Fillibuster vote tomorrow

[quote name='Rich']Oh, you're one of those guys that don't read what I write, eh?

"and get rid of the judge who knowingly voted against a supermajority."

As for your other "hypothetical," I refuse to answer, as it insults mine, and everyone who agrues with you's, intelligence. We both know it's not plausible. Had this been a century ago, and slavery was still prevalent all over the world, perhaps I would agree that slavery should stay institutionalized.[/QUOTE]

So if the supermajority wants a law that blatantly violates the consitution or civil rights, the judge should go against what a judge is supposed to do, and just go by the polls?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']So if the supermajority wants a law that blatantly violates the consitution or civil rights, the judge should go against what a judge is supposed to do, and just go by the polls?[/QUOTE]

He's too good to answer that. :roll:

myke.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']If Frist lost, how is it that some of these nominees are going to face a vote?[/QUOTE]

Well they aren't his nominees. Plus overturning the filibuster was Frist's goal.
 
[quote name='Rich']Judges that go against the will of the supermajority deserve to be removed from office. "all" judges do not go against the will of the supermajority. Most judges, in fact, don't.[/QUOTE]

Judges' jobs are not to push the will of the majority or even supermajority. Even if every American wanted something, it's not a judge's job to push that. A judge's job is simply to fairly interpret the law, nothing more, nothing less. The other two branches of government are the ones who speak for the majority.
 
I had a huge response typed up and then it got fucking eaten.

It was all about having enough confidence in the people of America for something to never receive a supermajority regarding serious civil rights offenses, and if such a thing ever did happen, which I firmily believe will no, international law should be the only thing to matter. And I laughed at equating gay marriage with slavery.

It went on and on about how the will of the people is supreme. I believe it. Liberals do not. I have confidence in the public, but apparently the left does not, because as we all know, they're the "educated." To be fair, the right doesn't believe the public is capable of decisions itself, either.

It's as though the will of the people means absolutely nothing if the judge doesn't agree with them.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']The other two branches of government are the ones who speak for the majority.[/QUOTE]

And if they did that, maybe I'd feel differently. They don't. A judge's decision is supreme in this country, and it's BS.
 
[quote name='Rich']And if they did that, maybe I'd feel differently. They don't. A judge's decision is supreme in this country, and it's BS.[/QUOTE]

Not true, judges are bound by law, law which is made and enacted by the legislative and executive branches together, or the legislative branch alone. I'm not saying there aren't rogue judges out there who are making bad decisions and shouldn't be held accountable for that, just that in the end the supreme law of the land is not made by the Supreme Court or any court, but by the people through Congress and (or without) the president, or also through state legislatures in the case of constitutional amendments.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Not true, judges are bound by law, law which is made and enacted by the legislative and executive branches together, or the legislative branch alone. I'm not saying there aren't rogue judges out there who are making bad decisions and shouldn't be held accountable for that, just that in the end the supreme law of the land is not made by the Supreme Court or any court, but by the people through Congress and (or without) the president, or also through state legislatures in the case of constitutional amendments.[/QUOTE]

The courts interpret the law. That gives them ALL the power. I would be much happier if all court decisions were decided by national vote. I could live with the repercussions.

(funny, too, since I support gay union [read: the perks of marriage without being married] and abortion, but yet I oppose the judicial branch.)
 
I guess everyone went to bed? Don't expect any responses from me...I'm waking up, going to a wake, then going to see Crossfade at the Starland Ballroom tomorrow and the Yankees on wednesday, so no time for responses.
 
Well, looks like there's not going to be a vote either way: an 'agreement' has been reached whereby both sides agree to chicken out of having a vote with unpredictable results, and everybody can claim victory for their side. Or at least that's my interpretation of it.
 
[quote name='Drocket']Well, looks like there's not going to be a vote either way: an 'agreement' has been reached whereby both sides agree to chicken out of having a vote with unpredictable results, and everybody can claim victory for their side. Or at least that's my interpretation of it.[/QUOTE]

Democrats got scared. It was an interesting game of chicken. Really doubt the moderate republicans would have actually let it happen, but do you want to take that chance?
 
