Other than pointing out that you’re simultaneously opposed to bloated entitlement programs, and in favor of expanding the one (Medicare) that is already on track to far outgrow the others, I think I’ll just stick with the one most germane to this issue:
Then you’re on the wrong side of the filibuster debate, because when push comes to shove, that’s what this is about: the ability of the GOP to appoint judges (like Ms. Owen) who won’t give a flip about precedent, but will rule on the basis of their beliefs, which will be those of the ‘Christian’ theocrats.
But if you ever want to start a thread saying which 25% of the government (consistent with the positions you’ve taken above) could be whacked without causing serious problems, be my guest; I’ll join you there.
Quite likely by accident, you have actually made something of a valid point. The issue of federal judges, particularly on the Supreme Court, was the one issue that tipped my vote towards Kerry. (And I notice you have completely ignored my question on this issue from earlier in the thread. Typical. Afraid to say that the Dems are making a tactical error?) HOWEVER, the rules are the rules, and one can not go about changing things because of context. “Yes, but this guy is really, really bad. We’ll just bend the rules one time because we are convinced we are right”. YOU JUST CAN’T DO THAT. I know this is hard for someone who puts ideology ahead of common sense to understand, but the rules are the rules for everybody, and sometimes the other side gets their day in the sun. Look at the 22nd Amendment. Republicans pushed it through in response to FDR’s 4 terms, ironically, the next 2 presidents who might have garnered enough support for a third term (Eisenhower and barely possibly Reagan) were Republicans who couldn’t run because of the Amendment. So, here’s the hard part. I argue against this asinine filibuster scheme because it’s a bad prescient (yea, yea, I know. You dug up one other. That was a bad one too, as I’ve said clearly), even though the outcome of a filibuster might be the failure of the nomination of a judge I don’t like. I do this because I try me hardest to be consistent in my beliefs instead of doing what my party tells me to do, right or wrong.
The add is well…ridiculous. Not in the point it’s trying to make. I think the point is very importent. It pisses me off that they use these cutsie and ineffective ways to try and deal with something so important.
It’s not as offensive as some of the pure BS hypocrasy that certain GOP spouts. It is an incredible waste of resources.
I joined MOveOn early on because I thought they had an important role in presenting an alternative view and keeping the facts out there for the public to consider. I’ve written them a couple of times to suggest that their direction was becoming just as biased and laced with dishonesty as the folks they oppposed. Evidently it hasn’t helped. I’ll be writeing them again to explain why they’ll ever get another contribution from me.
I was a fan of spinsanity. I wanted a voice that opposed this dishonest and dangerous administration that was committed to busting the dishonesty of both parties. In my view it might, just might, begin to encourage the honest voices out there and serve as a warning to those politicians who believe a lie is as good as the truth if you accomplish your purpose.
side note; If you think the similarity between that add and the famous Tank vs. Chinese man is tenuous you are fooling yourself. Of course thats exactly what they intended it to look like. What disturbs me is the cutsie way in which that and the star wars crap is dealing with such a serious issue. It may stoke the fires of controversy and and bitter dispute. It won’t help inform anyone. My other objection is the subtle reference is all republicans=bad and Democrats = truth and justice. Thats BULLSHIT that the average American spots right away and turns off and stops listening. So what does it accomplish?
The filibuster is something that was always available for a minority party to use, in order to block people that might be too “out there” or merely incompetent. It was available to both Dems and Repubs. It is now being called obstruction. It was not obstruction when the Republicans used it in the past (?). Now suddenly it is? Out of almost 200 possible federal appointments, only about a dozen are being blocked. That is not obstruction. To most people, that sort of success rate would be cheered about. This is not an All Or Nothing battle, or shouldn’t be. Both parties have blocked nominations for various judges, and various other posts in the past. It was never a “Threat To The Empire” of this magnitude before. If anything, by crying “unfair unfair” and trying to change the rules (nuclear option), the Republican party is acting like a bunch of two year olds. They already have the White House and the Senate. Now they are trying to stack the courts too. One of the “guiding principles” of our government was to have it set up so there would always be someone to oppose you. The crotchety old bastard in the back who opposes everything serves a purpose. That in and of itself is a “checks and balances”. It keeps either side from becoming too powerful.
A more cynical way to state it is,
“If you keep the bastards busy fighting among themselves,
they will not have the time or the wherewithal to do much real damage”
Your vitriol here is reserved for liberals and liberal positiions that you disagree with. I don’t see you attacking conservatives and conservative positions with anywhere near the viciousness you apply to the left. So naturally I’m surprised. Well, perhaps the Compleat Raving Numbskull Party will field a candidate in '08 - that should make your decision easier.
You still haven’t answered my question about the constitution.
