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

BarTopDancer · 03-23-2005, 10:10 PM

AKA GOP wants to end Fillabusters in Judicial hearings

Quote:

Republicans, insisting that filibusters should not keep the Senate from voting on a judicial nominee, want to change the rules to stop the Democrats.

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

€uroMeinke · 03-23-2005, 10:16 PM

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.

Nephythys · 03-24-2005, 06:19 AM

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.

scaeagles · 03-24-2005, 06:49 AM

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.

Nephythys · 03-24-2005, 07:11 AM

Thank you Leo!

SacTown Chronic · 03-24-2005, 08:00 AM

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

Nephythys · 03-24-2005, 08:23 AM

Yeah- and when you lose the argument change the subject.

LOL

scaeagles · 03-24-2005, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

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

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.

SacTown Chronic · 03-24-2005, 08:30 AM

I thought we were talking about changing the rules?

scaeagles · 03-24-2005, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

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.

03-23-2005, 10:16 PM	#2
€uroMeinke L'Hédoniste Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: A.S.C.O.T. Posts: 8,671	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. __________________ I would believe only in a God that knows how to Dance. Friedrich Nietzsche
	Submit to Quotes

03-24-2005, 06:19 AM	#3
Nephythys Yeah, that's about it- Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: In a state of constant crap to get done Posts: 2,688	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.
	Submit to Quotes

03-24-2005, 06:49 AM	#4
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	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.
	Submit to Quotes

03-24-2005, 07:11 AM	#5
Nephythys Yeah, that's about it- Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: In a state of constant crap to get done Posts: 2,688	Thank you Leo!
	Submit to Quotes

03-24-2005, 08:00 AM	#6
SacTown Chronic the myth of the dream Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,217	Howzabout the way the GOP changed the rules to cover Tom DeLay's unethical ass? Do ya'll Repubs have a defense for that? __________________ Is it the fingers, or the brain that you're teaching a lesson?
	Submit to Quotes

03-24-2005, 08:23 AM	#7
Nephythys Yeah, that's about it- Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: In a state of constant crap to get done Posts: 2,688	Yeah- and when you lose the argument change the subject. LOL
	Submit to Quotes

03-24-2005, 08:30 AM	#9
SacTown Chronic the myth of the dream Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,217	I thought we were talking about changing the rules? __________________ Is it the fingers, or the brain that you're teaching a lesson?
	Submit to Quotes