Filibuster Compromise

[RandFan]

Never seen a thread stay so religiously on topic.....


Cutting the sarcasm, the derail is unfortunate because I think the "compromise" is an important issue and I'd like to see some serious pro and con discussion of it because I, for one, am not sure if I approve or not. I know most you you jabbing at each other have sound thinking skills and political acumen...and, at times, a pissy attitude.

So junk the crap and tell why this compromise is wise or foolish.

Thanks...seriously

Thank you. When I read about the compromise I had mixed emotions. I'm really not certain and I would love to see some comments about it. That is why I started the thread. Oh well.

 

[jj]

Thank you. When I read about the compromise I had mixed emotions. I'm really not certain and I would love to see some comments about it. That is why I started the thread. Oh well.

Well, I guess we more or less have the same reaction, I have no idea if it's for the same reasons or not.

To me, it seems like the moderates making a deal with some of the devil's minions.

I do wish the center would recover, take hold, and take over, but I haven't seen much evidence of that to date. Most of what I've seen (on all sides) is simply more devisive debate, intended to polarize based on somebody or others' perception that they gain that way.

 

[BPSCG]

To me, it seems like the moderates making a deal with some of the devil's minions.

Well, I myself have had some pretty severe things to say about the Democrats, but don't you think calling them "the devil's minions" is a little harsh?

I think this was about a couple of things. First, what's been discussed already - the Dems, having lost the White House and both houses of congress, and with a moderately conservative majority on the Supreme Court, were trying to keep the appeals court from becoming too fruitful a breeding ground for future conservative Supreme Court justices.

Second, this was a testing of limits. When you think about it, theoretically, if a party is in the minority, it could block all legislation and appointments it didn't like, as long as it could round up 41 votes. You could literally have congress go an entire session without a single bill's being passed (and there are of course those who would see this as an unalloyed good). There might be hell to pay the next election, but imagine the joy in Mudville if the Dems could block the Republican agenda for two whole years.

Okay, you can't do that. But you also don't want to roll over and die for the GOP. So someone comes up with the bright idea, "Hey, is there any reason we can't filibuster a judge?" And hence, the minidrama of the past few weeks. If it had worked - if Bush had withdrawn the nominees - the Dems would have gone back to their smoke-filled rooms and plotted the next line of attack - filibuster a Supreme Court nominee.

It didn't work - the Repubs showed they were willing to go to the mattresses over this issue - so they won't filibuster a Supreme Court nominee, or even an appeals court one.

My prediction: if Rhenquist goes and Bush appoints anyone to the left of Ann Coulter to replace him, the Dems will make a big show about how they disagree with the nominee on the substantive issues, but since he's clearly qualified for the job, they will vote to confirm. After all, the balance on the bench won't change anyway.

But if one of the liberals goes - Stevens is in good health, but he's also 85 years old - then the shaky 5-4 conservative majority would become a solid 6-3. Look for blood on the water if Bush appoints anyone to the right of Cynthia McKinney. No filibuster - they'll find something else. You can bet your salary for the rest of your life they're already working on it. They're looking at who the likely candidates will be and they're scraping up every bit of dirt they possibly can.

It'll be fun.

 

[jj]

Well, I myself have had some pretty severe things to say about the Democrats, but don't you think calling them "the devil's minions" is a little harsh?

Well, you see, since history shows that at present, we have two parties, one that is centrist/rightist, and one that is to the right of the whole scale, I regard the Democrats, as much as I dislike them, the more moderate party.

The likes of the Pro Tem or the Majority Leader, by the evidence shown by their extremist statements, are clearly neither moderate nor reasonable.

Now, the agreement was between "moderates", but given the present enormous swing to militant right-wing politics in the USA, what defines a moderate seems to be, as you say, anyone to the left of Ann Coulter.

By the present-day scale, Barry Goldwater would be an extreme liberal. This is, of course, simple evidence of the unbalanced nature of today's government and political environment.

 

[BPSCG]

Well, you see, since history shows that at present, we have two parties, one that is centrist/rightist, and one that is to the right of the whole scale, I regard the Democrats, as much as I dislike them, the more moderate party.

