| Do you think filibusters should be banned? |
| Yes |
|
38% |
[ 5 ] |
| No |
|
61% |
[ 8 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 13 |
|
| Author |
Message |
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
 Fri Apr 15, 2005 9:10 am Frist likely to push for ban on filibusters |
|
| Quote: | MSNBC
Frist likely to push for ban on filibusters
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is all but certain to press for a rule change that would ban filibusters of judicial nominations in the next few weeks, despite misgivings by some of his fellow Republicans and a possible Democratic backlash that could paralyze the chamber, close associates said yesterday.
The strategy carries significant risks for the Tennessee Republican, who is weighing a 2008 presidential bid. It could embroil the Senate in a bitter stalemate that would complicate passage of President Bush's agenda and raise questions about Frist's leadership capabilities. Should he fail to make the move or to get the necessary votes, however, Frist risks the ire of key conservative groups that will play big roles in the 2008 GOP primaries.
Frist feels he has no acceptable options to seeking the rule change unless there is a last-minute compromise, which neither party considers plausible, according to senators and aides close to the situation. "I think it's going to happen," Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said this week, although he would prefer that Frist wait to allow more legislation to pass before the Senate explodes in partisan recriminations. Aides privy to senior Republicans' thinking concur with Thune.
In response to the rising stakes and sense of an inevitable showdown, Frist and his allies are churning out speeches, articles and talking points, and enlisting the aid of Ed Gillespie, former chairman of the National Republican Committee. Frist said he is trying to catch up to Democrats and their allies, who set up a Capitol "war room" and are spending millions of dollars on TV ads denouncing the proposed rule change -- or "nuclear option" -- as a power grab.
Frist aides said he still hopes to offer a compromise Democrats might accept, but Democrats who have spoken with him say they would be astonished if he presents something they could go along with.
Democrats have used the filibuster to prevent confirmation votes this year for seven of President Bush's appellate court nominees, whom the Democrats say are too conservative. Filibusters can be stopped only by 60 votes in the 100-member Senate. Republicans, who hold 55 seats, say the filibusters thwart the Senate's constitutional duty to approve or reject a president's appointees. Democrats say the Founding Fathers wanted to empower the Senate's minority members to slow or stop controversial legislation and nominees.
Presidential politics at work
While Democrats and Republicans alike say the filibuster issue is a matter of high principles and constitutional rights, Frist's choice is inextricably linked to presidential politics. At least two GOP colleagues who are pressing him to seek the rule change -- George Allen (Va.) and Rick Santorum (Pa.) -- also are weighing presidential bids. Both of them are wooing key conservatives clamoring for the filibuster ban.
Some independent analysts say that Frist -- a comparative newcomer to politics who unexpectedly gained the majority leader's post in early 2003 -- has created his own dilemma, and his handling of it will be an sign of whether he has the skills to seriously vie for the White House.
"I think Senator Frist has backed himself into a corner where I don't see how he can avoid pulling the nuclear trigger," said Charlie Cook, editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. In terms of a presidential race, Cook said, "it hurts if he doesn't come up with the votes. But it also hurts him if the Senate comes to a grinding halt and can't get anything done. I think the guy's in a real jam."
Conservative activists are giving Frist little wiggle room. "If Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist hopes to capture the Republican nomination for president in 2008, then he has to see to it that the Bush judicial nominees are confirmed," Richard Lessner, executive director of the American Conservative Union, wrote in a recent article. "If he fails, then he is dead as a presidential wannabe."
Frist says he is basing his decision on constitutional principles, not politics. "I just want a reasonable up-or-down vote on the judicial nominees that come to the floor," he said this week, so that senators can "give advice and consent, which is our constitutional responsibility. It is something that we absolutely must have."
Scorched-earth response
Frist had mixed results yesterday in his scramble to find 50 Republicans who will promise to vote for the rule change (Vice President Cheney could break a 50-50 tie in Frist's favor). Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) said he will side with his party's leader, but Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told MSNBC, "I will vote against the nuclear option . . . because we won't always be in the majority."
Some allies say Frist can burnish his image if he wins the judicial nominations fight. "From a political point of view, if he's forced to change the Senate rules to end the filibusters, that will only help him in the Republican primary for president," said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), a former presidential candidate. "It's a top issue among most Republican primary voters."
