“It is part of a balance, lets say we have 55 R and 45 D in the senate (this of course is purely hypothetical), that means 55% of the US has one opinion the other 45% have another, the minority still has a right to voice its opinion and have very limited power. If not the 55 could vote (by simple majority) to eat the 45 and it could be so.


Its precedent, its benefitted both sides and hurt em both. To me that makes it a no brainer. The fcat that the majority party wants to cahnge the rules to benefit itself mid stream is quite alarming to me and I voted for the guys. Its a power grab and anyone who denies it is being pretty naive. This isnt an attempt to bad mouth conservatives (I am one) its about keeping a balance. Our fore bearers cooked up these ideas for a reason. They have worked so far.

I love gridlock and stalling. Thats means the checks and balances we are taught about are working.”

“Our fore bearers cooked up these ideas for a reason.

Our 'fore bearers', not to be confused with the Founding Fathers. They were not cooked up, nor used, by the founding fathers.”

“Ok birch, but I was hoping somebody would be more specific.

If I read your answer right, you haven't touched on the issue that we're a republic/democracy, and the filibuster destroys that concept. We elect people to represent our ideals.

I understand that you are saying it keeps one party out of total control, but the 'balance' that our founding fathers sought was not party balance, but balance between the branches.

That is, if the people want Dems, let 'em have Dems ... same with Repubs and the Green party...

There are laws and principles in place to prevent, say, the ruling party make a law to "put liberals in jail", etc... or otherwise, break their constitutional rights.”

“All well said Birch. I'd disagree, or maybe, clarify one implication.

"This isnt an attempt to bad mouth conservatives (I am one) its about keeping a balance.”
birch
7:11:13 PM
5/20/05

Ending fillibusters isn't conservative, its radical. It's ending a tradition that has existed for most of our country's history in order to eliminate a conservative force in government. Fillibuster is an inherently conservative institution, it thwarts the ability of the party in power to make raspid change. Perhaps that's why a genuine conservative is comfortable with it. If you really distrust governmental power, why increase the ability and speed with which government can impose change?”

“sarge, everyone in the senate is elected by someone, does the minority have no rights?."that is, if the people want Dems, let 'em have Dems ... same with Repubs and the Green party" 45 dems were elected by someone, I say let those people be represented.

"If I read your answer right, you haven't touched on the issue that we're a republic/democracy, and the filibuster destroys that concept. We elect people to represent our ideals."

Allowing the minority to have a smidgen of power does not undercut democracy in any way. If it did given women the vote (a former minority) or blacks the right to vote ( a minority) would have destroyed america. Thats nonsense. We didnt elect absolute leaders we elected a group of of politically different groups who represents their constiuancy who just happen to be different then each other. They have to hash out their differences and play by the rules, not change em. Unless of course we can accept the consequesnces of a government that does what it wants and worries about the pesky legal details later, a very sobering thought indeed.


Ped, thanks for clarifying my point. I was making sure no one would accuse me of being an idealogue when we get to the ad hominum attack portion of this thread, sort of a pre-emption.

We have rules that have been made by folks other then Jefferson et al and those rules are no less valid then the original constitution. A constitutional muster would certainly be interesting to watch but the results would be abysmal.

Yes we live in a representative republic , no we dont live in a direct democracy federally.

When its the last inning and your team is in the lead, you cant petition the baseball commisioner to deny the other team their last up at bat. We have rules for a reason. If democrats were pushing this under clinton would you honestly support this?

The motives here remind me of a great scripture... "do nothing out of selfish ambition or conceit but in lowliness of mind esteem others better then yourself" how fitting for some of our leaders today.”

“Much of the premise of your argument seems to contain the perception that my party is in power. The Republicans don't represent me, and I despise what they're doing to this country on many fronts, same with the Dems. Just wanted to throw that out there.

Another premise seems to be that without the filibuster, the minority have no power. That isn't true. The filibuster has only been used to a greater extent in recent times. We've had two parties hashing it out way before it became popular to filibuster. No one party dominated the country. In fact, the more filibustering we had, the more we became a 2 party system. If the government is run the way it's supposed to, the people will elect people to power who represent them. Term limits need to be imposed and enforced, and laws need to be enforced, the courts need to do their job (not legislate), etc - if everyone does their jobs as designed everything will work out fine.

If you'll take note, the further we get away from the original intent and implementation of the founding father's plan, the more devisive and weak a country we become. There's a reason for that. We all want power. Nobody wants to live by rules. Everyone wants to be in control. If we would just submit to the constitution, and stop trying to rewrite it for our own selfish ambitions (to borrow a phrase), we'll be much better off as a nation, and as neighbors.