It wasn't just the Democrats who got scared: the Republican side definitely backed down too (well, not the Republican leaders, but lets face it - they're idiots.) Just look at what they accepted as a 'compromise' - they'll get to vote on a couple of the canidates that nobody actually cares about anyway, and the Democrats promise not to filibuster unless they want to. Those aren't exactly the terms you agree to unless you have no clue whether you'd have won or not.

The Republicans had a lot to lose in this too: if the filibuster changes had come up for a vote and failed, Bush would pretty much officially be a lame duck. He's already moving towards that position rather quickly: his Social Security reforms are going nowhere, Guantanamo Bay is becoming more and more of an embarassment (even with the Newsweek thing distracting away from the real issued), and the House is ready to openly defy him by passing a stem-cell research bill. Presidents enter their second term with a limited amount of steam ('Mandate' power, to put it in Bush terms), and Bush has burned through quite a bit of his already without accomplishing much. A loss in this debate would have pretty much been the nail in the coffin for Bush's ability to get things done in Washington.

In some ways, I'd kind of have prefered it to go to a vote. My feeling is that it would have lost, narrowly, though I'm not at all certain of that. Even if it would have passed, though, it would have been fun to watch the Republicans scream about how unfair it is when they lose power in 10 or 20 years... (Or maybe even less, if it would have passed.)
 
The Republicans wouldn't scream about it when/if they lost power. They never blocked judicial nominees once they made it out of committee to the floor with a threatened fillibuster.

The thing about this that is so striking to me is no one stood on pricinpal. No one. According to Democrats all of the 7 nominees in question were unfit to serve, now they comporomised and said okay, we'll give you 3 we didn't think were fit to serve, we won't vote on 2 more we didn't think were fit to serve which is the same as letting them be confirmed. So they gave up principle on 5 of the 7.

Meanwhile Republicans gave up on their stance of getting every nominee an up or down vote and gave two to the wolves for political purposes.

If you ask me this compromise reeks of corruption. If you are going to make bold faced statements in absolutes that people are too extreme to serve, you don't let them serve, regardless of political cost. If you're going to say every nominee deserves an up or down vote fight for it. There's nothing wrong with losing a contest like this for either side in comparison to selling out your core constituancies and base.

The true losers here are the core supporters of both political parties who were thrown under the bus for the purposes of political expedience.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']The Republicans wouldn't scream about it when/if they lost power. They never blocked judicial nominees once they made it out of committee to the floor with a threatened fillibuster. [/QUOTE]
They didn't need to because Democrats didn't push the issue. The Democrats could have easily pushed the canidates through the committee, and the Republicans would have fillibustered to prevent a vote. The only difference between that situation and this one is that the Democrats had enough good grace to not tie up the Senate on such a pointless issue. They simply nominated different canidates who were mainstream enough to not run the risk of being blocked by a filibuster.

Just because you don't use a power doesn't mean you don't have it - often times the threat of power is more than enough to get your way.
 
[quote name='Rich']I had a huge response typed up and then it got fucking eaten.

It was all about having enough confidence in the people of America for something to never receive a supermajority regarding serious civil rights offenses, and if such a thing ever did happen, which I firmily believe will no, international law should be the only thing to matter. And I laughed at equating gay marriage with slavery.

It went on and on about how the will of the people is supreme. I believe it. Liberals do not. I have confidence in the public, but apparently the left does not, because as we all know, they're the "educated." To be fair, the right doesn't believe the public is capable of decisions itself, either.

It's as though the will of the people means absolutely nothing if the judge doesn't agree with them.[/QUOTE]

I'm not in complete disagreement with the will of the people; I do, however, recognize the fact that the will of the people can occasionally go against what is best for the country as a whole, and/or go against what is constitutional, and/or go against what is ethical. The area of gay marriage is a perfect example of that; there are no good reasons to not support gay marriage, except to reinforce the superior legitimacy of the decisions made by heterosexual couples (i.e., if gay marriage is legal, it makes my marriage seem like an obvious social counstruct - since marriage is being defined and redefined at will). I don't care if it is a socially created and reinforced concept - since it is. Even the desire to keep the language separate (the "just don't call it marriage" group) is an implication of heterosexual hegemony (you guys can have the benefits and all, but *we* know who the *real* married couples are).

