Are you suggesting you and the rightwingnuts did not complain when you were in the minority? :wally
30.7% of eligible voters does not a majority make.
http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm
When exactly was I ever a rightwing nutjob? Was it when I was voting for Clinton or when I voted for Kerry?
Once in 200 plus years is a pretty weak “precident”, doncha think?
Peope who don’t bother to vote don’t concern me. If they can’t be arsed to get out and vote, than their opinions are, to my mind, moot.
:rolleyes:
Douchebag.
Lessee: “judicial nominees come from the President…are subjected to an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate.”
Are you claiming that keeping nominees bottled up in committee indefinitely is the same as giving them an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate? If not, rjung is on topic.
Worked or not, it’s still a precedent.
You claimed there was no precedent. It’s a precedent, regardless of what one thinks of it.
Whether rjung was in favor of that particular filibuster or not, it’s still a precedent.
FWIW, one can believe the existence of the filibuster is a good thing, while disagreeing with some of the uses it’s put to. Just as one can think the SDMB is a good thing, while (without any contradiction whatsoever) wishing that certain SDMB members would not bother to renew.
There are many different expressions of democratic government. Absolute majority rule (a.k.a. “tyranny of the majority”) is only one of them, and one can consider oneself a small-d democrat while staunchly opposing the removal of checks on a legislative majority’s power.
I think elucidator has already made the point I was going to about this. The Constitution is nowhere near that specific; if I’m allowed similar latitude to read meanings into other Constitutional passages, I can make the Constitution mean pretty much what I want it to mean. But I have no interest in sitting on that particular wall.
You claimed there wasn’t a precedent. You’ve been given two. Weak or strong has nothing to do with it. Either they’re precedents, or they’re not.
And filibustering a nominee for Chief Justice is a pretty damned strong precedent, IMHO, as long as the subject is the filibustering of court nominees.
Fortunately, the meaning of ‘majority’ is completely independent of your personal feelings on the matter. 30.7% is not a majority.
Let’s not forget that Norm Coleman is desperately vying for recognition on this list.
The hits just keep on coming…
-Richard
No I haven’t, I’ve been given one. Once reminded of it, I freely admitted hat it was a precedent, but I classified that one single instance as “a pretty weak precedent”. Once is pretty weak. You can type the word “precedent” all you want and it won’t change that.
No, but blocking things in committee, unlike filibustering judicial nominees, is a long standing political dirty trick that has been used by both sides innumerable times. I personally don’t like it when either side uses the tactic, but that’s not the subject of this thread.
On a slight tangent, RT, since you are as blind a Democratic partisan as we have on these boards, I’d like to ask you a question. The Dems are spending all this time and effort in an attempt to use unusual methods to block a double handful of mere Circuit Court judges. Meanwhile, Rehnquist is likely to step down soon, and he might not be the only Supreme to pack it in before '08. Do you think it wise for the Dems to blow all of this political capitol on a mere skirmish when the war is coming down the pike? I think you’re playing right into the Republican’s hands, the public isn’t going to want to see the same type of government by obstruction, yet again, in a year or two, and the stakes will be much higher then. If Rehnquist times his retirement right, the backlash might just be strong enough to kill a Democratic resurgence in the races of '06.
kiss Sorry sweet pea, your side hasn’t won yet, I still am able to go out and earn a living and spend the money on what I chose, not what the government says I can.
Weirddave, you have yet to answer my question:
I might add that I cannot at all understand how someone who espouses the views that you do on this message board could have possibly voted for Kerry.
There’s the one rjung provided, and there’s the one Hentor provided. Which one are you claiming wasn’t a precedent?
The subject of the thread is an ad that the OP thought played on the guy in Tiannenmen Square.
The subject of the immediate discussion is your claim that the President has traditionally gotten an up-or-down vote by the full Senate on his judicial nominees. Seems you’re acknowledging that that isn’t so after all. It’s very good of you to concede the point.
That’s a relief to Gingy, I’m sure.
