Republicans have poisoned the well...

[kentuck]

A year out from the next election, the Repubs have thrown down the gauntlet with this charade about the 4 judges. In a few weeks, they will be criticizing the Democrats for the deterioration in bi-partisanship. They will accuse the Democrats of playing politics in time of war and creating an atmosphere of animosity and partisanship.

But they need look no further than what they have done tonight and last night. They have created an atmosphere that will almost make it impossible to come to any type of bipartisan agreements. Orrin Hatch, Rick Santorum, Kaye Bailey Hutchison, and the others need only look in the mirror. They may not recognize the reflection they see?

edit spelling

[paulsbc]

1. both sides are wrong

IMO, the Democrats are wrong to not vote on the noms.

The Republicans are wrong in having 30+ hours of useless PR and not getting real work done that they should be doing.

Both sides make me ill at times, this is certainly one of them.

[Walt Starr]

3. The Dems are 100% right about those four nominees

Bush has had his way enough and has had more judges get an up or down vote than any other administration.

If you ask me, they've allowed votes on TOO MANY OF THE FUCKING ASSHOLES!

[kodi]

4. horseshit. you are offended that politics is going on in washington?

and your opinion is about as valuable as a bucket of horse piss.

either you are not paying attention to who bush nominated or have no understanding of the history of the senate.

[paulsbc]

8. plenty of history

and plenty of knowledge of what occurs between both parties. the republicans spent almost the entire CLinton administration doing the same stupid shit and it annoyed me to high heaven. I'm not a partyline hack like you apparently are, the Democrats are not always right, and in this case are completely wrong.

you call it horse piss, so be it.

[welshTerrier2]

18. filibuster ... it's a nice thing to have

a partyline hack ... interesting ...

here's how i look at it ...

on most votes, 50% wins ... but the filibuster serves a very useful purpose ...

the filibuster empowers those in the minority ... it says that if the majority acts in an irresponsible, extreme fashion, the minority can try to exert its will ... it enables the minority to put an extra burden on the majority (60% to win) when the minority vigorously objects to the proceedings ...

now, this did not have to be included in the Constitution ... but it seems like an excellent way to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority ...

if republicans controlled the 60% or if they were able to convince enough democrats to join them, perhaps this would indicate the nominees (or any newly proposed laws) were not extreme in nature ... if the threat of a filibuster did not exist, those who voted for democrats might not have any representation at all ... is that what you want? when the system works well, it works in a bipartisan, cooperative fashion to further the nation's business ... under bush and his extremist administration, everything is done for the extremist right wing ... everything ... and in a situation like that, i for one am extremely grateful that democrats have a mechanism, a totally legal mechanism to protect those of us who support them ...

if you were to make a larger point that there is too much inefficiency in government because there is too much partisanship, perhaps i would agree ... but to object to the use of a filibuster, which is a constitutionally provided mechanism to temper the abuse of political power, seems to miss the point ...

if your argument is that there should just be an up or down vote on the nominees, i've just listened to 15 hours (30 / 2) of republican speeches that said exactly the same thing ... did the republican speaker give you a warm and fuzzy feeling? i'm glad to say i totally disagree with every one of them ... without a filibuster, an evenly divided senate (50 dems, 50 repubs) and a repub president, the president could nominate extremist KKK members, neo-nazis or any other lunatics he so chose ... and nothing could be done to stop him ... with an evenly divided electorate, this extremism would not represent the will of the people ... and without the filibuster, nothing could be done about it ...

is this your vision of democracy in action? it's not mine ...

[aldian159]

22. Look to Federalist #10

The one concerning factons and minority rights.

It totally shoots down your arguments, and Madison says it better than I could.

And I'm no partyline hack, either...

[kentuck]

24. Wjhy don't you post a little of the relevant part of that Federalist Paper

People might like o read it...

[welshTerrier2]

25. always glad to read more on the subject

but this is a discussion forum ... perhaps in addition to citing a reference you could discuss the issues i raised ...

i'm not a constitutional scholar but the arguments i raised seemed perfectly reasonable to me ... if a bunch of wise old men provided for the use of a filibuster, i see nothing wrong with using it when the circumstances require ...

do you?

[welshTerrier2]

28. here's a link to federalist #10 ... I think you're wrong !!!

to federalist #10: http://memory.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_10.html

again, i'm no constitutional scholar but after reading Madison's essay, I disagree with your interpretation of it ...

Madison talked about factions in the context of a republic ... he talked about a strong central government rather than allowing a greater degree of power to the states ... and, btw, your interpretation of what the democrats are doing (i.e. filibustering) as a faction seems way off base ... Madison did not suggest that factions necessarily even meant a minority ... here's how he defined faction in federalist #10:

"By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." ... Note that a faction could even be a majority !!

any way i read the essay, Madison seemed to place the greatest emphasis, just as i did btw, on protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority ...

look at some of the lines I've extracted:

"Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true."

"Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest?"

"Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority?"

if you would like to present your interpretation to defend your position, i'm all ears ... but my read seems to suggest Madison agrees with me ... well, ok ... i agree with him ...

how you can conclude that federalist #10 opposes the democrats' rights to filibuster against the kind of extremism being practiced by the republican majority is a mystery to me ... i see no credible evidence in the document to support your position ...

[VTMechEngr]

21. Question

If Dems can't stop the bad nominations, whats the point of having a two party system? Anyone who says we should just let them be confirmed is advocating the end of American Democracy. For Shame!

[Wednesdays]

26. Partyline hack?

I'm not a partyline hack like you apparently are...