Funny, it strikes me that at present, we have two parties, one that is centrist/rightist, and one that is to the left of the whole scale.

The likes of the Pro Tem or the Majority Leader, by the evidence shown by their extremist statements, are clearly neither moderate nor reasonable.

Here's a nice, moderate, reasonable, middle-of-the-road observation:

"Right now, the only check on President Bush is the Democrats' ability to voice their concern in the Senate," said Reid. "If Republicans roll back our rights in this chamber, there will be no check on their power. The radical right wing will be free to pursue any agenda they want. And not just on judges. Their power will be unchecked on Supreme Court nominees, the president's nominees in general and legislation like Social Security privatization."

Link

And:

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said he would look at Frist's offer, but wasn't all that charitable in his description. "It's a big wet kiss to the far right," he said.

Link

By the present-day scale, Barry Goldwater would be an extreme liberal.

I was just a kid when Goldwater ran for president, so could you provide something to back that statement up?

And if Goldwater would be an extreme liberal by today's standards, what does that make the likes of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer...? Extreme left wing?

Glad to see the scales have fallen from your eyes.

 

[jj]

I so wish for the upgrade to happen, as it makes quoting more than one deep an unpleasant proposition. Rather, though, than quoting the middle-of-the-road to slightly right-wing quotes that you bring into evidence, I will simply point out that nearly all of the people making them would have been Republicans in 1970, and the push would have been from the other side.

The facts of this are not in dispute, they are clear and evident from history. The fact that you deny this shows that either you do not want to do the necessary research, that you are unwilling to accept the results, or something less complimentary that I need not mention at the present.

As to what I call Ted Kennedy, well, my thoughts go first to his ethics, that are nearly as bad as those of Bush, Rove, Gingrich, Delay, and the heros of the fascist right. Like Bush, he's stolen an election. Like Bush, he's snowed the public about his past. They are really very similar in many ways. That's not answering what I call him, but I believe that civility prevents my saying such directly.

 

[BPSCG]

The facts of this are not in dispute, they are clear and evident from history. The fact that you deny this shows that either you do not want to do the necessary research, that you are unwilling to accept the results, or something less complimentary that I need not mention at the present.

If "the facts of this are not in dispute" and "are clear and evident from history," you will easily be able to provide evidence to back up your assertions. Don't ask me to "do the necessary research" to back up your claim.

You claimed, "By the present-day scale, Barry Goldwater would be an extreme liberal."

Prove it.

 

[jj]

If "the facts of this are not in dispute" and "are clear and evident from history," you will easily be able to provide evidence to back up your assertions.

I have provided both links and evidence in the past, only to have it ignored, or having seen factual moderate analyses dismissed as "liberal propaganda".

The problem with history is that it's no longer testable and verifiable, and so I will not convince you with any amount of evidence, in my experience, unless you're ready to realize that the world isn't quite how you think it is.

Evidence? How about the fact that the Arizona Republican Party threw Barry Goldwater out of the party a few years before he died. I used to have a cite to that, but frankly I don't much care, it is common knowledge, it was announced in the papers, and if that doesn't speak clearly enough, nothing ever will.

 

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by jj

Originally posted by BPSCG
If "the facts of this are not in dispute" and "are clear and evident from history," you will easily be able to provide evidence to back up your assertions.

I have provided both links and evidence in the past, only to have it ignored, or having seen factual moderate analyses dismissed as "liberal propaganda".

The facts are not "not in dispute" then, are they? They are not "clear and evident", then, are they?

The problem with history is that it's no longer testable and verifiable, and so I will not convince you with any amount of evidence,

Not even of the "clear and evident" variety?

in my experience, unless you're ready to realize that the world isn't quite how you think it is.

So explain to me how the world really is (this oughta be good...).

Evidence? How about the fact that the Arizona Republican Party threw Barry Goldwater out of the party a few years before he died. I used to have a cite to that, but frankly I don't much care, it is common knowledge, it was announced in the papers, and if that doesn't speak clearly enough, nothing ever will.