Hopefully we're not in the last inning. Hopefully people realize we're one team, not two, before it's too late. There are people trying to change the rules. There are methodic practices in place designed to rip us apart from the inside out. If we'd go back to the basics, go back to playing by the rules instead of trying to write new ones to favor our "team", go back to the constitution, we'll be better off.

Selfishness is not sacrificing your principles and ethics. Holding others in esteem better than ourselves is God's command for us, not to hold others morals in higher esteem. One can be humble and full of love, while not sacrificing princlples at the same time.”

“Much of the premise of your argument seems to contain the perception that my party is in power. The Republicans don't represent me, and I despise what they're doing to this country on many fronts, same with the Dems. Just wanted to throw that out there.

As I said earlier I am a conservative, it is our party.

"
. There's a reason for that. We all want power. Nobody wants to live by rules. " Like the folks who want to drop the fillibuster?

Where do we draw the arbitrary line for what is valid and what isnt? What past practices do we keep? How far back do we go 1780?

"the more devisive and weak a country we become" we are far less devisive now then in the passed recall that we had senators beat each other with canes in the good ole days. And we are still stronger then ever.

"Term limits need to be imposed and enforced, and laws need to be enforced, the courts need to do their job (not legislate), etc - if everyone does their jobs as designed everything will work out fine." this sounds great for an abstract discussion but in reality this isnt the case so we deal in the real here and now.

We can go back anf forth forever, generally I stay away from this stuff, this is why, a big circle. I ran enough, see ya.”

“I was gone all weekend, does anyone know if Frist's plan worked against the filibuster?”

“As of now, there is a meeting today on a possible proposal to offer up a compromise. McCain said the tough part is in the language that would take the filibuster away and yet still empower the minority to a small extent in offering some defense to their positions. We will probably hear more ont his later.”

“Go to any news site, Ewker.
Tuesday is the day.”

“Stove, not to be argumentive but you know the so called Liberals have no clue as to what a good new site is per the so called Conservatives ;)”

“I think I fillabustered in my pants...”

“Ped, one thing I do have a problem with is a minority holding the one-man one-vote principle hostage.

I think that government already responds to way too many special interest groups as it is.

I agree with the concept of preventing the tyranny of the majority especially as it relates to our Electoral College. But when do we cross the line from protecting minorities from the tyranny of the majority while destroying the very principles of representative democracy?

These folks (http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=76955304) make a good argument Ped.




And here is what the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled:

“The U.S. Supreme Court has been emphatic that the representation of people on a reasonably equal basis is a fundamental constitutional principle that must be observed by all other elected bodies in the United States.””

“They way for minorities to be victorious is to convince enough of the majority that there idea is better.

That is what will make our country stronger. Not this garbage where the maddest get what they want. That's what Nanny 911 is for.”

“It's funny - the guy is getting 95% of his nominees in and people are howling that the minority party is too powerful in the process.

And Arc - if you really believe the fillibuster is unconstitutional, push for the Republicans to take it to the Supreme Court.”

“It's only unconstitutional when the other party uses it. When it was the GOP blocking Clinton's nominees it was good politics.”

“WASHINGTON - With a crisis over the Senate's future averted, Republican leaders pushed Tuesday for quick confirmation of an embattled Texas judge and others blocked by Democrats because of their conservative leanings.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said he hoped the Senate would vote quickly on Priscilla Owen, a Texas Supreme Court justice who has been waiting four years to gain a seat on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Frist lauded the 14 senators, seven Republicans and seven Democrats, who on Monday evening reached an agreement that allowed action on Owen and at least two other stalled nominations while preventing a precedent-shaking move by Frist to eliminate all future uses of the filibuster to thwart judicial nominees.

With the seven Democrats on board, the Senate was ready to vote Tuesday to cut off debate on the Owen nomination, ending the filibuster and moving toward a final vote on confirmation.

Frist, while stressing that he was not a party to the compromise, said it signified "modest progress" in assuring that President Bush's judicial nominations would get a yes-or-no vote in the Senate.

If the agreement is carried out in good faith, he said, "I believe it will make filibusters in the future, including Supreme Court nominees, almost impossible."

But Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada reminded Frist that the agreement did not alter the rights of the minority to lengthy debate, and in extraordinary circumstances, filibusters of controversial nominations.