Y’know, for a guy who claims to side with the Democrats, you sure have a funny idea of what the party stands for. (Admittedly, that’s when it has the courage to stand for much of anything, but that’s another story.)
Shorter Weirddave: ‘I voted for Kerry, but if he’d won, the government would dictate my every decision. And I’m really on the same side as you liberals, but I’m against you on everything from the war to Social Security to judicial filibusters.’
Whatever, dude. :rolleyes:
As others have said, the Constitution says no such thing. It says that the Senate must give its advice and consent, but it doesn’t specify how it must do that, exactly. The Constitution is also pretty clear that the Senate gets to make its own rules.
The rules that the Senate has set include the filibuster, and it requires a 2/3 majority vote to change those rules. That’s why the Crybaby Option requires that they rule the filibuster to actually be unconstitutional.
So the questions are: 1.) Why does the “advice and consent” language necessarily mean a full Senate vote? 2.) If it does, doesn’t it mean that everything else that has ever been done in the Senate other than full up-or-down votes is equally unconstitutional? Doesn’t it render the whole idea of Senate committees unconstitutional?
RT you fucking moron, I take each issue on a case by case basis and decide how I feel based upon it’s merits. Yes, I think one of the biggest problems facing this country is liberals determined to “vote everybody rich” and turn necessity social safety nets into bloated entitlement programs. I think gun control is a supremely flawed idea, and I’ve yet to hear an argument for it that didn’t boil down to “I’m afraid of guns”. I support the war in Iraq, and I think that ousting other dictators around the world, by force if necessary, should be a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy (I actually believe that the first world as a whole should pursue this policy, but it’s not going to). I think the U.S could cut at least 25% out of the federal budget and not seriously impact anyone negatively. I think a flat tax is totally fair, I see no reason to penalize rich and successful people just because I’m not. I’ll even go one better and say that I think all deductions should be eliminated. The government should take X% of everyones check, and you get the rest(with poverty level incomes excluded) This % would be much lower than most people pay now. I think some crimes are inexcusable, and that the death penalty is a good thing in those cases. Social Security should be means tested and anyone making over 50K/year without it should be ineligible.
OTOH
I think that the government does not belong in anyone’s bedroom. I believe that gays should be allowed to marry and divorce with the same rights and responsibilities that traditional couples have. I hate the religious right. I don’t think that religion of any stripe has any business being the basis for secular laws, but at the same time I support the full and unquestioned right of each individual to worship as he or she sees fit. I think Medicare benefits need to be expanded, and government should expand the programs available for indigent or sick people who can’t get insurance currently. I believe in the absolute freedom of the press, and of the people’s right to freely demonstrate is sacrosanct (this does not mean that anyone can demonstrate for anything anywhere they feel the urge) I think many drugs should be legalized. I think that mandatory minimum sentences are a bad idea, and that “zero tolerance” is just another term for “zero thought”. I think most public obscenity standards are stupid, and are generally nothing more than a way for prudes to force their insecurities on others. I believe in expanded funding for the arts.
Now, I know all of this thinking about individual issues based upon their specific merits is foreign to you in your comfortable limited little world of lockstep partisan groupthink, but tell me, am I a liberal or a conservative?
How about you, This Year’s Model? You don’t understand how I could have voted for Kerry. I very nearly didn’t, it was about a 50.0000001/49.9999999 decision, I disliked both candidates. Who should I have voted for, huh? And why?
So attempted filibuster is okeydokey? We only want to gripe when it’s successfull?
I’m not trying to be an asshole, here. I’m just having trouble seeing the point.
How 'bout Evi?
EViiiiiiitta! Eviiiiiita!
:: Evil One steps out onto the balcony, hair perfectly coifed, makeup freshly applied, sequinned gown glittering in the spotlights ::
Don’t cry for me, 'lucidator
The truth is I never bought it.
All through my watching
The ad’s existence
I kept exclaiming, “Don’t keep comparing!”
I’d like to say that Weirddave looks so cute when he’s trying to weasel out of (yet another) corner, but since heis efforts are inevitably neither cute nor clever nor amusing, the only word left is “pathetic.”