Tomorrow Republicans will....

have absolute power and control and the democrats will have no more voice in government. What does this mean? It means Republicans can no longer complain about anything...cuz then they would be complaining against their own.
Once the filibuster is gone, they are free to fill the judiciary with their nominees...and also pass any legislation they choose.
Half of the nation will lose any voice and choice in government.
The Republicans will have won. Should the democratic senators and representatives just go home? They might as well.
Hrmm...does this mean Fox news will be a thing of the past? who would they argue with? who would they degrade and disrespect? The only thing I can see them sticking with is the business programs.

Dude, start ducking!...I hear those falling chunks of the sky can be dangerous.

well...that must be a first...just posted it and already going down in flames...lol
Ohhhh....and I ain't a dude.

They will still complain about gays, non-christian religions, hippies, anyone daring to criticize the government or question it's integrity, the U.N. and any country that has oil but doesn't cooperate with U.S.-based corporations.

Ya know, I gotta say...

I'm really saddened it had to come down to this... I honestly am.

But.

The democrats brought this one on themselves.

I agree that the fillibuster has its place. I'm all for it, conceptually. But the democrats have misused it. Its supposed to prevent a majority from being able to wield absolute power, in essence. That's fine. However, what it has become is a way for the minority to have absolute power to squash anything they want to, without any effort. This is not what its for, it's unconstutional, but it's been happening. And misusing it to this level is what has led to this.

I blame my own party too: If some of our leaders weren't such pansies, they would insist that a fillibuster had to be done properly: A full shutdown, 24/7, of the senate, by constant debate or speaking, until the issue was voted on or abandoned. But we've been too nice, we've let people get away with saying "If you try to vote on it, we'll just fillibuster it, so lets save us all the trouble and just not vote on it.", and then counting that AS a fillibuster. This misses the entire point of the fillibuster: It's not supposed to be a common occourance, its supposed to be a last-ditch resort.

The fillibuster is of questionable legitimacy under the constitution as it is, and the method it is being used here is blatently so. Artical 2, Section 2 of the US Constituion specificly gives the President the power to appoint judges (Among other things) with the consent of Congress. Now, before anyone says "Well, the fillibuster is a lack of consent", no it isn't. The fillibuster is refusing to allow consent to be given: Consent is a majority vote. The democrats broke a 200+ year standing unspoken agreement not to use the fillibuster to block the constituionaly-granted powers of the president carte blanche, and now it is biting them in the ass. I wish it had not came down to this, I truely do, but I don't feel any sympathy for them.

OK, fine, then. Kill the filibuster, but no longer allow a simple majority to confirm federal judicial appointments. 2/3rds sounds good to me.

It's biting everyone in the ass. Neither party has credibility, and the two party system that has been the paradigm since Andew Jackson is showing some real wear and tear.

The last time the two party system broke down in this country there was a civil war. No, not saying that's gonna happen, because there is no defining catalysts like states rights, slavery, and regional separatism. Still, today is a nasty time in American political history, and neither the Democrats, the Republicans, nor the man from Texas is doing anything substantial to promote unity and community.

Worth noting that the two party system is neither constitutional nor what the original "founding fathers" had in mind. Perhaps we're at the end of of what John Quincy Adams called "the great American aberration."

Call a constutional convention and obtain a supermajority vote to pass this as a new ammendment of the constitution, then get it voted on and aproved by the states, and your golden. Until then, any such change would be unconstitutional. The constitution specificly spells out which types of votes shall require a majority vote and which require a supermajority.

*edit*

On a deeper level, however, I'm opposed to it. It would basicly make sure nobody ever got confirmed again, on either side. Judge apointees and such are almost exclusivly partisan, and always have been. Good or ill, thats probably never going to change, either. People rarely apoint people that disagree with them on every issue, after all.

The real answer here was for the fillibuster not to have been misused.

My post was parody. You're probably technically correct, but that wasn't my point at all. Tweak the Senate rules to make filibusters more difficult to enact, but don't abolish them. This country is headed down a tyrannical path, and we need every check and balance we can get.