He said that also applied to the Senate vote on the highly contentious nomination of John Bolton to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. That nomination could come up this week and "there are a lot of things we have to talk about with Bolton," Reid said.

The agreement, crafted over the past several weeks by the 14 mostly moderate senators, also opened the way for yes-or-no votes on two other of Bush's judicial picks who have been in nomination limbo for more than two years — William H. Pryor Jr. for the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and Janice Rogers Brown for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The agreement, which also applies to Supreme Court nominees, said future judicial nominations should "only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances," with each Democratic senator holding the discretion to decide when those conditions had been met.

There were other political implications, as well, including the shape of the Supreme Court, the midterm election in 2006, Bush's legislative agenda and the next presidential race, especially the prospects for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and potential GOP rival Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

McCain, who led the compromise effort with Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., said, "We tried to avert a crisis in the United States Senate and pull the institution back from a precipice."

Frist, who had joined with party conservatives in pressing for an end to judicial filibusters, stressed that he was not a party to the agreement. He said he hoped it would end a "miserable chapter in the history of the Senate," but said that what he called the "constitutional option" was still on the table. He said he "will monitor this agreement closely."

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," press secretary Scott McClellan said.

A battle over judicial nominations that began in Bush's first term had been headed toward a climactic conclusion Tuesday with Frist planning to employ what both sides came to call the "nuclear option" because of its potentially disruptive effects.

Had the Democrats used their filibuster powers again to stop Owen, Frist would have sought a ruling from the chair, approvable by a simple majority, that filibusters should not be allowed to obstruct judicial nominations. Vice President Dick Cheney, as president of the Senate, was prepared to take the chair Tuesday to break a tie vote.

Unlike the House, where the majority rules, the majority in the 100-seat Senate must at times gain 60 votes to proceed on legislation over the objection of the minority. Republicans, with 55 seats have had difficulty reaching that threshold against united Democratic opposition.

Frist and most other Republicans said judicial nominees deserved a straight up-or-down vote, and accused the Democrats of unprecedented abuse of their filibuster power in blocking 10 circuit court judge nominees in Bush's first term.

Democrats countered that Frist's action would fundamentally undermine minority rights. Equally important, they worried that it would give Bush and his Republican allies free rein to place any one of their choosing on the Supreme Court if, as expected, there are vacancies in the near future.

Under the terms of the agreement, Democrats said they would allow final confirmation votes for Owen, Brown and Pryor, three nominees all assailed by Democrats for what they say has been their conservative activism. 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.

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.”

“The Dems caved. The Repubs played their hand well.”

“Complete cave by dems.”

“yep, the Dems caved in.

Funny, I heard on a local conservative radio station this morning that the Republicans in Tenn better take a hard look at who is replacing Frist. The host said that he had better be a more hard nose Rep than the soft nose Frist. I thought that was kind of odd since in a way Frist got this done.”

“But then again, how‘s it gonna make your party look if you filibuster a black woman who‘s the daughter of an Alabama share cropper, single mother, put herself through law school and claimed 76% of the vote for re election to the CALIFORNIA supreme court. Just the fact she didn’t sail right through should be a black mark on the obstructionist dems (not all, the obstructionists).

And no surprise here that Teddy “hic” Kennedy called her a Neanderthal.”

“I'd guess that ANY judge Bush nominates for any higher court will spring the "and in extraordinary circumstances, filibusters of controversial nominations" option. So I think this agreement is worthless to the Republicans.”

“noprob, filibusters have been around for a long time. There was no need for the Rep. esp Frist to try and pull something like this to start with.

Filibusters good when the Rep want to use them, filibusters bad when the Democrats want to use them.”

“Can anyone cite one instance when the republicans filibustered for the sole purpose of overturning an appointment? Not stalling but to keep the appointment from happening. And what was the longest they held out at it?”

“What about all the circuit judges that were put through with no prob, no prob?

HA! I made a frickin' funny!”

“Republican Filibusters Of Nominees Reported To The Floor (past 35 years)

[Return To Judicial Nominations Worksheet]

Year Nominee Position Cloture Motions
1968 Abe Fortas, Supreme Court 1*
1980 William Lubbers, NLRB 3
1980 Don Zimmerman, NLRB 3
1980 Stephen Breyer, 1st Circuit 2
1987 Melissa Wells, Ambassador 1
1987 William Verity, Commerce 1
1993 Walter Dellinger, Justice 2
1993 Five State Department Nominees 2
1993 Janet Napolitano, Justice 1
1994 Larry Lawrence, Ambassador 1
1994 Rosemary Barkett, 11th Circuit 1
1994 Sam Brown, Ambassador 3*
1994 Derek Shearer, Ambassador 2
1994 Ricki Tigert, FDIC 2
1994 H. Lee Sarokin, 3rd Circuit 1
1995 Henry Foster, Surgeon General 2*
1998 David Satcher, Surgeon General 1
2000 Marsha Berzon, 9th Circuit 1
2000 Richard Paez, 9th Circuit 1”

“But were these for the purpose of overturning the nominations?”

