Comments on: Alito, the Nuclear Option, and the Gang of 14

By: joe

joe — Thu, 03 Nov 2005 22:17:42 +0000

The Democratic shut down accomplished 2 things. It got the Senate to agree to the second part of the investigation that they promised. And it got the president to show some of the courtesies in regards to Supreme Court Judge appointments which he neglected.

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2005/11/senate-maneuverings.html

I do not know why people like you persist in lying. The best that can happen is that you will succeed, that the population will go along with the myth that the ruling party is helpless victims and the traitors must be destroyed for a perfect world.

But the reality is that you will simply lose your reputation. You will have put your name next to falsehood after falsehood and left a record.

By: drmagoo

drmagoo — Thu, 03 Nov 2005 16:27:15 +0000

Actually, DL, the job of the Senate (as representatives of their constituencies) is to reject any nominees that the President puts forth that are not appropriate, and they are supposed to use their individual judgements as to decide who to support and who not to. The long-held rules allow for minority groups to be able to significantly affect the process through things like the filibuster, etc. And as for what "America's Will" is, I could point to numerous data that show that what Bush wants, most of the country does not want right now. Since there isn't a way to get him out of power, other than convicting him for being a murdering lying terrorist, the Senate can act on the "will" of the voters by telling him to take his extremist views and shove them down his throat. Respectfully, of course, as Dick Cheney would act on the Senate floor.

By: DL

DL — Thu, 03 Nov 2005 10:43:07 +0000

"If it is determined that Alito is not a suitable candidate for the Supreme Court why should the Democrats not filibuster his appointment? Is America supposed to accept whatever Bush decides regardless of how mistaken he is? Ken" Actually it was America that decided when they put him back into office, or haven't you figured that out yet. Obstructing America's will is about all you guys can do. I'll admit you're good at it! Obstructing that is. Ken you gave me the best laugh since they "found" St. Hillary's missing files, by writting the following... "I really donât understand why conservatives are so unwilling to put the common interest above the political battle de jeur. Every time you win one of these battles the country loses. ken " Thanks for the big laugh!

By: drmagoo

drmagoo — Thu, 03 Nov 2005 10:32:20 +0000

1) Oh, no! Alito might not be the most perfect hardcore conservative ever! Should we work on cloning Hitler so that we can be sure that nominees don't accidentally treat gays as human or assume that people have any rights at all? 2) This assumption (by some) that the minority shouldn't have some significant power is remarkably short-sighted and greedy. It ignores, first of all, that the guiding principles of law in the Constitution are not that "majority rules", but that the rights of the individual, even unpopular ones, trump the rights of the majority and of the state. Secondly, it treats the system as one which willingly invalidates the opinions of half the country (or thereabouts), and that's downright silly. And thirdly, even the most hardcore Republican has to acknowledge that someday (please, please, please let it be 2006) they won't be the majority party - and when they are the minority, do they want to have any say in what happens, or would they be willing to sit there quietly while the Democrats do anything they want? Of course not. So don't assume that it's fair one way if you wouldn't like it if the situation were reversed.

By: anjin-san

anjin-san — Thu, 03 Nov 2005 01:17:50 +0000

Fine get rid of the filabuster. Three more years of Bush and the GOP will be a minority party. And they will have one less card in the deck.

By: RA

RA — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 22:14:36 +0000

The Democrats showing the strength of their new campaign strategy. "We can obstruct the business of the senate better than anyone". I think its great. It is not often the American public can see the clearly announced agenda of the left. Most of the time their agenda is couched in lies.

Let them be the party of obstruction and nothing more. Say good by to all those red state Democratic senators.

By: Jon

Jon — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:33:43 +0000

Something to consider:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/11/02/alito_writing_backed_privacy_gay_rights/

Special rights for gays? Weakening the CIA? Does he still seem like the home run we were promised?

By: John Gillnitz

John Gillnitz — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:32:20 +0000

I seriously doubt the Dems will pull a filibuster. A) They don't have the numbers to pull it off and B) Alito doesn't seem that bad.

Reid's closed session was surely a stunt, but it was a stunt to get the Republicans in the Senate Intelligence Committee to do their jobs. They stopped cooperating and got lawyered up back in July. I wonder why...

By: ken

ken — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:17:38 +0000

If it is determined that Alito is not a suitable candidate for the Supreme Court why should the Democrats not filibuster his appointment? Is America supposed to accept whatever Bush decides regardless of how mistaken he is?

I really don't understand why conservatives are so unwilling to put the common interest above the political battle de jeur. Every time you win one of these battles the country loses.

By: Barry

Barry — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:00:54 +0000

Wayne, my point was that a big difference between the House and the Senate (maybe the biggest one) was that in the Senate, a strong minority has some power. In the House, a strong minority has jack. There have been some variations, but it's always been that way.

Nuking the fillibuster is an attempt to run the Senate on House rules, otherwise known as 'the minority can STFU'.

Regarding James, I was pointing out that he was being dishonest in his comment '... they are ready to use all the tricks at their disposal to prevent the Republicans from exercising the power that comes with majority status.', because of that difference. I was trying to do so in a reasonably subtle way.

By: Wayne

Wayne — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 19:01:34 +0000

Barry
Basic Political Science classes are like any basic level classes. They teach a dumb down version of the subject and leave out great deal of information as well as stating many facts as absolutes that are not. The Senate has given the minority party more power because they have chosen to do so. Most of its rules have not been around for 200 years but are in constant change. For example in1919: First use of Rule 22 when Senate invoked cloture to end debate against the Treaty of Versailles was established. The Senate use to be considered the more civilized and friendly than the House. Now they have shown their true colors.

By: Blue State Separatist

Blue State Separatist — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 18:47:39 +0000

... the Republicans will have to change a lot more rules than just unlimited debate to get their way on controversial issues...

The repugs would gladly impose martial law to get their way, throw their opponents in jail, and torture them.

They got their abuse of power shoved down their throat yesterday, thanks to an obscure little Senate rule. Amazing how the bullies whine when the victims suddenly fight back. It was a real pleasure to see Frist the jackass squealing like a cornered rat.

By: Barry

Barry — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 17:35:26 +0000

James Joyner:
"...all the tricks at their disposal to prevent the Republicans from exercising the power that comes with majority status. "

When I was an undergraduate, in a third-tier university, everybody was required to take Poli Sci 101, which was basically high school civics. Which covered things like the differences between the Senate and the House. To simplify it a bit, in the House, 50% + 1 vote rules utterly; in the Senate, the minority has far more power. That's the way that it's been for over 200 years.

James, perhaps you could sit in on such a course at a university near you, and learn such things.

By: McGehee

McGehee — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 17:33:31 +0000

Solo, don't feed the trolls. ;-)

By: Herb

Herb — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 17:24:59 +0000

I hope the Dems do go for the filibuster, then the Reps can exercise the Nuclesr Option and put an end to whatever power the Dems have left.

The diehard, sore loser Dems had best "Get over it" and recognize that the American people have "had it" with their nonsense and dirty tricks.

But then again, the Dems didn't learn a thing in 2000 and 2004 and it looks like they will not learn in 2006 and 2008.

The Dems would do best to rid themselves of Dean, Schumer, Kennedy, Leahy, Reid and the rest of the extremists, then maybe they just may have a chance.