1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Judicial Filibuster

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by basso, May 10, 2005.

?

Is the judicial filibuster

  1. an abuse of power by an embittered minority of senators

    29 vote(s)
    38.7%
  2. a logical extension of the senate's advise and consent role

    46 vote(s)
    61.3%
  1. aeolus13

    aeolus13 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Messages:
    587
    Likes Received:
    60
    If this does indeed lead to a nerfing of the filibuster in general (not just for nominees) then I will gladly call the Democrats hypocritical if they complain about the Republicans enacting a conservative legislative agenda the next time they have a majority. I will also gladly call the Democrats stupid if they try to bring the filibuster back. The end of the filibuster is one of the best things that could happen to the Democratic Party, even if the Republicans have the majority.

    That's because if they do win, the Republican voters will actually be forced to live under the laws they've long been clamoring for. When the 'entitlement cuts' start, the senior citizens that make up the Fox News audience are finally going to discover that the biggest 'entitlements' in the federal budget are the social insurance programs they depend on, not handouts to lazy brown people like they've always imagined. The Republicans have long claimed that if we'd only ease the taxation burden on our long-suffering wealthy, a veritable geyser of jobs, growth, and prosperity will result. With the filibuster gone, they'll have to put up or shut up. They've argued that more people with more guns is a good solution to violent crime. Will an armed society result in a polite society like they promise? The American public will get to find out! We'll also get to see first-hand what life is like in a land where women are forced to bear children they can't care for, gays are treated as inferiors, and creationism is taught as legitimate science in public schools.

    The Republicans know that in the current legislative morass, there's no chance they will be able to implement their policies, so they're free to promise that all kinds of improbable things will result from them. If they actually implemented their vision, they'd be done.
     
    #81 aeolus13, Nov 21, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2013
  2. mc mark

    mc mark Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    468
    Just don't see that happening. sorry

    The end of white majority has come for this country.
     
  3. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    54,517
    Likes Received:
    33,779
    Totally agree, but a chart can give those too busy (or lazy?) to delve deeper into the subject matter a way to quickly see at least the gist of the picture, if not the more complete picture that you helped illustrate. I don't think it can be emphasized enough just how radical in the context of modern Senate history the sheer number of filibusters the Republican obstructionism represents. It is unprecedented in the modern era. I think this is a tactic by the GOP. They have tactically pushed for this action by Democrats in hopes of running amok when they return to power in the Senate, which will happen eventually in 2 years, 4 years, a decade, or longer ("or longer" being my hope, but who the hell knows?). I believe that if the same radical leadership is in control of the GOP when they regain the Senate someday, they intend to toss the filibuster entirely in the toilet, not simply keep the limited check on the filibuster the Democrats voted for today.

    Both parties are playing for high stakes here, and if anyone seriously believes the Republican Party didn't know what they were likely creating in the Senate with the tactics they have used since the President was elected, they should consider getting out more. It's been obvious to me, at any rate, that restricting the filibuster is a tactical move on their part, as much a tactical move leading to this as the Democratic move to vote for those restrictions. Ordinarily, I would be very much against changing the flilibuster, or changing most of the other traditional courtesies in the Senate. Those traditional courtesies serve a purpose, and were at least partly designed to encourage comity in that body. However, the Republican Party long ago tossed those courtesies, and comity, in the trash, and it is a pity. It's more than a pity. It's dangerous. We already have a partisan divide worse than any I can remember.
     
    #83 Deckard, Nov 21, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2013
  4. SamFisher

    SamFisher Virtuous

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    55,655
    Likes Received:
    31,337
    Yes, and this statement was pure hackery, in the same vein as the unskewed polling Romney landslide of last year. The long term trends pointed against them then, regardless of any short term result and there were reasonable people noting this.

    If anything, the collapse and marginalization of the Republicans as a national force has been *faster* than most people predicted, due to many self-infllicted wounds.
     
  5. Raven

    Raven Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    14,952
    Likes Received:
    973
    It's hilarious, really. The GOP is impotent, and their filibuster tactics were an act of desperation from a party watching their power and influence drain away. Yet, if you read Drudge and watch Fox you would think Obama is powerless, yet Obama keeps chugging along, victory after victory. This is what many progressives refer to as the reality distortion field that the GOP faithful hide behind. They honestly believe Republicans are winning.
     
  6. Raven

    Raven Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    14,952
    Likes Received:
    973
    Leave race out of it. Whites could still be 80%, and the GOP would still be cooked because working class Whites are waking up and realizing the GOP doesn't care about them.
     
