Weirddave, see the line from your post quoted in my response above. Here it is again:
-
Two precedents have been cited where Republicans have tried to block judicial nominees via filibuster.
-
During the Clinton Administration, the Republicans rather substantially diluted the tradition, if it was a tradition, of giving judicial nominees the courtesy of an up-or-down vote in the full Senate. It was by means other than filibusters, but the result is the same: they didn’t get an up-or-down vote.
Well, I can see you’re not very prescient. 
You had claimed that there was no precedent 
of Republicans trying to block a Dem nominee by filibuster. They tried twice that we’ve cited; they’ve succeeded once. Both are counterexamples disproving your claim, if you’re going to try to split semantic hairs - and miss.
Nope, I said I wouldn’t be asking you any questions. I reserve the right to tell you you’re full of shit when you post something stupid. Oops - make that egregiously stupid, else I’d be replying to every post you make.
Now I’m off to make some deviled eggs, and contemplate the similarities between a hard-boiled egg yolk and your brain.
Well, at least you have the capacity for irony, even if it is unintentional.
Only that isn’t true either. What about the more than 60 Clinton appointees who were denied an up or down vote because Republicans would let them out of committee? How is that different? The filibuster and committee approval are both legitimate procedures in the Senate; to say it is appropriate to block them in committee, but not with a filibuster is hypocrisy.
The bottom line is, appointees are not ‘entitled’ to an up or down vote. They are entitled to the confirmation process as described by the Constitution, no more and no less, which is governed by the rues of the Senate. If you play by one rule, must play by all of them. To change them when they don’t suit your agenda is dishonest.
Wow, how open-minded of you.
Nope, it’s just that since you won’t acknowledge your own earlier words on the points we’re already debating, why should I go along with your attempt to widen the debate and essentially change the subject?
I’m going to stick to the handful of points that initially drew me into this debate, and leave it at that.
Exactly. And right now, it’s the Dems’ turn to take advantage of the filibuster rule. It’s too bad you’re “someone who puts ideology ahead of common sense,” otherwise you would surely understand this.
The rules are the rules: the filibuster rules have been part of the Senate rules for many decades. (I remember when they changed the filibuster rule, 3 or 4 decades back, so that only 60 votes were required for cloture; it used to be 67.) There are even Senate rules governing how to change Senate rules. It requires a 2/3 majority to change the rules, which is one of the rules the GOP is prepared to break next week. The rules are the rules, except when you’re a Republican.
A “bad prescient” (meaning, I suppose, that you can see the future, but not particularly well) - is that just a ‘prescient’ that you don’t happen to like? What makes a ‘prescient’ good or bad?
Precedents simply are. Either there’s a previous instance of X (which is a precedent for X), or there isn’t. Good grief, man, you’re a fuckin’ history major. You should know that.
It’s your belief - is that the best you can do? “I believe, O Lord, I believe! You’re telling me filibusters are baaaaad! OK, they’re just bad when they’re used to hold off a vote on a judicial nominee! But then, they’re baaaaad!”
That’s pretty pathetic, really.
Oh yeah, I admit we libruls all act in lockstep. I’m not sure if we take our orders direct from Howard Dean or Markos Moulitsas - I’m always the last one to get the memo - but I’m sure it works something like that. It’s a shame you routinely lose debates to us libruls arguing from our canned doctrine; I guess the arguments emanating from Librul HQ must be pretty damned good arguments!
Yeah, reasoned discussion, Weirddave style, is to call people ‘asshole’ and ‘fucking moron’. ‘Weasel’ just doesn’t cut it, TYM, don’t you know?
Show me one place in this thread where I started the insults. I have responded to insults thrown my way, I have not initiated them with anyone. I suppose that’s another distinction you’re determined to miss, just like there is a difference between something done in committee and something done on the Senate floor, just like the fact that I condemned preventing a floor vote in both instances, just like you’d rather pat yourself on the back for splitting semantical hairs over how to define the word
precedent and take potshots at my spelling rather than actually discuss the, you know, issue at hand. Using procedural loopholes to prevent an honest vote, weather it’s by Democrats or Republicans, in committee or on the floor, is BAD GOVERNMENT. You can pretend it’s a partisan issue all you want (because everything is partisan to you), but I have been consistent in my arguments throughout this thread, and applied them to both sides equally.
OK. You’re not wrong for partisan reasons. Still wrong.
That’s easy - post 58:
rjung had only addressed one (insult-free) post to you at that time.
Seems I caught that one.
But on that topic (sort of) - over and over again in this thread, you have acted as if we can’t read what you’ve already written, denying that you’ve said things you’ve said, or just pretending that you’ve said B when you really said A. Is it dishonesty? Is it stupidity? Is it amnesia? Damned if I know. But by the time DoctorJ pointed out one instance of it, it was already a well-established pattern of yours in this thread. I mean really, what’s up with this? This is nothing new; you should do something about this tendency in your posting habits. Maybe you can write notes on your arm like the guy in “Memento.”
I believe the phrase is “a distinction without a difference.”
Actually, you spent most of your time claiming that the GOP had never tried to block up-and-down votes on judicial nominees by filibuster, then arguing about how shitty the precedents were, not to mention saying there was some big important difference between using the filibuster to do so, rather than using blue slips and Rule IV (which options have been removed by Orrin Hatch anyway since 2001). You might’ve condemned both sides for what they did amidst all that, but it would have been easy to miss.
That ain’t no hairsplitting: it’s stuff you should know; it’s an important distinction; it’s in your field.
