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

In what amounts to an 'end-run' around the constitution, Bill Frist and his Republican supporters in the Senate want to change the rules of philibuster for the overtly partisan purpose of ensuring the appointment of seven Republican judicial nominees to the Supreme Court that are vehemently opposed by the Democrats.(i.e. this would reduce the required majority for passage from 67 % to 51 %)Is this in the country's best interest ?As Barbara Boxer pointed out, only 10 out 218 Supreme Court nominations have ever been dis-approved by the Senate, and probably for very good reason.Even old Bill's alma mater University, Princeton, that his family donated a bloody building to, is severely pissed at him... (damn pay-per-view publishing anyway %#@)The point is, this will represent a PERMANENT CHANGE in the structure of our government that will apply henceforth indefinitely to many issues unrelated to these particular appointments, and I suspect that most people (let me venture to say, many of whom voted for these guys) have little or no grasp of the potential ramifications to the power of 'minority voice' in the senate, let alone appreciation of what an arrogant insult this represents to American democracy.Surely we have some opinions.

i think one party has gone out of control and power-mad.all i can say is i hope the democrats have the good sense to philibuster the HELL out of this bill. if only for the irony factor.

---

אָרַח

Well, maybe.But they have been winning elections of late, and the other party has been losing elections of late.I don't see how abolishing the filibuster is an end run around the Constitution. The filibuster isn't specified as required in the Constitution, IIRC.If I'm mistaken, please cite the relevant article or amendment.Just think, if the Democrats regained a 51-49 advantage, what goes around would come around.

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?

That much it says - but no more. If a supermajority is Constitutionally mandated, please cite article or amendment. Otherwise, it is a matter for Senate rules, which the Senate can change.AFAIK, the filibuster is a long-standing tradition and is codified in current Senate rules - but is subject to change. I am not certain of the procedures. If you have neutral references, please cite them. Would that be penumbra 157, emanation 14 ? Same objection as above. There is opportunity for debate in committee, and in a simple majority vote. Somebody has to win the debate eventually. Right now the Republicans have a majority. In Nov. 2006 the Democrats can try again. Politicians are politicians. Did the Democrats think a filibuster was a wonderful tradition when Clinton was President, and a Republican Senate minority used it to block his appointees? No whining here.This message has been edited by paisano, 05-18-2005 11:34 PM

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.

no, actually, it's not.filibustering a bill is killing time and derailing actual debate until the bill dies. the point is to distract and stop actual decision and debate of real content from occuring.

quote:

---

Main Entry: 1filibuster
Pronunciation: 'fi-l&-"b&s-t&r
Function: noun

​

2 [2filibuster] a : the use of extreme dilatory tactics in an attempt to delay or prevent action especially in a legislative assembly b : an instance of this practice

---

---

אָרַח

anyone see star wars, btw? there's a really good line it, by amidala, something to the effect of "so this is how the republic dies: with thunderous applause." no you're not mistaken. if i had wanted to say it's unconstitutional, i would have. filibustering is just a tactic the minority party can use to delay judgement or kill bills that they don't agree with it. basically, it's shifting the balance of power way towards one party, which is dangerous. no, i doubt that actually. i've seen a lot of double standards from this administration. or just perhaps a lack of healthy opposition, the democrats are not blame-free here. but clinton lies about where he puts willy jr, and he gets impeached. bush lies about where he puts the largest and most powerful military force in the world, and he gets re-elected. i think if the foot were on the other shoe, we'd hear some vicious attacks from the republican side about how the democrats are greedy power-craving infidels. or something.i'm not sure how i feel about banning filibusters in general, but this appears to be something designed specifically to mess with the judicial branch, and appoint judges even the right side doesn't totally like. this is similar to some bills that were written a while ago that had clauses written into them that judicial review didn't apply. it's just a power-grab to assert one party's position, and solidify their control over politics.and i think it's dirty.

---

אָרַח

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.

yes, sure. and i think that it can be a good thing, even. and i think that taking away rights to do it is bad, because then it's restricting speech, and eventually healthy debate and opposition.but the point of filibustering is not to debate, but to stall. it's not about arguing the points, but talking a lot to prevent legislation from happening.

---

אָרַח

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?

i dunno. what do you think occurs?is everything that occurs in congress neccessarily productive debate? no, i'd image they're allowed to talk to each on the floor of the house too.

---

אָרַח

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.

Exciting thread so far.

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

hahahaha oh you kill me crash!

---

אָרַח