Slashdot Mirror
Republican Senators May 'Go Nuclear'
expriest writes "In an attempt to confirm Bush's most conservative nominees to the federal bench, Senate Republican leaders are considering a nuclear option. Under this procedure, the person chairing the Senate rules that filibusters of judicial nominations are unconstitutional. Republicans claim a simple majority (51 senators) would be all that is necessary to uphold this ruling, and therefore give them the power to confirm judges. The problem with this procedure, however, is that the Supreme Court could still overrule the Senate, and the status of the then improperly confirmed judges would be unknown."
At least this is evidence that republican politicians are doing something. Heck, they are even attending.
The lack of news concerning democrat politicians is disturbing.
Then again, this whole story is basically a long-winded way of sayind "The system of checks and balances still works!"
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
My understanding is that democratic senators are preventing a vote from being called to confirm Bush's nominations via filibuster. Unless someone wants to add more, I think this is a pretty clear cut-and-dry case of the democrats getting tired of democracy.
Both sides suck. Vote third party. Like companies, politicians won't change until you take your support elsewhere.
Cheers
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
They also purposefuly change meeting scheduals to dates they know some democrats can't attend.
And of meetings on intelligence, which ones do you think the work gets done in? The public ones? No. It's so funny. The ads tell you their misleading, and yet you believe the voice over for what it says it is. You can't put forth the effort to read a score of words, most of which are read for you, and you think you've something say, that's worth hearing? Quaint.
Right or left, Republican or Democrat -- those filibusters are an outrage and they damn well should be gotten rid of. If you don't have the votes for a block, show your constituents some damn respect and accept it.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Well clearly money on your civics textbook was well spent. Let me guess public school in the Regean era?
Why not google "filibustering." It's a check the minority has to prevent a tyranny of the majority.
Fuckwit.
Unless someone wants to add more, I think this is a pretty clear cut-and-dry case of the democrats getting tired of democracy.
Actually the system has worked the filibuster in as a way to let a small but substantial minority stop the dictatorship of a small majority. Republicans withheld most of Clinton's nominations using the exact same rule, as many other congresses have done.
What it would be unprecedented is to declare a 250 year old practice not valid. Because of this I suspect the Supreme Court would overrule in all of five minutes.
John McCain would never support this. They also won't get both Senators from ME. It won't happen because the GOP can't get 51 votes. This manuever is likely to be divisive like the Gay Marriage Ban, and while most Americans may not be concerned with these little intricacies of the Senate, Senators tend to take it seriously.
Santorum would turn this country into a Judeo-Christian version of Iran if given the chance. Frist is more timid and behind the scenes, but Santorum is a freaking pit-bull for the religious right. My fellow Florida citizens have managed to embaress me about a lot of things, but electing a theocratic loon to the Senate like Santorum takes the cake. I'd have a hard time admitting I was from Penn. every time that guy made the news.
Interesting thought experiment though.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
Uhhh.... yeah it's the Democrats who came up with this horrible tactic.
It's the dems trying to keep insanely far-right wing judges off the bench, using the RULES of the Senate. If you'd read the fine article, you see that they had confirmed over 160 of Bushes nominees and that these 10 are the most extreme of the total bunch he nominated. The GOP used the same tactic against Clinton, but now it's the Dems who came up with this "crazy idea"?
Please explain how the Democrats are trying to get rid of democracy. I do love tinfoil hat inspired rants.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
Government, at least the creation of laws, should be inefficient. It's another check against governmental power. Some of the worst legislation was very efficiently passed--right after some crisis prompted it (the PATRIOT act is the obvious example).
Further, if the Democrats are smart, maybe they'll start looking at ways to get rid of the extremist 'Christian' Coalition cancer, perhaps by adding laws that in some way encourage the expansion of minority viewpoints within the major parties.
The spoiled brats in the Republican party just need to accept that they aren't going to get their way all the time. Otherwise, it will return to haunt them.
Right or left, Republican or Democrat -- those filibusters are an outrage and they damn well should be gotten rid of.
Yes, to hell with the Constitution and the founding fathers. To hell with over two centuries of legislative procedure. Make it so that a simple majority can appoint far-right or far-left leaning judges. Make it so that the Republicans can now stuff the courts with anti-choice, anti-environment, pro-big-business, anti-gay, bible thumpers.
If you don't have the votes for a block, show your constituents some damn respect and accept it.