Alexander said Democrats "are badly misreading this politically" if they think the public would blame Republicans for a Senate breakdown orchestrated by Democrats. GOP aides say Frist has drawn the same conclusion. Nonetheless, Senate Democrats are vowing a scorched-earth response, noting that a single senator can dramatically slow down the chamber's work by insisting on time-consuming procedures that are normally bypassed by "unanimous consent."
They also are portraying Frist as a tool of GOP extremists. Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), asked this week if the radical right is driving Frist and his lieutenants, replied: "If they decide to do this, which it appears they are going to, the answer is unequivocally -- underlined, underscored -- yes."
Santorum and Allen, meanwhile, are pressing Frist to act. "We've got to go for it, call their bluff," Allen said in an interview. In talking with Frist, he said, "I've been prodding, goading, encouraging such action. I think we need to move sooner rather than later."
"If there's a vacancy on the Supreme Court" -- which many senators expect this summer -- "we want the playing field set," said Allen, a former college football player. But only Frist, he said, "can call the snap." |
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Fri Apr 15, 2005 9:11 am |
|
When the democrats take back the senate what are the republicans going to do then? They wont be able to filibuster the democrat judges. Both partys lose if there banned
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Fri Apr 15, 2005 12:41 pm |
|
I have a bad feeling that if they try to ban them, something extremely bad will happen. And I see McCain is being smart and staying away from it. He's got the right idea. Nothing good will come of changing this, it will only widen the gap between republicans and democrats.
What I dont understand is why they're trying to dump a practice that's been going on since Congress was created.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Apr 15, 2005 4:47 pm |
|
Alright, we are NOT trying to push back filibusters! I cannot vote in this poll because of that. What we want to stop is the UNCONSTITUTIONAL filibuster of judicial nominees, which has only RECENTLY been used for the FIRST TIME IN 20 YEARS. I am tired of this SPIN that we want to get rid of filibusters. We want to GIVE them the chance to an up or down vote. It's RIDICULOUS to deny that, and therefore we MUST get rid of THIS filibuster.
Oh, and on McCain: I don't like him right now. He's doing the WRONG thing being like this in this situation.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Fri Apr 15, 2005 4:57 pm |
|
I believe filibusters should be banned outright. They merely stand in the way of majority rule. With filibusters, a small minority can delay or even prevent legislation wanted by a majority. The best way to block small majority bills is to constitutionally legislate the need for a 2/3 vote to pass legislation.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Apr 15, 2005 5:01 pm |
|
| Zeke Zabertini wrote: | | I believe filibusters should be banned outright. They merely stand in the way of majority rule. With filibusters, a small minority can delay or even prevent legislation wanted by a majority. The best way to block small majority bills is to constitutionally legislate the need for a 2/3 vote to pass legislation. |
That's true, however the Constitution states 7 different instances for a supermajority (and judicial nominees is NOT one of them), and I think that we SHOULD protect minority rights, because the country's not only about the majority. And besides, the Libs would have a field day.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Fri Apr 15, 2005 8:26 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | Alright, we are NOT trying to push back filibusters! I cannot vote in this poll because of that. What we want to stop is the UNCONSTITUTIONAL filibuster of judicial nominees, which has only RECENTLY been used for the FIRST TIME IN 20 YEARS. I am tired of this SPIN that we want to get rid of filibusters. We want to GIVE them the chance to an up or down vote. It's RIDICULOUS to deny that, and therefore we MUST get rid of THIS filibuster.
Oh, and on McCain: I don't like him right now. He's doing the WRONG thing being like this in this situation. |
Uhh... I'm guessing you haven't actully listened to what Frist has been saying. He WANTS to ban them.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Apr 15, 2005 8:29 pm |
|
Uh...no, he doesn't. Just for judicial nominees. I don't know what you're reading...
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Apr 15, 2005 8:31 pm |
|
And I ACCIDENTALLY voted in this poll, and it was a NO vote. Please discount that, because I didn't mean to vote. It's too vague.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Fri Apr 15, 2005 10:28 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | ...the Constitution states 7 different instances for a supermajority ... and I think that we SHOULD protect minority rights, because the country's not only about the majority... |
I agree completely. That's why a supermajority should be required in all instances. Of course the minority's rights need to be protected, but not by allowing them to singlehandedly bring the decision making process of the legislature to a halt.
