Should the GOP compromise on the fillibuster issue concerning judicial nominations?
On Monday morning a group of Senators (6 Republicans and 6 Democrats) will meet and attempt to reach compromise on the question of maintaining the fillibuster or moving to the nuclear option of a straight up and down vote on the issue of judicial nominations.
We should know by Monday evening whether or not they have been successful. If they have not then a full Senate debate will ensue probably lasting most of Monday night with the historic vote coming on Tuesday morning.
What are your view on the matter?
Judicial Nominations
-
Philadelphia Eagle
- Posts: 505
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:50 am
Judicial Nominations
America the Beautiful :-6
website - home.comcast.net/~nmusgrave/
website - home.comcast.net/~nmusgrave/
Judicial Nominations
the nukleur option is crap. it is mostly illegal and goes against the actual law that set up the filibuster. a 60 percent vote is needed in order to the filibuster rule, using a point of order is low handed and will ruin the senate as the place of compromise.
Judicial Nominations
Sorry, Eagle, as a mere Brit I`m a bit in the dark here - and yet it sounds pretty important! please can you elucidate exactly what the issues are and who is voting about what?
Judicial Nominations
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Dec12.html
gop's claim wrote: Republicans say that Democrats have abused the filibuster by blocking 10 of the president's 229 judicial nominees in his first term -- although confirmation of Bush nominees exceeds in most cases the first-term experience of presidents dating to Ronald Reagan. Describing the filibusters as intolerable, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has hinted he may resort to an unusual parliamentary maneuver, dubbed the "nuclear option," to thwart such filibusters.
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=17697
explanation from above cite wrote: The target of the nuclear option is the 200-year-old tradition of the Senate filibuster, the tool that empowers 41 or more senators to prevent a narrow majority from abusing its power – and one of the only ways to encourage genuine bipartisan cooperation and compromise on important issues.
the people for the american way are pretty centrist it seems to me, they are in oposition to the nuclear option, if you search the term filibuster on the site you can find lots of info about the whole situation.
gop's claim wrote: Republicans say that Democrats have abused the filibuster by blocking 10 of the president's 229 judicial nominees in his first term -- although confirmation of Bush nominees exceeds in most cases the first-term experience of presidents dating to Ronald Reagan. Describing the filibusters as intolerable, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has hinted he may resort to an unusual parliamentary maneuver, dubbed the "nuclear option," to thwart such filibusters.
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=17697
explanation from above cite wrote: The target of the nuclear option is the 200-year-old tradition of the Senate filibuster, the tool that empowers 41 or more senators to prevent a narrow majority from abusing its power – and one of the only ways to encourage genuine bipartisan cooperation and compromise on important issues.
the people for the american way are pretty centrist it seems to me, they are in oposition to the nuclear option, if you search the term filibuster on the site you can find lots of info about the whole situation.
Judicial Nominations
john8pies,
the real issue here is by killing the filibuster a narrow majority can do whatever they want. bush will be more powerful if this goes through. currently the filibuster is the only thing that keeps the republicans in check as it requires a supermajority to break.
the real issue here is by killing the filibuster a narrow majority can do whatever they want. bush will be more powerful if this goes through. currently the filibuster is the only thing that keeps the republicans in check as it requires a supermajority to break.
-
Philadelphia Eagle
- Posts: 505
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:50 am
Judicial Nominations
OK John8 - here is the background.
The Senate is made up of 100 Senators - 2 from each State.
Legislation usually requires a simple majority of 51 votes to pass but some types of legislation - particularly Presidential nominations to the Supreme Court - reguire a 'filibuster' i.e. 60 votes to pass.
At present a number of Presidential nominations have been delayed by opponents to the proposals.
As the Senate currently has a Republican majority, that Party can usually pass any proposals it agrees to, but it does not have enough votes to overcome a filibuster.
As some of the delays have dragged on (in one case for 4 years) the Republican majority has become impatient and is threatening to remove the filibuster requirement which it can do by means of a simple majority.
