting bias.

[Alex]

I'd agree it is a stupid response.

It is also probably the first time since Pee Wee that Tim Tebow has tackled someone.