I'm a little curious about where you heard that a filibuster is unconstitutional in this particular instance. I've read the United States Constitution, and I don't remember it saying anything about filibusters. In fact, all it says is that the houses make their own rules. Now, if a filibuster here is against those rules that's all well and good as an argument. Just don't get it confused with a constitutional issue.
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Fri Apr 15, 2005 11:06 pm |
|
I voted yes, but that's a very shaky vote. I despise filibusters because they entirely endermine the idea of voting at all. Why bother? The government does very little, but argues a lot. Why? Because nobody can get anything important done. You'll never get a decision on abortion, or gay marriage, or anything else because a good near-half of the senate will blow it down. The minority does need protection, but we need SOMETHING so that decisions--important, controversial ones--get made.
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Sat Apr 16, 2005 10:02 am |
|
What is a filibuster as such? A veto?
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Sat Apr 16, 2005 10:20 am |
|
| Wikipedia wrote: | | A filibuster is a process, typically an extremely long speech, that is used primarily to stall the legislative process and thus derail a particular piece of legislation, rather than to make a particular point in the content of the diversion per se. The term first came into use in the United States Senate, where senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose. The term comes from the early 17th century Spanish and Portuguese term for pirates, "filibusteros", who held ships hostage for ransom. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_%28legislative_tactic%29
I agree that they sould not use a filibuster on judicial nominees. Legislative assemblies are for . . . oh, maybe some legislating. Perhaps the Democrats aren't happy with these nominees, but it doesn't matter because that shouldn't be their concern. They should stop thinking in terms of "what will be good for the Democrats" and more in "what will be good for the American people." Right now, legislation and an effective governing body is better than using stalling tactics on judicial nominees.
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Sat Apr 16, 2005 10:21 am |
|
Oh. I knew what they were, just didn't know the name was a filibuster. Thanks.
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Sat Apr 16, 2005 11:56 am |
|
The Republicans didn't use a fillibuster when Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg (The most LIBERAL supreme court justice ever!).
Why? Because it was Clinton's nomination, and they won it fair and square. The Republicans are right here. Good or bad, democracy should not be stunted by a poorly designed doctrine.
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Sat Apr 16, 2005 12:14 pm |
|
I suggest you leave partisan bias out of this debate, for the sake of not careening off-topic. I agree with most of what Exalya is saying, but I disagree that we need to make it easier for a simple majority rule. If you want a democracy that respects everyone, you can't allow a bill to pass that 51% of the people support and 49% of the people oppose. A large part of the trouble on both sides of the fence these days is that everything needs to be legislated, I think. I'm happy leaving the really split-support controversial stuff unlegislated, especially on the federal level. Personal freedom factors in here a great deal.
To prevent such decisions, supermajorities ought to be required.
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Sat Apr 16, 2005 12:25 pm |
|
How can you leave partisan bias out of it? This is all about partisan politics.
The rightdidn't fillibuster when the left had its day in the sun, and now the left wants to fillibuster the right, that's not fair. An earned majority is an earned majority, minority rights are supposed to be protected by the supreme court, and that's why all of Clintons nominees are still on it, and still will be after Bush nominates some.
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Sat Apr 16, 2005 12:37 pm |
|
It is not. What you believe about the way the process should be carried out must apply to all the parties involved in order to be, in my eyes, valid. You are using flawed logic to bring partisan politics into the issue. Despite what the Democrats may or may not do, and what the Republicans have done, the issue is what action should be taken that will apply to everyone.
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Sat Apr 16, 2005 2:37 pm |
|
| Zeke Zabertini wrote: | I suggest you leave partisan bias out of this debate, for the sake of not careening off-topic. I agree with most of what Exalya is saying, but I disagree that we need to make it easier for a simple majority rule. If you want a democracy that respects everyone, you can't allow a bill to pass that 51% of the people support and 49% of the people oppose. A large part of the trouble on both sides of the fence these days is that everything needs to be legislated, I think. I'm happy leaving the really split-support controversial stuff unlegislated, especially on the federal level. Personal freedom factors in here a great deal.