I'm actually for this, if you read the second full paragraph of my post: Fillibusters need to be enforced the way they were originaly: You must speak 24/7 until the fillibuster passes. I blame my own party for this; We've been too lenient. Like I say, I'm not happy it's came to this. But I blame the democrats as much as the republicans, if not more.

Thank you.

You guys really need to shut the fuck up. "HEY GUYS THE REPUBLICANS ARE FUCKING US AGIAN!". Unless you are willing to take action then seriously, just shut the fuck up.

I also thank god no-one in SL, and especially no-one who posts in these forums is in politics.




Hippies suck.

Haha, I wouldn't be so sure about that. You should see all of the canned form letters I have gotten from Kay Bailey Hutchison simply regurgitating the party line on why she supports X. But hey, at least she replies. John Cornyn ignores me, completely.

Hmm...why can't we wait until the party that wants the change is back in office/majority?

So only the Democrats have used the filibuster? I didn't know that.

Ummm, the party that wants to kill the filibuster IS in office and IS in the majority.

For this issue, actually, yes.

It's like those trays of free food samples at the supermarket. The understood agreement is you take one piece. Now, within that, nobody is going to do much if now and then some people take two, or three. When people start making a habit of abusing the system, though, the system will probably be revised - It will go away, or be made more restrictive, or much more rare, or something.

It's the same with the filibuster: As long as both sides played within a set of informal guidelines, nothing much was done about it. When one side started abusing it so that they could continue to wield majority-power while in fact being the minority party, something was done about it.

And the filibuster isn't being gotten rid of, by the way. The proposed change only applies to presidential appointees, first of all, not the filibuster in general, last I checked the wording, AND it doesn't actually remove it, it just... kinda neuters it. I'm still not happy it came to this, like I said, but don't mangle the facts: It isn't removing the filibuster as a whole.

That's odd. Here is a video of Republicans filibustering Supreme Court nominee Abe Fortas.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/04/25.html#a2629

Oh...I'm sorry, I was mistaken...

I meant expecting a super majority for the first time on Presidential appointments...unlike what has been required from any other administration. That...is changing the rules.
Do ya think Ginsberg (ex-aclu) would be a supreme if the elephants played that way?

Oh, it is being used "carte blanche"? I had no idea. When does one reach "carte blanche" levels? I thought we were still at "willy nilly".

On a more practical note, do you think Republicans have to vote to pull off the nuclear option? 44 Dems will vote against it. This means they need to pickup 6 more votes.

They have 3 in McCain, Chafee and Snowe.

Are there 3 more? If Bill Frist fails will there be any implications?

Point conceeded cheerfully that it's not precisely unprecedented, my political history from the 1950-1970 era is a little shakey, as it's not really my interest, and I spoke too hastily.

There are a couple of signifigant differences though. First, the Fortas Filibuster was bipartisan. Both sides had objections. Fortas was proven to have done some things that bordered on, or outright crossed into the realm of, illegal acts.

By the way, Fortas was not a supreme court nominee. He was a chief justice nominee, which is seperate from the supreme court.

That said, I relate this to my parable about the free food: Don't abuse the system. If you do, expect reprocusions.

Honestly I think it's 50-50 right now. My gut feeling says "yes", but I'm not certain enough to wager money on it.

Carte blanche simply means the unresticted ability to do whatever you want. I think it fits here.

Either way, we're talking rules changes. And what about a super majority of some sort to enact a filibuster? Wouldn't that be a simple (comparitively speaking) Senate rules change? Wouldn't that allay the majority party's complaint about minority usurpation while not stripping the opposition party of a valuable (and I believe, necessary) tool to help maintain govt. checks and balances?

As for Ginsberg, I dunno. If I recall, her appointment pre-dates the neo-con movement's ascension.

Tomorrow Republicans will....do nothing it seems. Maybe vote on Owen.

A deal has been reached. I think the dems should have taken it to a vote, but both sides probably needed to save face on this one.

Maybe.

It's not dead yet, despite the supposed "deal".

If they turn around and push it for a vote, it would be disasterous at this point.