  7. thumbs

    thumbs Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2002
    Messages:
    10,225
    Likes Received:
    237
    With the inception of the Senate "nuclear option" (to which Obama and other Democrats vehemently objected during 43's last term and to which Republicans currently object with equal vigor), perhaps one more Senate amendment may be in order.

    Since federal judges can be approved with only a simple majority, then perhaps the Senate should be able to remove them with a simple majority.
     
    #87 thumbs, Nov 22, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2013
  8. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    493
    The Senate doesn't get to remove judges at all, they have never had such power and don't now.
     
  9. False

    False Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2011
    Messages:
    571
    Likes Received:
    99
    Thumbs, that idea is the silliest and most unconstitutional idea someone could have thought of. Your ability to satirize the right is without peer.
     
  10. thumbs

    thumbs Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2002
    Messages:
    10,225
    Likes Received:
    237
    True, but perhaps it's time to make the change. Obama and his henchmen (Reid et al) have tossed out a tradition established by the nation's founders, so why not make other little "nuanced" changes that change the fabric of the Constitution? The Obama team certainly has no issues with skirting the Constitution.
     
  11. thumbs

    thumbs Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2002
    Messages:
    10,225
    Likes Received:
    237
    False, False.
     
  12. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    493
    Please point out the use of the word "filibuster" in the Constitution.
     
  13. rimrocker

    rimrocker Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 1999
    Messages:
    21,299
    Likes Received:
    5,752
    Uh, it was 1806, not 1789 and the 1806 rule had been changed twice before yesterday.
     
  14. thumbs

    thumbs Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2002
    Messages:
    10,225
    Likes Received:
    237
    Ahhh, none of the founding fathers were around in 1806. Nice to know. :rolleyes:
     
  15. aeolus13

    aeolus13 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Messages:
    587
    Likes Received:
    60
    Sure. And it was also a 'tradition' that you didn't filibuster anything that wasn't truly intolerable to you (like, you know, civil rights for black people) Republicans treat Senate tradition like they treat the Constitution - as something that should be treated with absolute deference, unless it's an obstacle to some policy they want.
     
  16. rimrocker

    rimrocker Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 1999
    Messages:
    21,299
    Likes Received:
    5,752
    None of the big names were in the Senate and the point is that it always has been a Senatorial rule and custom not mentioned in the Constitution.

    Don't get me wrong, I hate this development. But when you have one party that intentionally shat upon the customs and traditions of the Senate so as to make it unworkable there is little left to do but change the rules. The Senate should not be the House but that is where we are headed.
     
  17. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    40,306
    Likes Received:
    14,216
    What on earth are you talking about? You need to take a remedial education on the history of the filibuster.

    The filibuster in the current form is a product of the last century. It has nothing to do with the founders, and it has been changed literally dozens of times, both in the amount of people needed, the methodology, and what it applies to.
     
  18. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    47,043
    Likes Received:
    32,802
    As far as Democrats complaining about Republicans trying to suppress the filibuster just look at the beginning of this thread. Reid et al. were basically saying the same things that the Republicans are now.
    That strikes me as very shortsighted thinking. If you don't agree with the Republican agenda and think it's harmful to the country there is no reason why you would want to make it easier for them to implement it. The Republicans clearly think this way about the Democratic agenda. For good or bad major legislation has profound affects that can last decades. The Reagan tax cuts still affect us even though they were passed more than 30 years ago.

    Further we aren't talking just about legislation but about judges who have lifetime appointments.
     
  19. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    47,043
    Likes Received:
    32,802
    This sounds like Deja Vu all over again and is the type of smug thinking that got the GOP in trouble. Yes the demographics are against the Republicans but they still manage to hold on to several state houses and governorships where they have rigged things in their favor. While this doesn't directly affect the Senate races it does show that their state level organizations are strong and in low turnout years gives them a good chance to win. This might be especially true next year when the Senate seats up for grabs favors the Republicans.

    Further as the case with GW Bush shows personal unpopularity of a the head of a ticket can do a lot of damage to the party overall. While demographics don't favor the GOP a very unpopular and / or scandal ridden Democratic president could change things (not saying Obama is that). A lot of things can happen in elections that can swing things suddenly and unpredictably.
     
  20. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    47,043
    Likes Received:
    32,802
    As the beginning of this thread should show it wasn't that long ago that the Republicans were the ones arguing against Senate tradition.

    The Constitutionality of the filibuster has been discussed before. While it isn't in the Constitution the Constitution does state that the Senate has the ability to make it's own rules so it is Constitutional. The tactic of continuous speaking to block a vote dates back to the Roman Senate and there is no doubt that the Founders were aware of it.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now