Should we let Bill Frist & Co. change the rules of the senate ?

The Constitution says that the President may only appoint judges with the consent and advice of the Senate. If they eliminate the filibuster then they're failing their constitutional duty to debate justices. That's what a filibuster is, after all - debate.It's contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, as well. The Senate isn't supposed to be a revolving door for the Executive branch. Separation of powers, hello? (Moreover it violates the separation of powers because the person who is going to wind up passing this as a "point of order" is the chairman pro tempore of the Senate; in other words, Dick Cheney.)Finally it's contrary to established Senate procedures, and may not even be legal. The Senate has to approve these sorts of proceedural changes at the start of the session, not during. Also it requires, as far as I'm aware, a supermajority to do so. Except that it didn't. That's the big difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans invent dirty tricks, and then, when the Democrats try to turn the tables, here they come with the whining. Don't you Republicans ever stop whining?

I didn't say it was, nor did Senate Democrats. That's not what's being proposed; that's not even on the table.But the Constitution does mandate that the Senate debate and advice in regards to judicial appointments; thus, elimination of filibuster in this situation is contrary to the wording and spirit of the Constitution. Indeed - at the beginning of the session, with a two-thirds vote. According to established proceedure, anyway. (The Senate does get to determine it's own rules, including the rules about how it gets to change its rules.) Hey, look, if you can't read the founding document of our country, that's not really my problem. And the vote can occur as soon as the debating is over. So where's the problem? Frist wants to change the rules so that the debate is over when a simple majority says its over. That's contrary to over 200 years of Senate tradition. The Senate debates for as long as it takes. That's how the Senate works. And how Frist wants to show up and change all that?Seriously, who is this guy to stand in the face of over 200 years of Senate procedure? We sure as hell didn't whine about it. Do you know what Clinton and the Democrats did? They said "you know, maybe we need to be appointing people to these positions that everybody can get behind, not just us, particularly seeing as how they're likely to be filling them for a half-century or so, and we'll only be around for 8 years, tops."In other words, the Democrats recognized that the privlege of filling the bench came with a responsibility to fill it with people who would judge from the finest tradition of a neutral judiciary. Clinton appointed judges that were moderate, and even then, the Republican congress shut down ten times as many nominees as the Dems are threatening to filibuster. But all of sudden Frist has his panties in a twist.Don't you think it's Bush's responsibility to fill these seats with the best and the brightest, the people who can judge not according to party orthodoxy, but according to the best possibile legal reasoning? Don't you think he has a responsibility to appoint judges more qualified, by far, than the ten guys currently the source of the debate? Do you think that repeated overturns by superior courts citing blatant legal mistakes qualifies a judge for a federal bench? I sure don't, but apparently, Bush disagrees. That's all you ever do in these politics threads. Whine your head off about how the party with control of three branches of government still can't get its destructive, anti-American way.

Says you. How shall we define "debate"? I say it's just people talking. The problem is, the Senate rules don't define "debate". They simply allow people to talk. Suppose, for a moment, that one party controlled, with simple majorities, both Houses of Congress and the legislature. If bills can simply be brought to a vote, pre-empting any delay, what debate occurs? The majority party isn't going to be swayed by the arguments of the opposition; they're not even going to allow them the chance to speak.On the other hand, the filibuster ensures that debate can't be steamrolled over without a supermajority. It ensures that the party with the slight majority will still have to compromise with the minority party.Filibuster isn't debate? Sounds to me like the filibuster makes sure we have a lot more debate than we would otherwise.

Uh-huh. And what do you think occurs while that stalling is going on?Or do you think the Senate floor is the only place that politicians are allowed to talk to each other?

Are you interested in seriously discussing this, or just in wasting my time? I guess I'd like to know. Otherwise your flippant dismissal makes it pretty clear you've at least understood my points, and that you have no rebuttal.

To the contrary; traditionally a president would not even offer a candidate who did not have the support of a supermajority in the Senate.A simple majority is neither mandated by the Constitution nor the traditional practice; what the Constitution does specifiy is that the Senate has the power to set its own procedures, and Frist's attempt to eliminate the filibuster flies in the face of those procedures, and is thus unconstitutional.

In regards to the judicial filibuster, the specific procedure under consideration, this is absolutely false. Right. In this case, this is a check on the judiciary. Um, no, that's what the judicial filibuster represents - a check on the judiciary.

It's actually in the Constitution (Article 5):

quote:

---

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

---

As if there remained any doubt we live in a nascent theocracy:

quote:

---

Judge: Parents can't teach pagan beliefs
Father appeals order in divorce decree that prevents couple from exposing son to Wicca.

---

The Indianapolis StarOh, no. We don't live in a theocracy at all do we now?

I'm sorry, did I miss something in your story? I read it and I didn't see where the students right to private freedom of worship was infringed; what I did see was the rights of students not to have to sit through a religious worship that they didn't chose to attend.Nobody has the right to force others to waste their time in worship of somebody else's God, right? Or maybe that's not a right you theocrats recognize.

No, not in the least. I genuinely believe that a large and powerful segment of society believes that Christianity is the only allowed and mandatory religion, and that they've gained enough political power to put that belief into limited, local practice.Nothing cynical about it. Judges are telling parents what religion they can pass on to their children. Legislatures are turning the precepts of the Bible into the laws that everyone has to follow. I question the judgement of anyone who doesn't see the theocratic tendancies in that. At any venue where persons attend voluntarily, certainly.

Can't you worship God by simple attendance and attention? My church told me I could. Do you disagree? How come you don't see a difference between "I believe in God" and "let's all worship our God"?

I'm no lawyer. But I do believe that a captive audience has the right not to have to sit through, and by extension, participate in, even the briefest religious ritual.

Oh? Singing religious songs isn't a typical feature of Christian worship services? That's not what was voiced. Were they warned that religious songs would be sung?

I can't believe we're even having this discussion. Obviously this graduation ceremony decision derives from a considerable body of precident disallowing religious speech at official public school events, beyond the barest of personal religious assertions (i.e. "I am a Christian".)From what precident did the anti-Pagan decision stem? That's the danger of the Republicans - while claiming to be the party of tradition and values, there's absolutely no tradition or value they won't abandon the second that it necessitates the inconvinient or undesired action.