posted
The articles admit that Democrats did it when they were in power, even have some Democrats owning up to it. But they never did it on this scale, or so blatantly.
This election should not be decided on one issue, or even two or three. I do not think it's right that the actions of the last administration(s) have reduced the amount of accountability and decimated the idea of open government. This will bring out country down faster, in more ways, than anything either candidate talked about during the debates.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The worst threat to democracy IMHO is socialism, and which 'side' does that form of government infest?"
Chad, you're making a different argument, here. Your point seems to be, "Yeah, the Republicans are downright thuggish, but since they're not socialists, they've got to be a better alternative."
Is that what you're saying?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not really. The filibuster is a part of the democratic process, written into the laws. Republicans have used it too, for the same reasons -- they were outnumbered and couldn't stop the steamrolling success of a nominee any other way.
Frankly, I think Kerry was wrong to tackle the SBVs the way he did. What does that have to do with my posts?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
I never mentioned Republicans, but your reply mentions them.... That's funny.
quote: Can you say, Clinton had a far greater proportion of his judicial nominees defeated than Bush?
By vote as per democratic policy. A nominee turned down by vote and a nominee not allowed to be put to a vote are two different things. Are you aware of such differences?
Would you name the Republican Filibuster that stopped Clinton's nominees?
quote: When Bush nominates judges who refuse to allow the Senate to examine their records (Estrada) and judges who fall far to the right of even Bush himself (Owens), his nominees don't get confirmed. When he nominates judges who are uncontroversial, they get quickly confirmed.
After your Clinton line, that is probably the most undermining paragraph I've seen.
And again, you fail to see the difference between a filibuster and a vote against.
Shall I explain them to you?
quote: Kerry made a mistake in going to the FTC. The proper response was a defamation lawsuit.
But he knows he would have looked even a bigger idiot for trying to censor the opinions of Vietnam Vets.
I want to slander all Vietnam Vets as war criminals and think it wrong that I should be quiet, but these SBV have no right saying what they want because I don't agree with it.
Both responses would have been wrong from a democratic point of view.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
The denial of democracy by democrats. And filibusters are not a part of the "democratic process" they are apart from it and an attempt to UNDERMINE the democratic process. In other words to STOP the democratic process from proceeding.
There as much a "Part" of the democratic process as the articles you listed then.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I find interesting is that my boyfriend, who is pretty much an idealogical socialist, is planning on voting for Bush in this election, while I, the generally more conservative person in the relationship, am leaning towards Kerry.
posted
The word filibuster appears no where on that entire rule page. Please show me where it says, keeping a motion from being voted on by walking out is part of the rules.
This is from the United States Senate permanent records web site.
"Unlimited debate remained in place in the Senate until 1917. At that time, at the suggestion of President Woodrow Wilson, the Senate adopted a rule (Rule 22) that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote -- a tactic known as "cloture."
"The new Senate rule was put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Despite the new cloture rule, however, filibusters continued to be an effective means to block legislation, due in part to the fact that a two-thirds majority vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next several decades, the Senate tried numerous times to evoke cloture, but failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to southern senators blocking civil rights legislation in the 1950s and 1960s. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds (67) to three-fifths (60) of the 100-member Senate. "
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But, to return to the point of this thread...
The mistake in the Rules Committee was made by the Democrats when they were in power, they changed the membership so the majority in the House would be the majority in the Committee. This is just asking for abuse, which they did, and then Republicans came along and did it better.
It should be evenly matched and kept that way, with the same deadlines and restrictions and open source government rules for every bill that comes along. No more midnight changes, no more rushed voting, no more bills that get voted on before they could possibly be read.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.
Did you read that sentence? So are you telling me that NOTHING has happened in the senate since his vote?
I doubt it.
That is not a FILIBUSTER clause. It's the clause about closing the buisiness for a vote. This wasn't about continuing the debate about him, it was about removing the ability for debate and closure completely from the realm.
There is a huge difference.
Please read that last clause carefully.
And if by some curse of God Kerry does get elected, what will you say if the republican looking congress/house filibusters every measure he or democrats propose?
Would you have a problem with that?
I expect you to say no of course.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chad's right, in a way: filibusters are not a tool of democracy, as they are most useful in situations where you don't want perfect democracy to hold sway. In other words, if you have a simple majority capable of doing something that a significant minority opposes very strongly, a filibuster makes it possible to prevent democracy from happening, thus forcing a more acceptable compromise.
This IS undemocratic. It is also a traditional tool inherent in almost all democracies, precisely because a true democracy is indistinguishable from tyranny.
In America, we have this kneejerk reaction where we associate the word "democracy" with "freedom" and "freedom" with "goodness," thus making "democratic" into a synonym for "good." But democracies are NOT inherently free, nor are they inherently good, and there are legitimate reasons why techniques like the filibuster were created to give minority groups the ability to influence legislation.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:In America, we have this kneejerk reaction where we associate the word "democracy" with "freedom" and "freedom" with "goodness," thus making "democratic" into a synonym for "good." But democracies are NOT inherently free, nor are they inherently good, and there are legitimate reasons why techniques like the filibuster were created to give minority groups the ability to influence legislation.
*agrees*
And how you view this procedure tends to depend on which party uses it.
Dems and "progressives" used the threat of a filibuster to kill the "pain relief promotion act" during the Clinton administration. This would have empowered the DEA to revoke the federal licenses of doctors prescribing federally controlled drugs to facilitate a suicide. A simple vote would have resulted in its passage. But there wasn't enough of a majority for cloture. This saved Clinton from doing what was most probably - vetoing the bill.
These votes tend to get misreported in the press, though. A lot of media reports said the actual "act" was defeated. It wasn't. The motion that would have prevented a filibuster was defeated. It's very different.
Which is all easier to see when you're on the losing side. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've always wondered if it was a mistake to let the Senate resume other business when one issue is being fillibustered. On the one hand, it keeps the Senate from being held hostage by a minority. On the other hand, it leaves Senators free to gain the "benefits" of fillibusters without facing the consequences of the rule. If the Senate screeched to a halt whenever someone fillibustered, and if the fillibusterers had to actually stay up and talk to keep it going, we'd see them used much more sparingly. Plus, it would force better reporting on fillibusters, and make constituents more aware of the effect of a fillibuster.
As a technique to check the excesses of democracy, it's probably good they exist. But the non-democratic nature of the tool should be more readily apparent.
And don't even get me started on single-Senator holds of appointments. I have no idea why that's allowed at all. And, yes, I know the Republicans (especially Jesse Helms) used it often agaisnt Clinton. I hated it then, too.
quote:If the Senate screeched to a halt whenever someone fillibustered, and if the fillibusterers had to actually stay up and talk to keep it going, we'd see them used much more sparingly.
Hey! Mr. Smith Goes to Washington! Yay!
I don't have anything topical to add, mind you. The screaming in the political threads today is getting to be too much for me.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
