posted on May 23, 2005 06:16:54 PM new
lol obviously,libra!
btw libra, I appreciate youre being sensitive enough to nts to start that thread and I understand what you expressed in the other.
Its like they cry foul for the poor, foul for the sick and deprived...heaven forbid gays cant get married...on and on... and yet they cant even sign a damn e-card/post/thread for somebody they even know that might be having a bit of a rough day. But ideological snobbery has its limits to charity, yanno.
..
[ edited by dblfugger9 on May 23, 2005 06:35 PM ]
posted on May 23, 2005 06:37:28 PM new
Sorry DBL it doesn't work.
Thank goodness that they ironed that out as it would have been a disaster. Now don't get me wrong I am not in favor of busting the filibuster but if it had happened then it will happen all the time and it is not good.
[ edited by Libra63 on May 23, 2005 06:47 PM ]
Ralph G. Neas isn't happy with everything in the compromise but says: " The unprincipled nuclear option has been averted. This is a major defeat for the radical right. Senators from both parties have rejected demands by the White House, radical right groups, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist that the filibuster be eliminated on nominees. It is a rejection of White House demands for virtually unlimited power to undermine the independence of the courts."
posted on May 23, 2005 07:16:27 PM new
sorry dbl it doesnt work?
what doesnt work? I am still trying to figure out what the fillibuster was/is..........lol
For some reason its not something that hangs around my mind too long. The minute I thought I understood it, I forgot it again! But I always hated political government history stuff..the house, the cabiniet, the washing machine...whatever...
hahaha!
ps: Love your three cheers smiley's!!!
..
[ edited by dblfugger9 on May 23, 2005 07:24 PM ]
posted on May 23, 2005 07:18:10 PM new
WASHINGTON (AP) - In a dramatic reach across party lines, Senate centrists sealed a compromise Monday night that cleared the way for confirmation of many of President Bush's stalled judicial nominees, left others in limbo and preserved venerable filibuster rules.
"In a Senate that has become increasingly partisan and polarized, the bipartisan center held," said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., one of 14 senators _seven from each party - to pledge their "mutual trust and confidence" on the deal.
"The Senate is back in business," exulted Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., reflecting the view that a showdown would have would have had a long-term detrimental impact on Congress' ability to conduct the nation's business.
Under the terms, Democrats agreed to allow final confirmation votes for Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor, named to appeals court seats. There is "no commitment to vote for or against" the filibuster against two other conservatives named to the appeals court, Henry Saad and William Myers.
The agreement said future judicial nominees should "only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances," with each Democratic senator holding the discretion to decide when those conditions had been met.
"In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement," Republicans said they would oppose any attempt to make changes in the application of filibuster rules - a pledge that Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio said at the news conference was conditional on Democrats upholding their end of the deal.
While the agreement was signed by only 14 senators, they held the balance of power in a sharply divided Senate - able to thwart continued Democratic filibusters, on the one hand, and block GOP attempts to alter filibuster practices on the other.
Republicans, moving quickly, said they would seek to confirm Owen as early as Tuesday, with other cleared nominees to follow quickly.
Even so, Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., noted he had not been a party to the deal, which fell short of his stated goal of winning yes-or-no votes on each of Bush's nominees. "It has some good news and it has some disappointing news and it will require careful monitoring," he said.
Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada seemed more receptive - although he hastened to say he remains opposed to some of the nominees who will now likely take seats on federal appeals courts.
"Checks and balances have been protected. The integrity of the Supreme Court has been protected from the undue influence of the vocal, radical right wing," Reid said.
The White House said the agreement was a positive development.
"Many of these nominees have waited for quite some time to have an up-or-down vote and now they are going to get one. That's progress," presidential press secretary Scott McClellan said. "We will continue working to push for up or down votes for all the nominees."
The deal was sealed around the table in Sen. John McCain's office, across the street from the Capitol where senators had expected an all-night session of speech-making, prelude to Tuesday's anticipated showdown.
Nominally, the issue at hand on the Senate floor was Bush's selection of Owen, a member of the Texas Supreme Court, to a seat on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
In fact, as the rhetoric suggested, the stakes were far broader, with Republicans maneuvering to strip Democrats of their right to filibuster and thus block current and future nominees to the appeals court and Supreme Court.
There currently is no vacancy on the high court, although one or more is widely expected in Bush's term. Chief Justice William Rehnquist's coincidental presence in the Capitol during the day was a reminder of that. At age 80 and battling thyroid cancer, he entered the building in a wheelchair on his way to the doctor's office.
The agreement came as Frist, R-Tenn. and Reid, D-Nev. steered the Senate toward a showdown on Bush's nominees and historic filibuster rules, under which a minority can prevent action unless the majority gains 60 votes.
For decades, Senate rules have permitted opponents to block votes on judicial nominees by mounting a filibuster, a parliamentary device that can be stopped only by a 60-vote majority.
But Republicans, frustrated by Democratic filibusters that thwarted 10 of Bush's first-term appeals court nominees and prepared to block seven of them again, threatened to supersede that rule by simple majority vote.
In classic Senate style, the agreement was followed by a rush of self-congratulatory speeches - and disagreement over what it meant.
Democrats, pointing to a slight change in wording from an earlier draft, said the deal would preclude Republicans from attempting to deny them the right to filibuster. Republicans said that was not ironclad, but valid only as long as Democrats did not go back on their word to filibuster only in extraordinary circumstances.