Yeah, there are a lot of partyline hacks out tonight. And not all of them are from the Democratic Party.

[kentuck]

5. So you think the count should be 172 out of 172?

Not one of those judges should be voted down or filibustered or put on hold or whatever the method of choice might be this time around? We should just rubberstamp all of George W Bush's nominees? Why even go thru the Senate process of "advise and consent"?? Just let Dubya choose who he wants and forget about it?

[paulsbc]

10. no VOTE

you really do understand that they are blocking a vote, right? take the vote, VOTE THEM DOWN. If you don't have the votes to win, take your lumps. simple concept.

[kentuck]

12. And just forget about the 66 judges that the Repubs held up anonymously

with a "blue slip". They didn't need a reason or anything. But Democrats should just let bygones be bygones and go ahead and vote in these right-wingers to a lifetime position and their decisions could come back to haunt you? So that is your desire?

[Eric J in MN]

16. it is the people whose rights are violated who will suffer

This isn't a game.

Real people will be denied due process of law if these extreme justices are confirmed.

[Yupster]

13. No one said anything about not voting down

The criticism is about not allowing a vote.

[Eric J in MN]

17. If there is a vote, all four extreme judges will get

If there is a vote, all four extreme judges will get lifetime appointments.


There shouldn't be a vote.

[Yupster]

27. So - who gets to decide who an extreme judge is?

Do Republican senators get to decide that every judge nominated by a Democratic president is an extremist judge from now on?

I don't like this escalation, and I didn't like the Texas legislators leaving the state either.

These are both escalations of political warfare which will now become the norm.

[Tatiana]

6. In my opinion the Democrats are absolutely right.

Yes, part of this is payback, as Barbara Boxer has stated. Between 55 and 61 Clinton nominees were not given a HEARING, not to mention a vote. Two Clinton nominees were filibustered by Republicans, as former Republican Senator Bob Smith admitted. Republicans are only mad because the Democrats were able to muster the 60 votes required (after cloture) to confirm the nominees.

Being nice and continously turning the other cheek does not work with diabolical maniacs such as Santorum. Sometimes these people need a taste of their own medicine.

[paulsbc]

11. and that is why

politics as usual in DC sucks. just because they do wrong does not mean we do wrong back. liberalism to me means doing what is right and within the rules, not what is political 'payback'.

[w4rma]

With all due respect

The Dems in the Senate should have filibustered more of these right-wing activist ideologue judges.

With all due respect, the Dems in the Senate should have not given up their blue-slips so easily that the Repukes used to shut down, I think, over 100 of Clinton's judges WITHOUT a vote.

[Eric J in MN]

14. please read more about how extreme the nominees are

Janice Rogers Brown agrees with the notorious Lochner-ruling of the FDR era.

The Lochner case said that NY State can't require that bakeries not force bakers to work over 60 hours a week.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=103

[MoonRiver]

19. And exactly WHY are Dems wrong to block the appointment of

far rightwing extremist judges, nominated by a faux pResident, who slithered into office with NO mandate, to say the least??????
:argh:

[politicat]

20. the thing is, the Dems have voted no.... tacitly.

the problem with that is with 45 Dems and 55 Repugs, the R's can't win without wearing down their opposition. So they're hoping exhaustion will be the key factor. They're wrong... but.

So the Repugs are doing this to make the Dems look really bad when they KNOW that if they called it for a vote or had called it for a vote earlier, they would have lost.

Reminder, it's the Repugs who called this travesty, who extended this travesty, and who are not letting it end by objecting every time the Dems try to call the question (this is something of a simplification, but if you're on AOLIM or iChat, I can watch it concurrently with you and point it out.)

[sendero]

30. I disagree...

... in your model anyone with a 1 seat majority could confirm Donald Duck if they wanted to. There is a reason for the rules in the senate, and this is the reason.

The "up or down vote" mantra is a chimera and you should know it.

[rwheeler31]

2. Odd when Hatch was a canidate he had a very differerent speel

If you have not been to Utah it is a very odd state.

[welshTerrier2]

7. sleeping giants

Orrin Hatch, Rick Santorum, Kaye Bailey Hutchison, and the others need only look in the mirror. They may not recognize the reflection they see

actually, there may not be a reflection ...

for far too long, the democrats have played it safe ... for far too long, they've seemed afraid to not "act graciously" with their minority status ...

the republicans have done far worse than just poisoning the well ... they may well have awakened a sleeping giant ... let's hope so ...

[MuseRider]

9. Let them criticize.

As far as I can see the people are looking for something much different than these jokers. The more they criticize the more these people will be ready for something completely different. The Dems are finally doing their job. How they can put up with these sanctimonious shits is more that I can imagine.

[kyrasdad]

15. The Repugs poisoned the well a long time ago

Starting with blocking judges during the Clinton years, their incessant scandal hounding during the Clinton years, and the icing on the fucking cake, their impeachment of Clinton duing the Clinton years. It's Karma baby... what goes around comes around. Repugs are getting their just desserts... hopefully next year they won't have a majority to do squat.... oooops... they have a majority now and can't...

[David Zephyr]

23. Poisoned.

Just like they poisoned the well in Florida, Texas and California recently.

Ah, that old "Ahm a yuuniter, not a devider" Bush charm!

[opihimoimoi]

29. Pubs are Toast, revealed themselves to be greedy and petty

conniving too.

sending strong coffee to the Sheep.

[1songbird]

31. The Repubs poisoned

the well and the Dems don't want to drink that crap anymore.