Evasion noted.

 

[jj]

IEvasion noted.

What evasion? The Arizona Republican party throwing out Barry Goldwater, a matter of public record, is all the proof anybody can ask for of a massive swing to the right.

It's a matter of public record. Calling a matter of public record an "evasion" is an abuse of language.

 

[punchdrunk]

Regarding the Bolton filibuster: initially, I regarded this as a different situation than the threatened judicial filibuster. With the judicial filibuster, the Dems' argument was over the extremist nature of the appointee - clearly a political argument. And while I kind of like the idea of needing a supermajority to make lifetime appointments, I think something like a constitutional amendment would be much more appropriate than using Senate rules. On the other hand, with Bolton's debate, two key Dems - Biden and Dodd - wanted the continued debate because they hadn't received some information from the Bush administration:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/27/bolton.senate/index.html

"We are willing to vote 10 minutes after we get back in session if in fact they provide the information -- information that Mr. Bolton's staff had access to that they will not give to the majority leader of the United States Senate," Biden said.

Thus, at first glance, this was not a political but legitimate reason for a delay of the vote. But the more I think about it, the more I think this is just a political ploy disguised as legitimate business. I watched a lot of yesterday's debate (not necessarily must-see-TV, but...) and I only saw, on the Dems side of the room, Biden arguing the lack of information angle. I don't remember Reid talking about it, and Byrd talked about... well, who the hell knows what he's talking about nowadays. Yet the vote for cloture went almost entirely along party lines, with only two or three Dems voting for cloture and one GOP (Specter I believe) abstaining. So whether Biden intended this as a political ploy or not, that's what it became when the votes were counted. Also, Bolton's most outspoken GOP critic, Voinovich from Ohio, voted for cloture, despite his pledge to vote against Bolton. Now, perhaps this is politically motivated too - Voinovich has taken a big risk by being outspoken against Bolton and doesn't want to make the risk worse by siding with the filibusterers (not a real word, I know...) Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

Which is basically the problem with filibusters in general it seems now. Before when they were used on nominations, it was because the nominee was somehow involved in a scandal, like Abe Fortas, and those doing the filibustering transcended party lines. That certainly wouldn't have been the case with the judicial filibusters, and judging by the party-line vote on the Bolton cloture, neither is it. When the filibuster is politicized, it goes into that great big trash bin of 'politics as usual' that I think skeptics both Left and Right generally regard as neither right or wrong but simply unfortunate that they couldn't do better.

And true to form the Republicans are not squeaky clean on this. Dems will point to the lack of commitee hearings on Clinton's nominations and say that that started the politicizing of not necessarily filibusters but nominations in general. Maybe so; I'm not an expert and I don't know who "started it." It all becomes a bunch of finger-pointing and not hardly worth debating skeptically.

I want to believe that a filibuster should not be used as a political weapon, but only in extreme cases that (should) go beyond party affiliation. But that's not really true to history, at least not when it comes to legislation - we just have to go back to the filibustering of the civil rights legislation. I guess the claim is, "it's okay to filibuster for legislation but not for judicial nominees." Frist said as much during the weeks leading up to the threatened judicial filibuster showdown. That doesn't make much sense to me, though - why is it okay for a minority to hold up legislation but not nominees?

Sorry, this is rambling on. Getting a hold on the what and why's of the filibuster is tricky (for me). Comments and corrections appreciated.

regards

ps - Biden's argument was not a "Dems versus GOP" thing but a "Senate vs. executive branch" thing. Which makes sense and I understand why a senator would want to 'check' the executive branch if he felt like that branch was withholding information. But is the filibuster the right tool? Surely if enough senators agreed with him, they could have voted for cloture and then voted down the Bolton nomination on those grounds. That didn't happen, of course. Did the Senate republicans cave into Bush and consequently diminish the Senate, or have the Senate democrats held the wishes of the majority hostage and subverted the 'will of the people'? I guess without knowing what that information that Biden wants is, I'll never know. Sorry for the continued rambling...

 

[BPSCG]

What evasion? The Arizona Republican party throwing out Barry Goldwater, a matter of public record, is all the proof anybody can ask for of a massive swing to the right.

