Democrats say it is an arrogant power grab against the founders intent?

GladiatoRowdy · Feb 26, 2010

MojoMan said:

I will dispute the suggestion that the filibuster that you speak of was only conducted by the Republicans. That filibuster was in fact a bipartisan effort, as it appears that Abe Fortas was not supported by a majority of the Senate, and was opposed by Senators of both parties. So your assertion that this was entirely a Republican exercise is not actually correct.

What was unprecedented was the Democrat's use of the filibuster to block the confirmation of a judicial appointee who did have majority support in the Senate, and who would have been confirmed if a vote had been permitted to be held. And it was not just one judicial appointee that the Democrats did this with during the Bush Administration by any means. What was unprecedented was the introduction of the usage of this tactic as a strategy of obstruction that was being by the Democrats in the Senate on a routine basis to block anyone who did not pass muster with the Democratic left. That was truly unprecedented and extremely partisan.

But "unprecedented" or not, it was not the practice of the Senate to use the filibuster to block judicial nominations for purely partisan reasons, or with a purely partisan vote, until the Democrats did it to Miguel Estrada in 2003. Until then, every nominee that had majority support in the Senate won confirmation. Until the Democrats unilaterally ended that collegial practice in 2003 with the filibuster of Miguel Estrada.
Click to expand...

As usual, you are wrong...

"Informal polls in recent weeks have shown that a majority of Senators now favor confirmation of Justice Fortas. Opponents believe that only by staging a filibuster can they block confirmation."

linky

MojoMan said:

The Republicans have acted hypocritically at times, there is no question about that. But the frequency with which they have done so does not even come close to the frequency with which Democrats demonstrate their hypocritical tendencies, such as they are obviously doing now on this issue. Clearly, just because the Democrats do it does not make it OK for the Republicans to do it. But that works the other way as well. Just because the Republicans do it, does not make it OK for the Democrats to do it. It is always wrong for any elected representatives to be conducting themselves in a hypocritical manner. And that applies to politicians of any stripe.
Click to expand...

Both are hypocrites, but it is pure hyperbole to say that the GOP's exhibitions of hypocrisy "do[es] not even come close to the frequency with which Democrats demonstrate their hypocritical tendencies." By any measure, the hypocrisy is either equal or slanted right, just look at the number of "up or down votes" (a favorite expression of the GOP when they were in the majority) that the GOP have denied compared to the most recent comparable years, the last two of Bush the lesser.

MojoMan said:

The use of the filibuster needs to be maintained in the Senate, but not for political or judicial nominees. In fact, I would support a permanent change in the Senate rules, effective on the first day of the President's term of office beginning after the election in 2012, to institutionalize the majority vote rule for political and judicial nominees and to disallow filibusters for these confirmation votes. Elections have consequences, the role of the Senate is to advise and consent, and if a majority of Senators concur, then the President's nominees should be seated, regardless of what party the President is from.
Click to expand...

I agree that the filibuster should remain a viable option, but think the rules should be changed. If someone is going to engage in a vote blocking procedure, they should be forced to actually filibuster rather than simply blocking cloture. Let's make these guys read the phone book, recite recipes, or better yet, stick their fingers in their ears and go "la, la, la, la" like the idiots they are.

MojoMan said:

With regards to the current health care situation, it is my sense that this discussion is moot. The Democrats are not going to be able to muster adequate support within their own ranks to use this controversial tactic to advance this very unpopular bill. If health care reform is going to be passed during the current Congress, it is going to need to be be something that wins substantial support from Republicans, which means a substantially stripped down bill that focuses on issues like health insurance regulation, tort reform, and other cost reduction measures, such as allowing the sale of health insurance across state lines. All of this reconciliation talk is just a lot of far-left ranting and howling at the moon. It is not going to happen.
Click to expand...

You may be right, I may be crazy, but it just might be a lunatic you're looking for.

The Democrats have certainly underwhelmed me when it comes to their lack of spine, compared to the GOP. However, maybe Obama stepping up will steel their resolve just enough to get this through. Who knows, if the latest bipartisan efforts are again rejected by the GOP, maybe the Dems will just give them the finger and put the public option back in. I'm certainly not going to hold my breath, but IMO, the "clean sheet of paper" (the GOP was able to stay on message with that particular talking point, I heard it parroted by at least 8 different Republicans yesterday...BRAAAAAWK, no healthcare, clean sheet of paper, BRAAAAAWK) isn't going to happen. It is my feeling that yesterday's political theater was about the Dems giving the GOP one last chance before they just do it themselves.

Forums

Democrats say it is an arrogant power grab against the founders intent?

GladiatoRowdy Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!