If your constituents are liberal and the judge being proposed is a born-again-Christian who's an outspoken opponent against everything they believe in, then showing your constituents respect is using every legal means to prevent the confirmation of the judge.
If you don't understand the importance of the Constitution and why filibusters are such an integral aspect of the checks and balances, please don't post in this section.
I prefer my government deadlocked. Safer that way.
> Then no idealogues on either side would be affirmed.
I have no issue with idealogues being on the supreme court on either side of the aisle. On the other hand, I don't want a court full of them who only represent one viewpoint...
Having a bunch of moderate judges doesn't seem like a good idea to me - you might as well have a "supreme judge" instead of a "supreme court" in that case, if they're all of the same mindset anyways.
(I wish I could insert a solution here, but alas, I don't have one.)
Well, I would agree with you to the extent that you say we need to blame all the jerks on both side. The problem is that whether you consider someone a jerk can depend largely on whether you agree with them or not.
As for the left being dehumanized, first I would ask what "acts and attitudes" leave the left feeling cornered, beleaugered, and marginalized. Next, I would ask whether if that is really so it might be because the left has gone very far to the left and has become very much out of touch with mainstream society for good reason.
Finally, I would suggest you go back and look at some of the criticisms against the right 20 years ago and continuing to today. According to popular impression, fueled by Democratic leaders, right-wingers are cruel, heartless, and care little for the poor or minorities. If you are in favor of "Reaganomics", you don't just have a different opinion about the best way to make the entire society better, you are against the poor and want to hurt them. If you were against massive funding increases for social programs during the Clinton or Reagan era, you weren't just arguing about the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of those programs to improve people's lives, you were arguing against helping the poor and disenfranchised.
My proposal to stop this vicious cycle is that each side shut up about the other's extremes. Democratic leaders stop fanning the flames by lumping all Republicans in with religious zealots (or suggesting that all those with religious views are zealots), and Republican leaders stop lumping all Democrats in with Michael Moore and Barbara Streisand (which would be easier to do if the Democrats didn't choose to show them off with such prominence). We'll each police our own houses.
And we won't use this as an excuse to avoid any debate on difficult issues such as gay marriage and abortion, but to make sure that such debate is as civil and respectful of the other side as possible.
Nothing like a blatently unconstitutional powergrab.
Emboldened by their success in using the federal supreme court to overstep the federal bounds and rule on state law; they up the ante and openly consider a blatently unconstitutional power grab.
Anyone in the Senate that would support this tactic, especially the senator that would overstep the check-and-balances and rule that a political tactic that written into the Constitution is unconstitutional would have to be impeached and removed from office. Why? They would have violated their oath of office to support the consitution as perscribed by Article VI, Clause 3.
No wonder why half the country looks at the current Republican party as them as a gang of protofacists.
Please explain how the Democrats are trying to get rid of democracy.
Just as an aside, I'd like to point out:
Lots of potentially Democratic voters haven't registered (college students, in particular, are very poor at registering to vote).
Currently, according to the polls, Bush will win re-election. Not by a huge margin, but he will win.
If you are considering voting Democrat, and you live in a swing state, and haven't registered, you really, really should do so:
The swing states are: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Lousiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennesee, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. If you live in one of these states and haven't yet registered, please do so. One of the reasons Bush gets so many votes is because so many elderly people are registered to vote and vote solidly Republican. Your vote is needed!
Remember that all it may take to alter the course of the election is winning the vote in your electoral district -- enough to swing a state. Last year, 500 votes in the right electoral district would have put a different President in office and given us an entirely different set of views on foreign affairs, research, military spending, research, abortion, research, charities that are trying to fight the spread of AIDS by teaching people about condoms, and research.
There are probably a lot of people down in a certain Florida county kicking themselves because *they* could have flipped the vote. His first term, Bush had to worry about re-election, so there were some constraints on what he can do. If he gets a second, there will be no limit. If you don't want to see the appointment of socially and religiously conservative judges (and these will *not* be the socially liberal and politically conservative judges that a Libertarian would like), please vote. *Please*. I'm going to do my part on Election Day. When I complain about abuses overseas and poor foreign policy, I'm complaining about not just what Bush is doing, but the choice of the American citizenry on the previous Election Day. We know what Bush does. There is no reasonable excuse not to vote in this upcoming election. Unless you are a religious conservative, please, please, please vote Kerry and get Bush out of office.
May we never see th
That you should register to vote whether you are a Democrat OR a Republican (or any other party for that matter). I support President Bush and disagree with most of what the previous poster believes about him, but I absolutely agree that every single eligible person should register and vote. And if you don't vote and you don't like the outcome of the election, keep your mouth shut and don't whine about it after the fact.