“"The Republicans' hands aren't clean on this either. What we did with Bill Clinton's nominees - about 62 of them - we just didn't give them votes in committee or we didn't bring them up."”

“Nigal, this one was to long to copy and paste. It gives an example on one of Clintons appointees that the Rep filibusted on for a while

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200311/111303b.html”

“Thanks for the link. I really didn't know if they had or not.”

“It's not just fillibustering - its 60 of Clinton's nominees that didn't get a vote. If the principle is in a Democracy nominees deserve an up or down vote, the Repubs were far worse to Clinton (maybe because they could be).”

“That was precisely the point, Ped. They are going to use whatever methods they have at their disposal and that varies, depending upon who's in the majority.”

“LOL
This thread is a pretty good test of pol leanings.

If you think the Dems caved, you are liberal.
If you think the Reps gave away too much, you are conservative.
If you think it's a pretty fair deal, you are a moderate.”

“don't think so Stove. I think it is more of a case of what is right.

If filibusters are wrong do away with them totally but not when it plays into your hands.

Kind of hard to tell one party it is wrong when they use it but ok when the other wants to use it.

BTW stove, I don't think you posted what you thought about it?
last edited: 5/24/05 12:58:43 PM”

“Ewker, you little liberal. ;-)”

“

Bwaaaaaah!

Bwaa bwaa bwaaaah!


Bwaaaaaaaaaah!

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=47847
last edited: 5/24/05 2:06:08 PM”

“The edit feature is nice.
Isn't it violin?
LOL
last edited: 5/24/05 2:08:14 PM”

“

Waaaaaah!

Waaah waah waaah!


Waaaaaaaaaaahhh!

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=47850”

“The extreme Right hates the deal, and the extreme Left hates it so it must be about right.”

“Well, Stove - I read it as a Democratic cave in, but time will tell. We'll see how many Judicial nominees do get fillibustered. My guess is that Bush will just make more extreme appoinments so the Dems will have to either swallow them or re-visit the fillibuster thing all over again.”

“I think the fillibuster thing is stupid in the first place and it doesn't matter which party gets rid it. Whoever gets rid of it will look like they're trying to strong arm the other.”

“FRIST STATEMENT FOLLOWING SENATE CONFIRMATION OF PRISCILLA OWEN


US Senator William H. Frist, M.D.
May 25th, 2005 - WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, M.D. (R-TN) made the following statement today after Senate confirmation of Priscilla Owen to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals:


“Today’s vote marks a triumph of principle over politics and results over rhetoric. Justice Owen is a distinguished, mainstream jurist who has exhibited extraordinary patience and courage in the face of vicious and continuous criticism. This vote should mark a new beginning here in the Senate – a step forward for principle, fairness and the Constitution. However, we cannot stop with this single step. Though it remains my hope that the Constitutional option does not become necessary, we must give fair up or down votes to other previously blocked nominees. It is the only way to close this miserable and unprecedented chapter in Senate history.”



This statement "It is the only way to close this miserable and unprecedented chapter in Senate history" is a joke. If the Republicans were doing the filibustering it would be this great and glorious chapter in Senate history”

“Ummm...

Excuse me Mr. Frist...

Mr. Frist....

You have poo on your lapel.”

“What's that I hear????????

The extreme Left crying???
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
WAAAAAAAAAAAA
WAAAAAAAAAAAA

LOL”

“"this miserable and unprecedented chapter in Senate history" ain't no joke - it's just that his behavior and that of his allies is what made it so miserable.”

“?”

“I love irony....

This morn on NPR I heard a story about the stem cell bill just passed in the house. It was not 2/3's so the prez' veto (he has said so much) will stand. The house members want the senate to quickly pass it (which it is anticipated will easily happen), here is the good part.....

a ranking republican was quoted (I wis I heard his name but was busy trying not to wreck my work van as I heard this while driving) as saying "we will fillibuster this bill". Come on already, yesterday the fillibuster was the biggest threat to the US since the rise of the Red menace and today its legitimate. Good grief.”