I have to ask. If the filibuster is allowed in the Senate, and shutting down a filibuster is contingent on 2/3 of Senate votes, then how is someone using the filibuster trying to change the rules, and how is trying to change the rules to needing only 1/2 the votes not changing the rules? Even further, how is trying to change the rules because it’s the Dems filibustering not changing the rules because of context?
Further, if filibustering is bad and wrong no matter who does it, then why, exactly, is there an uproar about this attempt now? Couldn’t it have been brought up in 1968 or 1996? What, pray tell, is the difference, if it’s not that the GOP is suddenly crying about Democrats using what had been their toy?
I’m sorry, I don’t think I’ll be voting for you. Good luck with your campaign tho.
What’s to answer? For over 200 years, with one exception (which I condemned in my very first post to this thread), judicial nominees coming out of committee have been subject to an up-and-down vote on the floor. That is the way things are done. Changing the way things are done is not necessarily a bad thing, but changing them in a fit of pique because your side doesn’t have the votes to get what you want is childish and stupid. If your ideas are so all fired wonderful, get the people to vote you a majority. Then you don’t have to worry about changing the rules for bullshit reasons.
The quotes below are from a report that discusses this situation. There are some Democrats and Republicans who have been willing to reach some sort of compromise, but compromise is apparently out of the question. The hardliners simply want a “blank check”.
For me, the problem here is simple: I don’t believe that you actually think that. I certianly believe that you enjoy getting all worked up about it, but this principle you’ve tacked onto it: it looks like the disjointed effect of that outrage, not the cause of it.
If you disagree with my judgement on this, you’ll have to do more to convince me. Otherwise, I’ll have to continue concluding that your principle is the emphemeral made-up-on-the-spot justification that it appears. My suggestion is that you briefly run through the past four or so years of famous politcal TV ads and explain what symbols should have been off-limits and yet got used so that we can get a sense of how you applied this principle in the past.
That’s fine, because I’m not going to ask you any questions in the future. You stated that the right to an up-or-down vote is in the Constitution. I said prove it. You weasled.
In this and other threads you have readily proved that you are bereft of thought, intellectually barren, and that you are the baseline for stupid. You don’t even have a sense of humor as a saving grace. You spout platitudes as if they are holy writ, repeat the same answers no matter the question, and couldn’t follow a train of logic if you had wheels on your feet. You are, frankly, someone whose hand I would not shake should we ever meet.
Weirddave, no offense, but for all the witty sniping back and forth over who is most polite, you seem to be floundering around without a point. The bottom line seems to me to be that there is nothing particularly unconstitutional about filibustering judges. The idea that nominees must be given up or down votes isn’t even a principle that makes any sense in light of the very existence of the committee system. And filibusters have been an established tool not simply because they actually got used, but because they had the potential to be used. Countless decisions have been made by both sides not to proceed on something based on the calculation that one party did not have enough votes to stop a filibuster. It’s hard to see how Bush has much to complain about in especial in regard to his nominees. The Senate had countless little tricks and measures that allowed the blocking of nominees, and both parties have used them, and in previous, mostly tolerated them. Now that they are in power, Republicans have dismantled most of these, leaving only the filibuster as a major minority check on majority. They can change the rule, as is the power of the senate, but frankly, I find the sanctimony about the issue laughable. Bush has had most of his nominees accepted, including ones that are very conservative and pro-life. It’s too bad that a Karl Rove favorite is among the handful being blocked, but in politics, you can’t always have everything you want.
As for hypocrisy, I believe many Democrats in 1995 tried to get rid of all filibusters. Most Republicans at the time voted to keep it. So it’s not clear that eithre party can snaely get worked up about all this.
'Course the upside is that if I’m reading this right, you’re not going to be responding to my posts in the future. That’s a good thing, I prefer responses from people capable of making a point rather than just sputtering and tossing insults when they run into someone who doesn’t agree with what they have been told to think.
One more bite of the apple, just to expose a good example of the types of lies and half truths which are par for the course for you.
As a point of fact, the equine you’re beating to death goes back to this little exchange:
Except that nowhere did I say the Constitution demands an up-and-down vote. What I said, which you intentionally omitted because it blows your point out of the water (Here for those of you playing along at home), was:
That’s entirely different from saying that the Constitution demands an up-and-down vote. Instead of being honest and admitting that, you had to play the partisan idiot game, distorting what your opponent says to make a point, because you don’t have one otherwise. Fortunately, in a text medium like this one, what people actually say is preserved, exposing you as the bald faced liar that you are. Skitter away to mommy, hypocrite, let her salve your wounds and tell you that it’s ok to lie, ther, there, everbody really does like you, you’re mommy’s little tiger!. The adults here are tired of your games.