Umm... excuse me? "supermajority requirement written into the Constitution" ?? This is just made-up crap.
Votes on Supreme Court nominations are by simple majority, not supermajority. THAT is what's in the Constitution.
The issue is one of Senate rules on filibuster requiring 60 votes to end debate, and even bring a nomination to a vote. The Constitution allows the Senate to make its own rules, but does NOT specify a supermajority for ending filibusters.
The tactic of using filibusters ROUTINELY to, in effect, REQUIRE 60 votes to confirm a nomination, is what's in question.
Is it Constitutional to use Senate rules to, in a back-door way, CHANGE a Constitutionally-mandated simple-majority decision to a supermajority decision?
THAT is the question. Don't obfuscate.
I agree that we are in a war. I don't agree with everything else you said.
Although the economy could ALWAYS be better, I think it is doing pretty well, especially considering the massive economic hit we took when two of our biggest centers of industry were destroyed on September 11. Plus, the economy started tanking pretty quickly after the end of the Clinton administration; far too quickly for that to be the result of any actions by Bush. Nothing about the crash of the dot-com boom, for example, can be blamed on President Bush.
As for civil liberties, I've actually read the Patriot Act, and I just don't believe it's the piece of demon-writing that its critics try to inflate it into. You may disagree with me, but let's debate the merits, not just proclaim that our civil liberties have vanished overnight. Besides, both candidates for President supported the Patriot Act - check and see, John Kerry voted for it. (Now, maybe he voted for it before he voted against it, but...)
As for the war, we were attacked. We had been attacked before; even those specific targets had been attacked before. The actions we took as a nation in response to those attacks did not work to reduce the threat; it continued to grow unabated (note that I do not fault President Clinton for what proved to be ineffective responses; the harm caused by the first WTC bombing, the Cole attack, and the various embassy bombings, while evidence of a growing problem, did not inflict enough harm on the country to support a war even if it were justified).
And no, I do not in any way believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to 9/11 (nor has President Bush or his administration ever said so). But I do believe he was a force of instability in a dangerously unstable region. He, like the Taliban, thumbed his nose at the international community and its very legitimate responses to his past and on-going horrific actions. His army routinely fired on United States pilots patrolling the No-Fly zones imposed by the United Nations itself.
For a very long time, the U.S. did not respond in any significant and effective way to any of this. Frankly, the time for the 2nd Iraq war was when he first threw out the weapons inspectors. But everybody said no, let's try diplomacy. And it didn't work. Saddam did not become more civilized. He did not accept that he had lost Kuwait and lost the support of the civilized world. He continued to try to hide his actions until the very precipice of war. And even then his final "cooperation" with the inspectors was reluctant and not 100% forthcoming. Allowing him to continue in power would have only emboldened other nations to act as he did, with little fear of serious repercussions.
Finally, not only do I agree with President Bush in the determination he has shown, I don't believe that Senator Kerry even knows what he would do at this point. I truly do not know whether he would remove the troops from Iraq within 6 months, or if he would leave them there for 3 or 4 more years. I don't know whether he would continue to provide the funds to rebuild the infrastructure we destroyed in the war, or whether he would yank them back to fund more social programs here. The latter, in my opinion, would be disatrous because it would leave us in that part of the region as having done a lot of damage and then cut and run before repairing it.
So, in a nutshell, that's why I support President Bush.
How do you propose to nuke terrorists living in London, New York, Hamburg?
I propose deportation of all noncitizens back to where they came from, and an utter closing of the borders.
What do you propose we do about the non-terrorists living in Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Middle East?
If we leave them alive after an attack of that magnitude, they won't be non-terrorists for very long- these are a people who still are racists against Mongols for what Ghengis Kahn did to them.
What do you propose we do about global economic interdependence?
It's a bad idea that needs to be ended, utterly. There should be no communication between countries at all.
Where shall we get our oil after your Final Solution?
Out of waste vegitation, it's a simple enough chemical process. Didn't you see the article on slashdot a couple of weeks ago?
By the way, in case you didn't notice, terrorists are not a "race." "Genocide" means destroying a race. What race do you wish to destroy?
More of a culture- the tribes of the middle eastern desert who have that strange idea that Justice will only come when Mecca is ruled by a dictatorship and has control over the whole world.
Muslims? (A religion, not a race, that spans many races, including whitey).