Gay marriage is a terrible example of pointing out judges going against the will of the people for this reason: in the absence of gay marriage, a population is suffering from overt discrimination; if gay marriage was legal, our nation would be one step closer towards egalitarianism.

I'm glad that it seems to have finally occurred to you that judges interpret the laws, and are the not subject to the "will of the people." I am curious, however, if you can think of any examples, other than overturning of anti-gay marriage statutes, that seem to help justify the degree of vitriol you have for the judicial branch.

myke.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']The Republicans wouldn't scream about it when/if they lost power. They never blocked judicial nominees once they made it out of committee to the floor with a threatened fillibuster.

The thing about this that is so striking to me is no one stood on pricinpal. No one. According to Democrats all of the 7 nominees in question were unfit to serve, now they comporomised and said okay, we'll give you 3 we didn't think were fit to serve, we won't vote on 2 more we didn't think were fit to serve which is the same as letting them be confirmed. So they gave up principle on 5 of the 7.

Meanwhile Republicans gave up on their stance of getting every nominee an up or down vote and gave two to the wolves for political purposes.

If you ask me this compromise reeks of corruption. If you are going to make bold faced statements in absolutes that people are too extreme to serve, you don't let them serve, regardless of political cost. If you're going to say every nominee deserves an up or down vote fight for it. There's nothing wrong with losing a contest like this for either side in comparison to selling out your core constituancies and base.

The true losers here are the core supporters of both political parties who were thrown under the bus for the purposes of political expedience.[/QUOTE]

:applause:

I'm astounded that I almost agree with everything you say. Mark this moment.

There are, of course, minor exceptions. There was a filibuster to block Richard Paez (a Clinton nominee) from nomination for the Califnornica 9th circuit judicial position. Frist was one among 14 senators who voted against cloture, in effect favoring continued "filibuster" over an "up or down vote," to use the current oversimplified parlance.

EDIT to provide link to senate page describing the Paez cloture vote: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00037

I'd also disagree with the "corruption" assertion, but only mildly. I'd argue that one's first successful reelection is sufficient evidence of corruption; if you're a success in Washington, you're corrupt. I'd argue, instead, that the compromise reeked of desperation. Both political parties were suffering immensely from this and other issues; it was unpopular to fight for what they were proclaiming as important positions. To continue to do so would eventually hurt them, so bipartisanship occurred in the only way it possibly can these days: based on the need to coexist.

myke.
 
McCain's stock just went way up and Frist's is plummetting. This is a victory for moderates and compromise. Frist could have made a similar deal days ago but he refused because he's courting the all-or-nothing religious right. I hope this sets up McCain nicely for a 2008 nomination.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']McCain's stock just went way up and Frist's is plummetting. This is a victory for moderates and compromise. Frist could have made a similar deal days ago but he refused because he's courting the all-or-nothing religious right. I hope this sets up McCain nicely for a 2008 nomination.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. I am very happy about this compromise, and even happier McCain had a part in it.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']The Republicans wouldn't scream about it when/if they lost power. They never blocked judicial nominees once they made it out of committee to the floor with a threatened fillibuster.

The thing about this that is so striking to me is no one stood on pricinpal. No one. According to Democrats all of the 7 nominees in question were unfit to serve, now they comporomised and said okay, we'll give you 3 we didn't think were fit to serve, we won't vote on 2 more we didn't think were fit to serve which is the same as letting them be confirmed. So they gave up principle on 5 of the 7.

Meanwhile Republicans gave up on their stance of getting every nominee an up or down vote and gave two to the wolves for political purposes.

If you ask me this compromise reeks of corruption. If you are going to make bold faced statements in absolutes that people are too extreme to serve, you don't let them serve, regardless of political cost. If you're going to say every nominee deserves an up or down vote fight for it. There's nothing wrong with losing a contest like this for either side in comparison to selling out your core constituancies and base.

The true losers here are the core supporters of both political parties who were thrown under the bus for the purposes of political expedience.[/QUOTE]

Ya know, not all republicans think exactly alike, and not all democrats think exactly alike. This was a compromise between moderates on both side. Is compromising to get things done foreign to you? No point in risking screwing yourself and making things worse, if your bold statements are at risk of screwing you that is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top