Then why can't I google it? All I can find is that he got into a spitting match with them in 1992 when he refused to support a Republican evangelical Christian running for congress, and again when he supported Clinton over Dole in 1996 (why I'm trying to do your homework for you, I have no idea...). Couldn't find anything about his being cast out.

Now if you're saying the man who ran against Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and, among other things, talked about nuking Vietnam and making Social Security voluntary would be an extreme liberal by today's standards, you need to point out which extreme liberal of today would support either of those positions.

If, on the other hand, you're saying someone who supported Bill Clinton for president in 1996 is perforce an extreme liberal, well, jeeze, are you kidding?

 

[jj]

Then why can't I google it? All I can find is that he got into a spitting match with them in 1992 when he refused to support a Republican evangelical Christian running for congress, and again when he supported Clinton over Dole in 1996 (why I'm trying to do your homework for you, I have no idea...). Couldn't find anything about his being cast out.

I did something like +goldwater +arizona +republican +thrown and hit it about 4th down. Sorry, I didnt' save it.

 

[jj]

Now if you're saying the man who ran against Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and, among other things, talked about nuking Vietnam and making Social Security voluntary would be an extreme liberal by today's standards, you need to point out which extreme liberal of today would support either of those positions.

1) Goldwater didn't say "nuke Vietnam", LBJ put the words in his mouth, and a bunch of supporters bought a cartoon ad with an a-bomb blast and the slogan "in your guts you know he's nuts".

I supported Goldwater. If he were alive today, I still would.

The lying right-wing lunatics here insist I'm a far-leftie. Why? Because they want to keep crying persecution while they take away more and more civil rights and try to create a theocracy.

 

[BPSCG]

I did something like +goldwater +arizona +republican +thrown and hit it about 4th down. Sorry, I didnt' save it.

Yeah, well, I just got done doing that search, after doing several others (see earlier post), and turned up nothing that even remotely says Goldwater was thrown out of the Arizona Republican party. For something that's a matter of public record, as you claim, this story seems to have been pretty hushed-up. Devils minions at work again, I suppose.

And again, you haven't identified what issues and what positions Goldwater took that only the extreme liberals of today would support.

Wild claim + zero proof + demand that others do the work to prove your claim = typical JREF Challenge WooWoo Applicant behavior. You're keeping some pretty bad company.

 

[punchdrunk]

Senator Brownback (R) embraces the filibuster?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/29/stem.cells/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Arlen Specter said Sunday he believes the Senate has enough votes to override a threatened presidential veto of legislation easing restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Fellow Republican Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, however, vowed to keep the bill from reaching the Senate floor. Both appeared on ABC's "This Week."

"I've been taught a lot of lessons from the Democrats lately, so I've got some ideas on how one can get this done," Brownback said. "And I think it's important that we move forward."

Bold emphasis mine. What, exactly, Brownback has in mind isn't specified. "Vowed to keep the bill from reaching the Senate floor" doesn't make a lot of sense; afterall, this would be an override vote and never come out of committee, correct? His reference to the Dems leads me to believe he's threatening a filibuster.

The two Republicans differed sharply on their views of the status of frozen embryos.

Brownback, also a member of the Judiciary Committee, questioned "what it does to the culture of life" when government approves performing research on the embryos, which he considers "young human life."

Specter shot back, asking what it does "to the culture of life when you let people die because there are medical research tools which could keep them alive?"

Go Arlen! This "Culture of Life" newspeak makes my skin crawl.

Brownback suggested limiting the number of in vitro fertilizations allowed and pushed the use of adult stem cells or umbilical cord blood cells -- which many scientists say are useful but not as useful as the more flexible embryonic stem cells.

Bold emphasis mine. Is the Culture of Life manifesto published, and does it have a jar-baby addendum???

 

[punchdrunk]

Re: Senator Brownback (R) embraces the filibuster?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/29/stem.cells/index.html

Bold emphasis mine. What, exactly, Brownback has in mind isn't specified. "Vowed to keep the bill from reaching the Senate floor" doesn't make a lot of sense; afterall, this would be an override vote and never come out of committee, correct? His reference to the Dems leads me to believe he's threatening a filibuster.