“Come on already, yesterday the fillibuster was the biggest threat to the US since the rise of the Red menace and today its legitimate. Good grief.”
birch
7:30:03 PM
5/25/05

Birch, does that suprise you”

“Filibuster deal is called a blow to Frist's ambitions
Senator's presidential hopes, his standing as a leader are hurt, political analysts say
- Zachary Coile, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Wednesday, May 25, 2005


Washington -- For months Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist had been preparing for a showdown over judicial filibusters that would have been the opening act in his expected run for the White House in 2008.

But the script was rewritten Monday night by a group of 14 moderates, mavericks and Senate veterans -- including seven Republicans who bucked their party leader by agreeing to a deal to allow votes on three of President Bush's nominees but preserve the right of Democrats to filibuster some judicial nominees.

"He had the rug pulled out from under him by the centrists," said Manuel Miranda, a former Frist aide who has helped coordinate conservative opposition to judicial filibusters by Democrats.

While social conservatives aimed their fury Tuesday at Republicans who agreed to the deal, many GOP activists expressed disappointment in the Tennessee Republican leader's inability to keep his caucus in line and deliver on his promise of up-or-down votes for all of the president's judicial nominees.

Analysts said Frist's standing as Senate leader and his presidential ambitions were damaged by Monday's events. They said, though, that he could redeem himself somewhat if he is able to keep Senate Republicans unified during the expected battle over a Supreme Court nominee to replace Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who is in ill health and expected to step down this summer.

"I was watching Frist on the Senate floor, and he looked like he had been hit by a train," said Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia professor of government. "Presidential nominees are people who appear to be leaders; they are people who know how to adjust the mirrors and blow the blue smoke. Bill Frist looked utterly powerless."

Frist's Democratic counterpart -- Harry Reid of Nevada -- did not fare much better Monday as seven Democratic senators agreed to allow votes on three appellate court nominees Reid had described as radical, Sabato said.

"But no one expects the minority leader to project power," Sabato said of Reid. "My guess is while the conservatives will say 'Bill Frist, you tried and you were on the right side,' they are not going to support him. He did not produce."

Frist's backers in the Senate insisted Tuesday that without his threat to change Senate rules to ban judicial filibusters, Democrats would never have agreed to allow votes on several of Bush's court nominees who had been blocked for as long as four years.

"His stature in my eyes has gone up," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. "When he brought it up, he never waffled and never wavered. And this led to the group going off and reaching an agreement."

Christian conservatives were infuriated by the deal, arguing that Republicans had the votes to end filibusters of all judicial nominees. Gary Bauer, president of American Values, called it a sellout, and James Dobson, founder of the Focus on the Family, called the deal a "betrayal by a cabal of Republicans."

The agreement could have significant fallout in the 2008 presidential race.

Last week top GOP leaders in Iowa sent a letter warning two GOP presidential hopefuls -- Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska -- that they would risk losing in the state's first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses if they didn't support a ban on judicial filibusters.

McCain, who skipped the Iowa caucuses in 2000, ignored the advice and was a key broker of the deal. Religious conservative groups said McCain's decision effectively ended his chances of running for the presidency as a Republican.

"The fact that McCain is standing up there so prominently saying he is the one who cut this deal ... this will reflect on him, and it will reflect very poorly," said Wendy Wright, senior policy director of Concerned Women for America. "People are very upset about this."

Sabato agreed that McCain could run only as an independent. "He essentially wiped out all the good will he had achieved with conservatives for standing by George W. Bush in the 2004 campaign. This reminded conservative activists of why they don't like McCain and they don't trust him. He's a maverick, always has been, always will be," he said.

Hagel, who is considering a White House bid, was noticeably absent from the group that crafted the deal. But Wright said social conservatives are still suspicious of him. "He doesn't have a track record of standing up on the issues we all care about," she said.

There may also be consequences for senators who crafted the deal and are up for reelection in 2006. Conservative groups in Ohio held a conference call Tuesday to discuss the possibility of running a primary challenger against Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio. Social conservatives also threaten to refuse donations to the National Senatorial Campaign Committee if any of the money goes to help re-elect DeWine or other deal-makers Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine or Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island.

While Frist's effort to change Senate rules failed -- at least for now -- some religious conservatives said he had passed their loyalty test simply by making the issue a top priority.

"He showed that he has cojones," Miranda said. "He allocated the time, which is gold in the Senate, a very valuable commodity."

E-mail Zachary Coile at zcoile@sfchronicle.com.”