Not all Muslims believe that.
Arabs? (What about all the terrorists in non-Arab Muslim nations like Indonesia or Iran?)
Same solution as before- if they're of the Islamic Death Cult, they need to be killed, along with their families, friends, etc.
Finally, what the fuck are you talking about "historically proven to reduce terrorism." Which historical genocide has proven that?
Augustus Titus, Roman General and Governor of the province of Judah, came up with the solution originally. He responded to Jewish terrorism by killing 500 Jews for every centurion killed. Eventually he razed Jerusalem, sowed the fields with salt, took all the people as slaves, and left. It was 1948 before Zionism raised it's ugly head again. I'd say that's a pretty complete solution, wouldn't you?
You've backed off of native America and Japan; perhaps you support the German genocide of Jews? Or the Armenian genocide?
Nah, I go much further back in history than that, those are just some minor examples of incomplete solutions to largely non-existant problems (though the Turkish genocide of the Armenians comes close- you haven't heard of an Armenian attack in Turkey since, have you?).
(Why the hell am I arguing with you?)
Because you don't actually understand that to me, genocide is the worse of the two solutions- far better would it be for us to destroy our economy than our morality. We can reinvent our economy- we can't reinvent our morality. In addition, genocide would probably ruin us economically as well, we only had a small opportunity to use genocide as an option and Bush wasted the 72 hours after 9-11-2001 trying to pin it all on Saddam.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Like scheduling meetings on days the Democrats were out of Washington, as known in advance when there was no meeting, at the last minute, so there's no time to return to Washington? That's just one way that Republicans game the system.
--
make install -not war
He decided to just watch the government, and kind of scale it down to size, and run his life that way. --Laurie Anderson
A real conversation. Wow. Thanks. (really)
/. - "The Dangers of One Party Rule." Give the article a read, please. That's one of the ways I feel marginalized. At the moment, Democrats may as well not be in the House. They're excluded from the meetings where the real work is done, and when the vote comes to the floor, they're nearly always defeated. I care deeply about our environment, and it's lost every time it has been in a legislative bout.
/. and you'll find that actually, the entire US is very much to the right. Our left is perhaps slightly to the right of the European center. IMHO, on a left-to-right scale, the politics of Clinton resembled those of Nixon or Ford - and I'm NOT talking about corruption. My brother maintains that he and I are the same Republicans we were raised as - it's just that the whole political spectrum has shifted to the right while we've remained in place.
A later topic popped up on
As for our society being far to the left, talk to the Europeans on
Actually, I disagree with both Reaganomics and the Great Society. Again, it's the spectrum shift. If you think Clinton was a social spender, you should have seen LBJ. I believe that the government needs to balance its books, (Clinton PLUS a Republican Congress did this - it took BOTH.) and has to walk a tightrope between providing a social safety net and a social hammock.
re: "which would be easier to do if the Democrats didn't choose to show..."
You find Michael Moore and Barbara Streisand offensive. OK, it's a matter of taste. I'm not terribly fond of Michael Moore, though I only find him a little offensive. Barbara Streisand can really sing.
But I do find Ashcroft and Rumsfeld terribly offensive. (to bring a 2-for-2 comparison)
Personally, I am not terribly concerned about either gay marriage or abortion. First off, marriage is a religious institution that has taken on civil aspects. In this respect, I believe Vermont cut a fine line with Civil Unions. But at any rate, the gay issue doesn't stop me from living with happily with my wife in a heterosexual relationship, and from a Public Health point of view, gays would be better off in stable relationships, instead of promiscuous parties.
As for abortion, I don't like it. I dislike even more the Pro-Life movement labeling others as Pro-Abortion. My opinion - abortion is BAD. But there are worse things than abortion. I get this ugly feeling that there are Pro-Life people that just LOVE the foetus, but once it's a baby and the woman is no longer pregnant, OUT THE DOOR, and stay off of welfare! I actually liked Clinton's take on the matter. Abortion should be safe, and seldom. Nor do believe it's an acceptable method of birth control. (That's actually what happens (or happened) in the Soviet Union. (I have inside knowledge on this one.))
In my opinion, the urgent issues in this election are:
* The role of the US in the world, and how it wishes to relate to other nations.
* Getting the US closer to a balanced budget.
* Finding the balance in the spectrum from wealthy to poor.
* Finding the balance in the rights between business and people.
* Finding a balance between the economy and the needs of the environment.