Transcripts of "This Week" are available only by purchase but this newsfeed from the program's website confirms Brownback is threatening a filibuster:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=789890

edited for missing apostrophe.

 

[BPSCG]

Re: Re: Senator Brownback (R) embraces the filibuster?

Transcripts of "This Week" are available only by purchase but this newsfeed from the program's website confirms Brownback is threatening a filibuster:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=789890

edited for missing apostrophe.

Not sure what the point of this is, since, IIRC, the House did not pass the legislation by a veto-proof majority.

[derail]

In any case, I see this issue (embryonic stem-cell research funding) as a red herring. It is not illegal, a number of individual states are funding it, and a lot of private biotech firms are doing the research. The current law simply says that you can't use federal dollars for the research. I personally have no objection to federal funding, but I can also understand why the government would be unwilling to use federal money to fund something that large parts of the population believe is morally wrong.

Remember the hoopla about how the U.S. and several European governments were all working on mapping the human genome? And finally, when the project got done, years ahead of predictions, it was done by a biotech, not any government consortium?
[/derail]

 

[punchdrunk]

Re: Re: Re: Senator Brownback (R) embraces the filibuster?

Not sure what the point of this is, since, IIRC, the House did not pass the legislation by a veto-proof majority.

Well, this thread was originally about the filibuster compromise and I am attempting to continue the discussion (although I did derail with the comments about stem-cell research and in vitro fertilization). Yes, the veto will stand, but regardless, the filibuster was threatened. If it actually gets to the Senate for an override vote, I'm sure Brownback and others will attempt to use it. Seems kind of hypocritical to me, what with the rhetoric being bandied about from that side of the aisle during the judicial nominees debate.

And if you don't mind being put on the spot, I'll quote you from this thread:

Kill the filibuster.

If your party is so out of touch nationwide with the electorate that it has lost both the presidency and both houses of congress, then it's the height of arrogance to claim that the majority party is somehow "out of the mainstream." If you were in the mainstream, you would control congress and the presidency.

The issue is different but the means are the same. Clearly Brownback would be using the filibuster to circumvent the will - and previous vote - of the majority. Would you still be against the use of the filibuster in this case?

[derail]
In any case, I see this issue (embryonic stem-cell research funding) as a red herring. It is not illegal, a number of individual states are funding it, and a lot of private biotech firms are doing the research. The current law simply says that you can't use federal dollars for the research. I personally have no objection to federal funding, but I can also understand why the government would be unwilling to use federal money to fund something that large parts of the population believe is morally wrong.
[/derail]

I don't know what "large parts" means to you, but every poll I find shows overwhelming support for stem-cell research, and majority support for federal funding. And as you know, the majority of Congress also supports it. It's not the government that is unwilling, but a minority of officials in key positions.

 

[BPSCG]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Senator Brownback (R) embraces the filibuster?

And if you don't mind being put on the spot, I'll quote you from this thread:

Kill the filibuster.

If your party is so out of touch nationwide with the electorate that it has lost both the presidency and both houses of congress, then it's the height of arrogance to claim that the majority party is somehow "out of the mainstream." If you were in the mainstream, you would control congress and the presidency.

I don't mind at all. I still think the filibuster is anti-democratic, in that the purpose of the Senate is to debate and decide not simply debate until one side throws in the towel. Somebody wants to debate forever and not decide anything, he should simply join this forum.

The fact that a Republican would try to filibuster a veto override doesn't change any of this.

I don't know what "large parts" means to you, but every poll I find shows overwhelming support for stem-cell research,

What about embryonic stem-cell research? And what happens to that support when people learn that it involves destroying a human life?

I remember when Mickey Mantle was dying of liver failure, there were people who were offering to donate their livers to save his life. I have no doubt that there are many people who have no idea what the term "embryonic stem cell research" means, but support it because they've been told it could mean Christopher Reeve will walk again someday. People's lack of understanding of medicine is appalling.