Filibuster?

That's one tactic the democrats taught that the Republicans hopefully have learned.

They are willing to vote for the increase in the minimum wage in exchange for protection from the possible economic disaster it's passage may cause for small businesses.

Good for them.

 

But this is not technically a filibuster. None of them have been recently. A filibuster is when you have the cloture votes, but someone takes the floor and won't give it up, thus preventing the cloture vote. This is merely refusing to close debate.

Both are a part of Senate life, but they are not the same, as I understand them.

 

That's correct.

That is the way the time honored right to "fillibuster" , or talk your fool head off as some would say, has been corrupted by modern politicians.

Democrats honed the tactic of using it as a purely obstructionist tactic. Republicans are using it in this case to shape legislation and rightfully so in this situation.

 

Spin City: we use it for good and noble purposes; they use it for the Devil's work! :laugh:

 

That truly is spin.

But democrats will rue the day they decided to use the fillibuster on judicial nominees. Payback will have them squealing like stuck little piglets. It's a can of worms they should not have opened.

 

Not if they do the decent thing like Clinton did and consult with the minority party before nominating the candidate.

If they try to push in an abhorrent candidate, then they get what they deserve.

 

I bet the minority party was jumping for Ruth Bader Ginsburg to be on the Supreme Court Justice in 1993.

But then congress had the idea that they were only to rule if a candidate was qualified for the post. Not to rule if they liked the politics of the candidate.

For conservatives Ginsburg is as abhorrent a candidate as they come.

 

She was extremely well-qualified.

Remember Bork?

Were there only 3 conservatives in the Senate at the time? Do you have any record of objections raised at that time? <- That's a serious question.

I know she has since become anathema to many right-wingers.

 

Yea, thats my point. They voted on her qualifications. If they would have voted on her politics she would never have been brought up for a vote. That is what the Dems when they were the minority. They judged candidates on their politics not qualifications and did not allow the vote.

Yes I do (sort of) I was young. Nominated by THE Republican. Judged by his politics not his qualifications. Democrat majority. BUT at least he got an up or down vote. My question why did not the Republicans "Bork" Ginsburg?

I dont know where you get the count of 3 conservatives? But there were 47 Republicans in the 103ed Senate.

I do not know of any objections. This is becasue, like you said, she is qualified for the job. The Republicans had the mind set that it was the POTUS job to pick a justice who he like politicaly. It was the Senates job ONLY to make sure they were qualified. Therefore if RBG was qualified they would not have raised objections, even though politicaly she is everything they were/are against.

It is the Dems that have taken on the POTUS job of choosing a person who they like politicaly and not just ruling on qualifications.

 

She was confirmed by the Senate 96 to 3.

 

Isn't the point, Daisy, that she got so many votes because the minority party voted on qualifications rather than politics? Had they voted on politics and positions (as the Dems are doing currently), she would not have gotten that many votes.

 

You illustrate our point very well.:thumbs:

 

I'm betting the Democrats have all along known that they will utilize the nuclear option, stopping the filibusters, when it's feasible and in their best interest.

 

I'm just asking for evidence that there were actual objections to her then, that she was considered abhorent then. Absent that evidence, why should I think the Republicans actually did object when they voted overwhelmingly in her favor?

 

Daisy ... It seems, from watching recent hearings, that her name came up as one that held objectionable views but was still confirmed because she was qualified. I am going from memory here, but I think it was during the Alito and Roberts hearings sometime.

To BIR's point, I think during those same hearings, I heard that Hatch had recommended Ginsberg, or at least said that she was confirmable. Clinton had supposedly asked the Republicans for input. I am not sure the whole story, or even if I repeated it correctly here.

 

That is exactly the point. Even though they knew she was extremely liberal, they did not apply a litmus test to her confirmation process. They gave the President his nominee because she was qualified.

Democrats apply litmus tests to Republican nominees. Qualifications don't matter. Ideology does.