If removed, however, it also removes many years of traditional Senate voting behavior.
That, very basically, is the issue.
In the future, of course, should the Democrats have a majority in the Senate they could re-impose the filibuster rule so it's not the end of civilization as we know it!
The Senate is made up of 100 Senators - 2 from each State.
Legislation usually requires a simple majority of 51 votes to pass but some types of legislation - particularly Presidential nominations to the Supreme Court - reguire a 'filibuster' i.e. 60 votes to pass.
At present a number of Presidential nominations have been delayed by opponents to the proposals.
As the Senate currently has a Republican majority, that Party can usually pass any proposals it agrees to, but it does not have enough votes to overcome a filibuster.
As some of the delays have dragged on (in one case for 4 years) the Republican majority has become impatient and is threatening to remove the filibuster requirement which it can do by means of a simple majority.
If removed, however, it also removes many years of traditional Senate voting behavior.
That, very basically, is the issue.
In the future, of course, should the Democrats have a majority in the Senate they could re-impose the filibuster rule so it's not the end of civilization as we know it!
America the Beautiful :-6
website - home.comcast.net/~nmusgrave/
website - home.comcast.net/~nmusgrave/
Judicial Nominations
actually Philly, they cant, the filibuster law itself requires a supermajority to be amended. the gop can only use their simple majority if they are willing to completely ignore precedent and take a giant **** on traditon of the senate.
I used to call myself a conservative but since the publicans have dirtied the name so, as they have absolutely no respect for state's rights, tradition, or constitutionality, I go to great lengths to distance myself from the tards.
I used to call myself a conservative but since the publicans have dirtied the name so, as they have absolutely no respect for state's rights, tradition, or constitutionality, I go to great lengths to distance myself from the tards.
Judicial Nominations
Remember the RINOs!
Senate RINOs opposing the constitutional option
Next Election Name State
2006 Snowe ME
2006 Chafee RI
2006 DeWine OH
2008 Graham SC
2008 Warner VA
2008 Collins ME
2010 McCain AZ
Senate RINOs opposing the constitutional option
Next Election Name State
2006 Snowe ME
2006 Chafee RI
2006 DeWine OH
2008 Graham SC
2008 Warner VA
2008 Collins ME
2010 McCain AZ
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
Judicial Nominations
Philadelphia Eagle wrote: a straight up and down vote on the issue of judicial nominations.
What most people don't know, or at least I don't hear it being said at all in what the right calls, a "liberal" media, is that when republicans say, "give them an up or down vote". They knowingly have enough votes to confirm these judges because they own the senate. So by saying, give us an up or down vote, they mean, "let us own the courts as well as the senate." So the only weapon democrats really have in this is the filibuster.
My view on it, as yes I am a life long democrat... I think republicans moving for a ban of the filibuster in any form is bringing us one step closer to a dictatorship. Now of course, many would disagree, but if you think about it... it's the first step in taking us to the darkside. One man already has control of congress, the courts, the white house, and what's left of Zell Miller's brain. This whole thing reminds me of the new star wars movie. :wah:
What most people don't know, or at least I don't hear it being said at all in what the right calls, a "liberal" media, is that when republicans say, "give them an up or down vote". They knowingly have enough votes to confirm these judges because they own the senate. So by saying, give us an up or down vote, they mean, "let us own the courts as well as the senate." So the only weapon democrats really have in this is the filibuster.
My view on it, as yes I am a life long democrat... I think republicans moving for a ban of the filibuster in any form is bringing us one step closer to a dictatorship. Now of course, many would disagree, but if you think about it... it's the first step in taking us to the darkside. One man already has control of congress, the courts, the white house, and what's left of Zell Miller's brain. This whole thing reminds me of the new star wars movie. :wah:
I'm against picketing. But, I don't know how to show it. - Mitch Hedberg
Winners forget they're in a race. They just love to run. -Simon Wilder
Winners forget they're in a race. They just love to run. -Simon Wilder