One official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the issue had been discussed at the meeting in McCain's office, and was "clearly understood" by those in attendance.
Apart from the judicial nominees named in the agreement, Reid said Democrats would clear the way for votes on David McKeague, Richard Griffin and Susan Neilson, all named to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Democratic officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, suggested that two other appeals court nominees whose named were omitted - White House staff secretary Brett Kavanaugh and Pentagon lawyer William Haynes - would be jettisoned. Republicans said they knew of no such understanding.
posted on May 23, 2005 08:02:08 PM new
thanks, bear. NOW they can get on with the job of putting President Bush's nominees up for the vote, which should have been done long ago, had the dems not held the whole process up.
YEA!!! Maybe even starting tomorrow.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 24, 2005 12:00:06 AM new
The filibuster is a tool used by the minority party to gain time for voting. It is part of the "checks and balances" that make this country a DEMOCRACY. Thomas Jefferson , who knew more about democracy and how a government should be run than any poster here, advocated it as a safe guard.
Without checks and balances the country becomes a dictatorship.
The majority party may wish to eliminate it but should realize that THEY may not always be the majority.
In this country MOST people believe in protecting the rights of minorities, any minority.
bush has gotten more judges approved than any president in the last 40 years.....he shouldn't whine....
posted on May 24, 2005 03:33:42 AM new
No one party should have total power in the House or the Senate. That would not best represent the American people. A balanced house, like a balanced budget, is in the best interest of all Americans. The fillibuster is merely a means to try to balance the power and it has worked for over 200 years. Of course, the republicans don't believe in a balance of power and they've been none too obvious about that.
posted on May 24, 2005 07:54:31 AM new
And just how oh great wise BIKER does the filibuster do that....did you manage to read all the way through my post.
posted on May 24, 2005 09:01:17 AM new
LOL....gotta love how some on the left don't believe in our system of government. That's why they like their judges making law.
NO NEVER should one party have complete control.. What to American VOTERS think they're doing voicing their CHOICES for just who THEY elect into office.
No one party should have total power in the House or the Senate. That would not best represent the American people.
Sorry...cheryl...but that is how our system was set up and still is today. IT has worked for over 200 years. Because you don't like the result of a FREE nation's voting results....doesn't mean our system is ot in the best interest of the American people.
geezeeeeee
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 24, 2005 09:09:31 AM new
"""gotta love how some on the left don't believe in our system of government. That's why they like their judges making law."""
DUH! It was the REPUBLICANS who wanted to eliminate the filibuster.
And, in your own words, "IT has worked for over 200 years"""
bush has gotten 85% of HIS judges appointed.....time to quit whining.
posted on May 24, 2005 09:25:24 AM new
Watched Lindsey Graham being interview by Chris Mathews last night about his participation in this 'board of 14 senators' deciding this for the majority.
He stated that to them...the American public was making it MORE THAN CLEAR they were tired of both sides not getting the people's business accomplished...as they were so dead-locked on this filibuster issue. And that is why 7 from each side decided to break away from their party's position, [fully realizing they were going to get much 'flack' from their party leaders] and meet to resolve this problem.
From the end result of their agreement...I don't see where the dems have gained anything at all. The republicans are going to get the Presidents nominees up for a vote as should have happened months/years ago.
I personally would have preferred to see it 'go nuclear' as it's my position that all nominees from any president should be put up for the vote. Take them out that way if you don't like them for any reason - not by obstructing them being voted on.
[don't assume I don't understand the process of protecting the minority party]
I also don't like that we elect 100 Senators to represent us.....and that while the dems are complaining that the rules shouldn't be changed from needing 60 votes to say 51, [they've been changed in the past]...
some appear to think/accept/approve of only 14 making these agreements...rather than the full house.
I don't agree.
We start out with 100...it's takes 60 to actually pass a nominee, in these blocked cases...and the dems are upset about changing that to 51. BUT then some accept only 14 making the decisions for the 100. Not good imo, no matter which party has control.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 24, 2005 09:32:55 AM new
Morning, Linda. lol! yah sometimes my sauce is even magically invisable!
I thought those stats were interesting,. as we often think of the poor (or the wasters depending on how you want to look at it) in terms of and race and class as well.
...Dont know why, but that has always been an important issue to me.
posted on May 24, 2005 01:30:15 PM new
The dems were facing disaster and they knew it. The republicans could have lowered the number of votes to an amount necessary to allow the President's nominees to get their up or down vote. And the dems knew Frist was serious.
They saved face this way...and one positive thing I see that may come out of all this...is now their time can be spent on other government business rather than having a complete 'melt-down' on each and every piece of leglistaion being addressed. Because, in my opinion had this agreement not been worked out...I believe Frist would have carried though with his 'threat' to get things moving...and then we'd have only seen more and more obstruction and fighting on all the issues the American voters want to see addressed.
Now...hopefully....IF this 'trust' that's been promised really comes about....this administration WILL be able to go forward with the issues this President wants dealth with.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 24, 2005 01:44:45 PM new
The filibuster is a tool for the losing party to use to stop government from working.
It doesn't matter who the losing party is they are always sore losers. If they would get out and have good candadites and a decent platform then the filibuster would be no good.
If one party is jealous of the other because they performed better during the elections and won the majority of both house and senate of course they would try and stop the government from working but then again when the shoe is on the other foot watch out....
