1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Is it time to shut down the Senate?

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Richard King, Mar 3, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    Indeed. And you're saying that they shouldn't change them once it's shown they're not working, it seems.

    Because I think when the full Senate doesn't get to vote on something the Constitution says the Senate needs to do, the rules aren't working.
     
  2. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    Actually, a case can be made that the founders expected a full vote because in the clause they do, for TREATIES, say:

    So, the Constitution spells out where two thirds is necessary, and it can be suggested that had they intended for a larger than normal vote for the other appointments, they'd have spelled that out. But it also says that the Congress can give the President the ability to make the appointments without their consent and advice.

    The Senate isn't talking about making the Majority Leader the deciding factor in advice and consent. By all rules it could.

    What is being suggested is that the full Senate vote up or down. And you are saying, "no, that's wrong."

    Why?

    Because it has been this way for a period of time? That's not a good or just reason.
     
  3. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    And you're saying that they shouldn't change them once it's shown they're not working, it seems.

    No, I think they shouldn't change them because they ARE working. The purpose of a filibuster is to obstruct legislation and other acts of the Senate.

    Its a handbrake that despite the frustration of the majority, is considered by many to be a useful tool in making the Senate a much more deliberate body.

    Yes its been abused in the past, and will be abused in the future. But simply put, some things in our government SHOULD move slowly, and this is the tool for that.
     
  4. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    You mean like Robert Byrd filibustered civil rights legislation? Were this about a law, or were this an actual filibuster where people had to talk non-stop, I might agree. But the process has been warped into a joke, and it's time to put it to an end.

    And--if the Democrats make it necessary to change the rule by abusing it, and then make the Senate grind to a halt by not allowing anything to move forward, they're BEGGING to be voted out in even higher numbers.

    That's political reality.
     
  5. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
  6. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    No. Screw 'em. The Republicans didn't give a darn about compromise or "working together", so now everyone is supposed to back down to them and kiss their corrupt asses? I don't think so. Though I don't hold the Democrats much higher in status, I do hope they thwart these Republican goons as much as possible, anywhere, anytime. If it causes anarchy, so be it. Republicans need a good slapdown. Playing nice is no longer an option with them.
     
  7. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    Bullsh*t. They have the authority of the rules that have been set forth previously, rules which are authorized by the Constitution. I don't recall you complaining about the Republicans overstepping THEIR authority when they used those parlimentary rules for THEIR favor.
    True. But he does not have carte blanche to appoint anyone he chooses and have that appointee accepted. There is no guarantee in the Constitution for presidential appointees to be confirmed automatically by rubber stamp.
     
  8. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    Or maybe the Republicans will simply have them taken outside and shot. That seems to be the path they're on, so it's no big step for them to take.
     
  9. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    You mean like Robert Byrd filibustered civil rights legislation?

    As I said, the filibuster has been abused in the past. Not everything that has been filibustered has been worthy. But as I said above, when legislation is important enough, the majority will rally. The infamous Byrd filibuster was overturned.

    If these judicial nominees are so all important, why have we not seen a majority simply stomp out this filibuster before now? The simple answer is that the support is NOT there.

    Something to read on this matter:

    Yes, it says we have a "crisis" in the judiciary. Personally I don't believe it. Bush has less vacancies than Clinton did, and the number of vacancies in the federal judiciary is at the lowest level in 13 years.

    Certainly you are aware of the tendency of politicians to make anything they support into a crisis. Am I to believe that because 10 out of 229 nominees have been intentionally blocked, the whole house of cards will fall down?
     
  10. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    But we're not talking about legislation.

    Because the Senate is split along party lines. But I'm telling you--we'll find a Senate of 60+ Republicans if the Dems take this to the extreme, and they're the ones being extreme right now.

    No one in the public will say "but the GOP re-wrote a senate rule." They'll only say "The Democrats shut down the gov't."
     
  11. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    Edited a few things above as I was looking at older web pages.

    No one in the public will say "but the GOP re-wrote a senate rule." They'll only say "The Democrats shut down the gov't."


    Don't think so. 10 of 229 isn't shutting down the government.

    Democrats have a lot of faults that will cost them the elections of the future, but in my opinion their stance on this issue is one that gains them support rather than losing it.
     
  12. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    Nice to have you back. :rolleyes:
     
  13. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    It's not about the number. Bill Clinton refused to sign budgets but said it was the Republicans who were "shutting down the gov't" and they were blamed with it. If the Democrats make the Senate come to a grinding halt, they will get the PR blame and it WILL hurt them in individual races, because it will be seen as their fault.
     
  14. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    Heh, must have been a post by HGL. He's on my ignore list and I don't remember anyone swearing in this thread. :)

    Heh.
     
  15. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    It's not about the number. Bill Clinton refused to sign budgets but said it was the Republicans who were "shutting down the gov't" and they were blamed with it.

    On that you are correct. Its not about a number or who is really at fault, its entirely about MARKETING and who does the best in getting their issue out. After all, Democrats might be successful in blaming the Republicans for trying to subvert the system and railroad their candidates through expecting a rubber stamp approval. Don't ya love politics. ;)
     
  16. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    What grinding halt? There was a huge back log of empty judicial seats when Bush took office because a Republican dominated Judicial Committee would not let the names of appointees reach the floor, much less be voted on. But now, after hundreds of nominees have been approved, because 10 were "filibustered" Democrats are the problem. One of those not approved was censored several times by the current AG Alberto Gonzales when he was president of the Texas Bar because his findings were so partisan. These are kind of nominees that are being blocked. Thank goodness for the filibuster.
     
  17. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003

    Except I doubt they will. The GOP will say "All we want is an up or down vote of the full Senate, something the Democrats are on record saying they wanted too, and they've shut down the Senate to avoid giving us one." It's not going to sound good to Mr. and Mrs. America. And if you think it will, you don't know politics well enough.
     
  18. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    The Dems are saying they will not let any business move forward in the Senate if the filibuster rule is changed for nominees.
     
  19. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    And if you think it will, you don't know politics well enough.

    You might be right, but I'll wait and see. 10 years ago Republicans were pathetic about getting their message across, and took the blame frequently if it was their fault or not. If not for the war and gay marriage, I think Bush would not be in office today. Senate nominations are much less provocative a subject. I think it will come down to packaging and who is the master of it.

    For this to really escalate will take a Supreme Court nomination to be blocked. Until then its a non-issue for most.

    The Dems are saying they will not let any business move forward in the Senate if the filibuster rule is changed for nominees.

    Perhaps I'm missing something, but how are Republicans going to change the rule in the first place? Can't democrats filibuster the rule change just as they did the nominations?
     
  20. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    As well they should. That is the difference between the Senate and the House. It is part of the checks and balances. Even reasonable Republicans realize that this rule change would work against them when the numbers in inevitably change once again.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page