[Unknown Target]

I'm suprised this hasn't been posted yet.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050518/ap_on_go_co/filibuster_fight

Frist, frustrated by the Democrats' success in blocking Bush nominees, has threatened to call a vote on banning judicial filibusters. If such a move were to succeed, it would give the GOP full control over which nominees could be confirmed for lifetime judgeships since the party controls the White House and has a 55-44-1 majority in the Senate.

The filibuster, a parliamentary stalling device used by legislative minorities, can be overcome only by a majority of 60 votes or more in the 100-member Senate.

Discuss.

[Rictor]

The Republicans are pissed because they're only 98% in control, so they decide to throw a hissy fit. Big deal. So they're going to overturn two centuries of political tradition. Just another nail in the coffin of US democracy, one of many.

[Taristin]

That coffin's long been nailed and buried.

[WeatherOp]

Um, I don't have a clue what a filibuster is, and have no reason to want too.

[Unknown Target]

If you live in the US, you should. From what I understand, it's the only thing standing between the republicans and total control of the judiciary system.

[Taristin]

Originally posted by WeatherOp
Um, I don't have a clue what a filibuster is, and have no reason to want too.

Fillibuster being a delaying of voting on an issue, usually by having long winded speaches about nothing.

My Gov't teacher in Fl told us of Orin Hatch (I think)'s reading from his wife's cookbook as a filibuster. Supposedly he did it for three days, or so.

[WeatherOp]

Ohh, filibuster=procrastination

[Drew]

the republican congress already has the power to control judiciary, they just want judges in there to legislate more laws from the bench.

All the republicans have to do to avoid a liberal judiciary from blocking its laws, is put somthing in the law that says "the Supreme court or any lower court may not make a decision regarding this law" blah blah or somthing like that and the courts constitutionaly wouldnt be able to touch it.

and from what i understand, this is basicall a move to change the rules back to what they were at the founding which by all means go for it

[Taristin]

As much as I hate to say it, I'm in favour of the fillibusterring to go on for aother 3 years.

No way Bush should be able to put in as many judges as he's able to. He's going to seriously **** this country up (more) for decades.

[Descenterace]

The mere fact that a system allows speeches about irrelevant subjects to affect it proves that said system is flawed.

This is why I believe in actually doing stuff rather than writing reports about it in order to achieve my degree in Computer Science. Unfortunately, it seems that the world is run by Manglement, which would prefer a verbose report to read (and discard) than any actual progress being made, since progress would require a re-evaluation of the situation, which implies the exploitation of neurons.

[Taristin]

Originally posted by Descenterace
The mere fact that a system allows speeches about irrelevant subjects to affect it proves that said system is flawed.

No... it's not flawed. It's in place to do what it is doing now. To stop a majority-minority from completely controlling every issue, and pushing their agendas totally.

The system was established by very intelligent people. It's just been handed down to complete assclowns.

[phatosealpha]

Originally posted by Drew
the republican congress already has the power to control judiciary, they just want judges in there to legislate more laws from the bench.

All the republicans have to do to avoid a liberal judiciary from blocking its laws, is put somthing in the law that says "the Supreme court or any lower court may not make a decision regarding this law" blah blah or somthing like that and the courts constitutionaly wouldnt be able to touch it.

and from what i understand, this is basicall a move to change the rules back to what they were at the founding which by all means go for it

The judges would just ignore the law and declare it unconstitutional, just as the president would ignore a congressional law denying the president veto power.  The constitution is the highest law in the land, and any law that contradicts it is null and void.  In short, the constitution always wins, even if the law says to ignore the constitution.

[Rictor]

well you have to look at the practical upshot of all this. In theory, yes, fillibusters are stupid and ought to be done away with. But when you have a single party in control of the Executive and Legislative branch, any move to impose their will on the Judicial branch will reasult in the complete domination by a single party, which is never a good idea.

Originally posted by Raa
My Gov't teacher in Fl told us of Orin Hatch (I think)'s reading from his wife's cookbook as a filibuster. Supposedly he did it for three days, or so.

Was that maybe Strom Thurmond? I know he had one of the longest fillibusters in history, something like 20 hours, to prevent a civil rights bill from passing and keep dem uppity negros in check

[Taristin]

Originally posted by Rictor
well you have to look at the practical upshot of all this. In theory, yes, fillibusters are stupid and ought to be done away with. But when you have a single party in control of the Executive and Legislative branch, any move to impose their will on the Judicial branch will reasult in the complete domination by a single party, which is never a good idea.

Originally posted by Rictor

Was that maybe Strom Thurmond? I know he had one of the longest fillibusters in history, something like 20 hours, to prevent a civil rights bill from passing and keep dem uppity negros in check

Ahh. Yep! That's him! I always get those old 'stards mixedup. But yes. He went on forever with his fillibuster.

[Descenterace]

Originally posted by Raa



No... it's not flawed. It's in place to do what it is doing now. To stop a majority-minority from completely controlling every issue, and pushing their agendas totally.

The system was established by very intelligent people. It's just been handed down to complete assclowns.

Yup. The fact that it allows assclowns to inherit it is evidence of a flaw.

[achtung]

About the filibuster fight I'm all for having the option there for a minority to at least stand a chance.  I mean if it didn't exist who knows what nutjobs...... wait scratch that last thought.... I mean look waht nutjobs are already in there, do we really want it to be worse?

This is even from the pc of a Republican:D

 and I hope they don't watch these boards often

[IceFire]

I vote that England comes back in and takes over...parliamentary democracy although deeply flawed works so much simpler

[Drew]

Originally posted by phatosealpha


The judges would just ignore the law and declare it unconstitutional, just as the president would ignore a congressional law denying the president veto power.  The constitution is the highest law in the land, and any law that contradicts it is null and void.  In short, the constitution always wins, even if the law says to ignore the constitution.

except that power is given to the congress constitution.  if the courts insisted on upholding their decision, congress could just write another law declaring that the judiciary overstepped its bounds.  and ****, its not like the courts could really do anything about it, if the executive branch and the legislative branch opposed them, its not like they can march and army our or anything

[Swamp_Thing]

Originally posted by IceFire
I vote that England comes back in and takes over...

I vote that we turn Washington in the toilet of the world, and flood them with shiit up to their eyebrows. That would rattle their cage a bit...

[Deepblue]

I just want to move to the moon and watch with sunglasses on as the world goes nuclear on itself.