You still have not addressed the heart of my argument: the proposals Common Cause was responding to in 2005 and 2010 are not the same.
If I were to find two posts from you on this board, one opposing the legalization of same sex marriage and one supporting the legalization of same sex marriage, and then used small excerpts from each to make the argument that you were hypocritical or inconsistent, wouldn’t it be disingenuous of me to leave out the fact that in one post you were opposing legalization by judicial fiat and in the other you were supporting legalization through the legislature?
In a similar fashion, Common Cause was responding to two very different proposals regarding the filibuster, which is not clear in the OP. The 2005 proposal eliminates the filibuster in its entirety by Vice Presidential fiat and the 2011 proposal changes the rules of the filibuster by a Senate vote to allow a progressively decreasing number of Senators invoke cloture as extended debate continues over time. Each proposal differs by both effect and means of implementation.
In the OP you stated “This shows that Common Cause’s actual point of view is: we should have a filibuster when it helps the Democrats, and remove it when we don’t” This is a claim without a warrant. You haven’t provided any additional argumentation to support this point other than to state that it can be inferred (post 75).
Now, there may be an argument that opposition to the elimination of the filibuster and support of modification of the rules of the filibuster are inconsistent positions and holding them both is hypocritical, but you haven’t made that argument yet. And as the originator of the argument, you bear the burden of proof to do so.
Agreed that this would be relevant information. But I’m not sure if it would be disingenuous; I’d think that the burden would fall on me to point that out as a reason for the seemingly dissimilar opinions.
Agreed.
I disagree. I merely have to adduce facts sufficient to allow an inference for my stated position. The burden falls on you to offer up an alternate explanation.
Which you have done.
And my response is: you seem to be making an excellent argument. But I don’t see any evidence it’s the argument Common Cause was making. I believe, in other words, that you have fashioned an admittedly solid post hoc rationalization for Common Cause, but you cannot point to any key substantiation. For example, if Common Cause had said, when they first inveighed against eliminating the filibuster, something like, “We oppose this abrupt and instant solution, but agree that the filibuster has to be softened. We support the amendment Senator Harkin offered back in January 1995 to gradually reduce the number of votes necessary…” then you’d have a much more solid case. As it is, you’ve made a fine, and principled distinction, and I have no trouble believing you can simultaneously hold both positions consistently.
I just don’t impute your solid reasoning to Common Cause, because they never said anything to make me think that’s what they meant.
This is my position too, so I guess Common Cause and I see eye to eye.
In U.S.A. there is one party that is guilty of petty corruptions and hypocrisies but is more or less centrist – in other words, a typical political party. There is another party that can’t quite decide whether to act like escaped lunatics or slapstick morons but is, in any event, the sock-puppet of sinister billionaires and has become the laughingstock of the world. Anyone who doesn’t want to help the one party and hurt the other is an imbecile or a hypocrite.
I have great respect for sincere intelligent conservatives. I’m increasingly disappointed by SDMB conservatives who appear intelligent and yet seem gleeful to support the idiocies which now define “conservatism” here, and pander to all the lies (birther, etc.) which have polluted politics in U.S.A.
Well, let me ask outright, because facts are always better than imagination.
In the “How is that working out for you?” post I quote above, your implication was that I was on a fool’s errand – that no one would, in fact, sign up to the “other side.”
Since then, many have. Some have offered principled distinctions and others have simply unabashedly said that they agree.
Since it seemed to me you were predicting another outcome, I wonder how you feel about this one. So: how do you feel about this one?
I feel that others have greatly expanded(and clarified) on what seemed to be your original statement by using large segments of the original quotes that you conveniently left out that showed there were distinct differences between the two cases, by pointing out that it is no great feat to point out hypocrisy in politics so(other than the fact that this time it was done by a group on the left) what made this event a “Great Debate”?, and that this whole thing might have gone better if you had brought up an actual subject for debate instead of just pointing out a supposed political “gotcha” that could have been posted in MPSIMS.
Not able to even cough out one, “OK, I might have been wrong,” for septimus’ post, which does not explore the differences between the two cases, but simply forthrightly says that yes, of the two parties, he approves of which rules benefit one over the other? Not willing to unbend to admit that yeah, ok, someone was either honest enough, or foolish enough, to admit it?
Evidently, it’s enough to “win” an SDMB thread to point out hypocrisy and declare oneself uninterested in any exploration of the significance.
Anyhoo, I may be wrong and am prepared to cheerfully admit so, but I was under the impression Bricker held that the legislature was, by default, the best place to resolve legal controversies, seeing as they are most closely linked to the democratic process (i.e. members of the legislature are elected by direct vote), and thus better than presidential fiat or activist judging.
On this issue, though, the legislature (or at least the Senate part) is content to define rules on its own behaviour that make action impossible. They’ve essentially abdicated their responsibilities. Well, if the composition and actions of congress are the will of the American people, I guess the American people are okey-dokey with the filibuster as currently practiced.
So Common Cause took a stand on the filibuster? Hey, bully for those people I’ve never heard of. Now let’s give the OP a chance to do the same.
You found one-congratulations!
But since I don’t post to score points but to make points(and learn from others, and make incredibly witty jokes, etc.), I will say that I disagree with septimus both in his assessment that simple hypocrisy is what happened in this case and that it was justified-“The ends justify the means” is a phrase I utterly detest.
Indeed. The strongest statement that the evidence supports appears to me to be that a relatively unknown liberal group might be biased in favor of liberals in congress, and that bias might affect their view of how the rules ought to be applied. The strongest evidence for this argument appears to be excerpts from two disparate statements of theirs (presumably gathered from a right-wing blog, probably this one); at least one excerpt it taken out of context. Bricker seems to think that, even though it’s already shown that some context was missing, it’s incumbent on us to find any context that would show their statements in a more charitable light; even though someone has already shown how the position may be taken without bias, it’s up to us to show that this is actually the position of the relatively unknown group in question.
How is this possibly a great debate? It’s a heap of trivialities, as near as I can tell.
I know it’s bad form to link to a blog post and make that your argument, but I think this is a poor-form corollary: if you read an argument on a blog, it’s probably bad form to repeat that argument here without at least a link. Even then, when the link is coming from somewhere as biased as Red State, it’s probably a good idea to do some independent investigation before CCing it to your straight dope buddies.
The issue can go either way – what’s important is that the rules are acknowledged by both sides ahead of time and then respected, as opposed to seeking a change whenever the advantage might turn your way.
Should a governor appoint a replacement to fill a Senate seat until the next general election? There are arguments either way – it’s best to replace based on the will of the voters, but special elections are expensive. I don’t have a hard and fast opinion either way.
But if you argue that a governor SHOULD appoint the Senate replacement when the governor is a Republican, and then later argue that the system is flawed because it ignores democracy when the governor is a Democrat, then your REAL argument is, “I want Republican governors, but not Democratic governors, to appoint my state’s replacement senators.” It’s the attempt to change the game’s rules based on the perceived advantage to your side that I oppose.
I said “probably.” Perhaps I should have checked out the second google news link from “Common Cause Filibusters”.
Are you being coy by not mentioning the blog you did read it on, or did you do all this research independently, and my link is just an amazing coincidence?
To be blunt: where did you get your information?
villa, to be fair, I’ve heard of them, but I know very little about them, and if someone asked me to name a dozen liberal groups, I’m sure Common Cause wouldn’t have been one I’d’ve thought of.