Look, if you’re going to criticize me for making fun of your mistake, at least you should be able to correctly identify your mistake after it’s been pointed out. (I wonder if Gaudere’s Law covers this?)
OK, why is it bad government?
I mean, it’s great to claim it, but claiming it doesn’t make it so.
Discuss away.
Whether you’re consistent or not, doesn’t affect the reality that this is a partisan issue.
Except I haven’t. My second post in this thread clearly stated “If Republicans filibustered a nominee to prevent a floor vote, now or in the future, than that was/will be just as wrong as the Democrats doing it right now”. Christ, I don’t know how you missed it, you quoted the line before it in this post. ( And by the way, you are right in what you pointed out, I did tear into rjung without him tearing into me in this thread. Rjung and I have a long history of clawing at each other. I was wrong in my blanket statement. HOWEVER… both you and This Years Model started in on the insults directed at me without me saying boo to either of you in this thread. Again, you use your penchant for splitting hairs into microscopic fragments to avoid discussing any real issues. Why is that I wonder?) Show me any inconsistency in my posts in this thread. Please.
Everything’s a partisan issue with you. You have absolutely no sense of right and wrong anymore. I honestly believe that you would do anything, say anything, no matter how crazy, if you thought you were attacking Republicans. And that’s just sad. A couple of years ago you were able to discuss issues intelligently and see where the other side was coming from, even if you didn’t agree. Now you just froth. It’s not what they meant, but the United Negro College Fund really did have it right: A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Serious question: why do you guys participate in these fucking train wrecks? Do you enjoy being outraged? Is it spite? Pride? I’m guessing it’s some combination of the three, with “pride” being weighted most heavily.
I wouldn’t mention it, except I do think that these kinds of threads hurt the board as a whole: no one is ever convinced of anything, other than the fact that the other guy is an asshole. Enmity begets enmity, as you all must know.
You’re a liar, of course.
But suppose for just a second you’re right. It doesn’t change the truth or untruth of your arguments or mine one iota. Either you’ve got good arguments or you don’t; either I have good arguments or I don’t; whether everything’s a partisan issue with me or not makes no difference when we’re arguing one particular issue. It doesn’t give me some tremendous advantage; in fact, if I’m wearing some set of ideological blinders, it should give you the advantage. It hasn’t. Life sucks, don’t it?
Anyway, I’m correct on the immediate point: the filibuster/nuclear option issue is a partisan issue. A blind person could see that. The leader of the Sanate Republicans is calling the shots on it, and the newspapers have reported that the White House is providing input on strategy. All but a few Senate Republicans are for using the nuclear option. James Dobson and other leaders of the Religious Right are keeping the heat on. The Dems are all opposed.
That’s practically the blueprint of a partisan issue. You could put a picture of this next to the definition of ‘partisan issue’ in the dictionary.
Goddamn, you’re dumb.
:rolleyes:
Again, you’re a liar.
But suppose it’s true. If I’m RT the Amoral, you ought to be able to exploit that when it comes to specific issues. Go for it.
Yes, it’s sad that you believe what you do. I think it’s your perceptions, not mine, that have gone awry.
Anyway, exploit your advantage. I can’t see straight because of my partisanship? You ought to be able to drive a truck through the holes in my arguments. Go for it, big boy. Instead, you wave your hands and complain about how partisan I am, rather than taking apart my arguments.
I think the technical term for one who indulges in such behavior is “crybaby.”
Ditto.
My OP and responses speak for themselves, Apos. Feel free to sit in judgement all you like. I was simply making a heartfelt point and looking for comment. I’m not surprised that the result is a thread that has devolved into people of opposite ideologies thinking that their opposites are idiots. That’s what happens to every thread that has anything at all to do with politics.
So this is why the Democrats are filibustering: they’ve been deprived of the other options (anonymous holds, blue slips, and Rule IV) that used to allow a member of the party opposing the President to quietly delay or kill one of his judicial nominations. The filibuster is obviously a much more visible action: it takes place on the floor of the Senate. ISTM that if the people can much more easily come to a conclusion about the fairness of a party’s use of the filibuster - and respond at the ballot box - than they can about killing nominations via Judiciary Committee rules and procedures, which tend to take place outside the limelight.
Regardless of who’s in the White House and who’s in the opposition, let 'em filibuster, and let the people decide if they’re for it or against it. But now that the blue slips and the other sneaky ways to kill a nomination have been scrapped, they should stay scrapped.
Slight hijack: is this really the case? I thought what was being used was a procedural filibuster, not an actual one. The former is a parliamentry maneuver; the latter involves actual continuous floor speeches and bringing Senate business to a halt. Am I mistaken?
Why? I liked the blue slips, and all the other tricksy little ways a nomination could be scuttled. These guys are in for life, which which makes it important that everyone be satisfied they can do a good job.
A failed nomination just means they have to pick someone else out of the pool. A crappy judge is forever.
My understanding (I could be wrong) is that the difference comes down to the majority party’s choice. If they shrug their shoulders, give up, and move on to other business, then the “filibuster” need take no longer than the time it takes to ascertain that they’ll lose a cloture vote. But if they keep debate open on that particular bill/nomination/whatever, then the minority actually has to keep ‘debating’, i.e. speaking about something or anything.
Thanks. The Senate’s own web site doesn’t define what a “procedural filibuster” is, nor even mention the term. And googling the term gets a some sites offering on the Nuclear Option, but zip on Senate rules and procedures. Sigh.