* Tackling the issue of health care reform. (No, I'm not advocating single-payer, or anything else. I merely assert that the current system is BROKEN. In the early Clinton years we had the opportunity for a national debate, and as a nation we plugged our ears and refused. I don't know what the plan or reform should be, I just want the debate to start.)
* Tackling Intellectual Property reform. (Health care is LONG past due. IP is only a little past due. But it's due.)
And no, I don't believe ANY of my hot issues are being correctly addressed, at the moment. Have I been sufficiently civil?
Oh, one minor diatribe: The Christian Coalition really frosts me. Christ's words: "It is easier for a camel to get through the Eye of the Needle than for a rich man to get into
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
No, obviously not. You've been listening to Rush or some other crackpot.
... be careful of what you wish for. Corporations came to be considered almost as individuals with rights due to a court decision based on the 14th (?) amendment. I doubt very much that the right wingers who hate liberal interpretations of laws would want that particular interpretation overturned by so-called constitutional purists.
Laws by definition are CREATED by legislatures.
Our legal system is common law, meaning that most actual legal usage comes from court cases clarifying the rather vague laws passed by legislatures. If the constituion guarantees privacy, then laws which violate that right are unconstitutional. This is not creating law, it is sharpening the definition, fine tuning it.
I dare you -- show just one single LAW which a court has CREATED. Don't reference some judgement and call it a law. It's not. It's a precedent, or a judgement, not a law.
And a word of advice
Infuriate left and right
Always happy to have a rational conversation about honest disagreements.
/. who would have thought it possible?!?
Clinton was able to do welfare reform and balance the budget for the same reason that "only Nixon could go to China." No Republican could have successfully passed the type of welfare reform Clinton did, because they wouldn't have been trusted; everything they tried to do would have been denounced as uncaring, unfeeling, and inhuman.
I'm not a big fan of the Christian Coalition myself. But what really chaps me is when those on the unthinking left (not all the left, mind you, just the unthinking ones) use distate for the Christian Coalition to justify bashing all religion and all those who profess religious beliefs and allow those beliefs to occasionally influence their actions in the political spectrum and elsewhere. To me, that's just wrong, rude, and intolerant.
As for abortion, my personal opinion is that the reason it remains such a divisive issue is because it was not resolved in the realm of democracy, but was declared by judicial fiat. At the time of Roe v. Wade, many states had or were in the process of legalizing abortion. There's really no reason to believe that wouldn't have continued. But by telling the people that they had no right to vote and legislate on the subject, it caused a great deal of consternation on the part of those opposed to it. One of the reasons democracy works as a form of goverment is because even when people are unhappy with a particular result, they are more willing to accept it when they had a voice in the process. But the people didn't have a voice in the Court's decision, so they continue to raise heck about it.
I agree that the issues you raised are important, but I don't think by any stretch that all the blame for not addressing them can be laid at the feet of the right. Take health care. Clinton failed miserably at it because: 1) he let a powerful but un-elected and un-fireable person run it; 2) she ran it in complete secrecy; and 3) there is no indication it would have been anything other than a nationalized health system like in Canada or the United Kingdom, which have substantial problems of their own.
I am unhappy with our relations in the world today, but I do not automatically assume those are our fault. If you read carefully, you will see that France did not oppose the Iraq war because it disagreed about the evidence of WMD, or because it disagreed that Saddam was a serious threat to stability. It opposed us because it does not like American power, period. It has its own geopolitical desires for power, its own beliefs in the shape the world should take, and it doesn't want us having such a big role in them. Take that big poll that was announced the other day, the one that showed that the rest of the world wants Kerry over Bush. A very large majority of those foreign people who said they wanted Kerry also said that they generally wanted a WEAKER United States. So they perceive Kerry as someone who will reduce U.S. strength. I'm not for that at this point in history.
I'm with you on IP reform, and I wish the Democrats would adopt a consistent position on the side of sanity. I don't approve at all of Senator Hatch and his over-zealous drive to protect copyrights at all costs. But not all Republicans are with him on that, and the Democrats have not united on a particular alternative approach, either.
In my opinion, the biggest problem with the Democrats right now is that they have ENTIRELY conceded any credibility in the foreign policy realm by becoming the anti-war at any cost party. There are good Democrats with strong defense credentials (Joe Lieberman comes to mind, as does former Senator Sam Nunn, even Joe Biden who I don't really like), but the biggest, most visible base of the Democratic Party today are the Hollywood liberals and the anti-war activists.
I do thank you for the opportunity to have a civilized discussion on