To prevent such decisions, supermajorities ought to be required. |
You have a good point, certainly about not legislating the controversial stuff. Because obviously, you're going to have a large, angry mass of one side or the other. However, nobody will just come out and say that.  One wonders why we argue abortion and gay rights constantly, incessantly, to lengths that bring such ugly nuisance, when nothing is being done. And both sides should know by now that nothing is going to be done--or if it is, it won't be done for a very, very long time. Yet they make a great big noise about it like they're going to change something...rather stupid.
-------signature-------
Not the doctor... yet
|
|
|
Kylon
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 03 Jun 2002
Posts: 292
Location: In a distant galaxy far far away...
|
| Sat Apr 16, 2005 5:44 pm |
|
I completely disagree with banning filibusters, because it's one more step against minority rights.
Alot of Republicans say they are in favor of minority rights and what not, but alot of them in fact aren't, or if they are, they are more in favor of their own agenda.
The problem is that when the minority doesn't have a peaceful, legislative way of doing things, they often resort to less peaceful, more disruptive ways of doing things, i.e terrorism.
You think the Islamic, under educated, poorly financed terrorist are bad, you haven't seen nothing til you've seen it done American style. If a couple of high school students with poor funds can get hold of ozzies, and shoot up everyone at a school, what could someone who was actively focusing on, with nothing to lose, accomplish in terms of human suffering? Better yet, what could a GROUP of people do. You might reference back to the 60's Malcolm X.
I know you don't think this is much, you think "Eliminating filibustering? How would that cause terrorism?" but the real problem is WHERE DOES IT LEAD?
-------signature-------
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
Albert Einstein
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Apr 16, 2005 11:15 pm |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | | I agree that they sould not use a filibuster on judicial nominees. Legislative assemblies are for . . . oh, maybe some legislating. Perhaps the Democrats aren't happy with these nominees, but it doesn't matter because that shouldn't be their concern. They should stop thinking in terms of "what will be good for the Democrats" and more in "what will be good for the American people." Right now, legislation and an effective governing body is better than using stalling tactics on judicial nominees. |
Good point. Vote on these nominees, yes. Give them an up or down vote, and don't worry about what's good or bad for your party here 
| LightningBoy wrote: | The Republicans didn't use a fillibuster when Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg (The most LIBERAL supreme court justice ever!).
Why? Because it was Clinton's nomination, and they won it fair and square. The Republicans are right here. Good or bad, democracy should not be stunted by a poorly designed doctrine. |
Exactly. EXCELLENT point.
| Zeke Zabertini wrote: | I suggest you leave partisan bias out of this debate, for the sake of not careening off-topic. I agree with most of what Exalya is saying, but I disagree that we need to make it easier for a simple majority rule. If you want a democracy that respects everyone, you can't allow a bill to pass that 51% of the people support and 49% of the people oppose. A large part of the trouble on both sides of the fence these days is that everything needs to be legislated, I think. I'm happy leaving the really split-support controversial stuff unlegislated, especially on the federal level. Personal freedom factors in here a great deal.
To prevent such decisions, supermajorities ought to be required. |
No, supermajorities should ONLY be required in those 7 instances stated in the Constitution. The Founder's knew what was right there, and that's what they thought. To change that is wrong. Plus, legislation would not pass.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Sat Apr 16, 2005 11:50 pm |
|
The entire "representaive republic" system is outdated and based on a former agrarian society.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Apr 16, 2005 11:51 pm |
|
| webtaz99 wrote: | | The entire "representaive republic" system is outdated and based on a former agrarian society. |
Could you please back that statement up, and elaborate? I would disagree.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Sat Apr 16, 2005 11:58 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | ...supermajorities should ONLY be required in those 7 instances stated in the Constitution. The Founder's knew what was right there, and that's what they thought. To change that is wrong. Plus, legislation would not pass. |
It's not wrong at all. Legislation would pass that had the support of the vast majority of the people, which is as it should be. If you want to protect the rights of the minority, the best way to do it is to require a larger majority to pass legislation. I don't think 2/3 is out of bounds at all, especially wince it would bring a measure of mediocracy to our partisan system. It would help bring an end to the rediculous pendulum of policy we keep encountering as the majority in the legislature is claimed by one side, then the other.
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
