Up or down? Ha!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Magnetic Poles, Jul 16, 2007.

  1. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not surprised.
     
  3. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Aren't we talking about two different things? The Republican call for an up or down vote on judges was a constitutional matter, where a judge is required to have a simple majority for confirmation. Requiring 60 votes was an end run around the constitution. The constitution however does not make rules about this sort of bill being passed.

    However, I am pretty sure it is a moot point because the President will veto it, and it will take 60 votes to pass it anyway.

    So I think the OP is misleading by comparing two different situations.

    Besides, if the Democrats didn't object to filibustering the judges, why do they object to filibustering this?

    I do think this is a great line: "Maybe staying in all night will give them enough time to actually pass some legislation, rather than just investigate and complain. Though I doubt that they can accomplish in an extra seven hours what they've failed to accomplish in the last seven months." (Mitch McConnell).

    Here's a little quiz for you: Who are the only people in the country to have a lower approval rating than the president? Yes, you already know. The Congress.
     
  4. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    So Larry, are you saying when the GOP controlled Congress when the Democrats held the White House, they always gave a quick up or down vote on Presidential nominations? Surely not.
     
  5. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    That doesn't exactly translate into a glowing endorsement of President Bush by the American
    people. :laugh:

    The bottom line is that for all practical purposes our entire national government is, sadly, a joke - and a bad one at that.
     
  6. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    How true! And the joke is on us!
     
  7. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,457
    Likes Received:
    93
    No, something close to half. The other half of the liars are those did want filibusters before and did not want a simple vote.
     
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have no idea. I wasn't commenting on the past actions of Congress, but rather on the constitutional mandates about presidential appointees. If the Republicans didn't do it either, that hardly helps.

    My point was that the OP was comparing apples and oranges.

    And yes, Ken, the fact that Congress is lower than Bush isn't glowing, but it is indicative of the fact that the people don't place hope in Congress for change. This mandate to change the direction of policies both home and abroad wasn't a mandate.
     
  9. Analgesic

    Analgesic
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course approval ratings are lower for Congress. Bush still has a core group of support that's not going any lower unless he invades Iran (and even then not by that much, I don't think). This Congress, on the other hand, is hated by Republicans for going after the Administration and disliked by Democrats for not getting far enough along with it.
     
  10. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, it is not apples & oranges. If appointments deserve an up or down vote, so do other affairs of state. It is again, sauce for the goose, but the GOP is disingenous on this. Maybe the Democrats should reintroduce the idea of the so-called "nuclear option".

    That said, I am against elimination of the filibuster by either party. This is one of the few options available to the minority party.
     
  11. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm for the fillibuster. We're all much safer, the less Congress can "accomplish".
     
  12. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78

    Good point :).
     
  13. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not at all. Remember, one of these is constitutional (simple majority for judicial appointments) and one is not (passing other legislation under the rules of the Senate). Appointments deserve an up or down vote because that is what the Constitution calls for. It does not call for that in other cases.

    But here's advice to the Dems: If you want to control the military, then win the WH. Under the constitution, that's the commander in chief.
     
  14. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the GOP is disengenuine on this then so are the Dems since they worked to fillibuster most everything. And it is intellectually dishonest to point the finger at one side only.

    However no one has made a legitimate case that if the fillibuster is not to be used for Justices then it should not be used for anything. And the Dems are whining about their own tactics being used against them.

    Maybe they coudl start with a little honesty and integrity.
     
  15. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    The filibuster is not a Democratic tactic. It is used by both sides and has since the early days of the republic. I bet even the Whigs used it. Like I said, it is one of the ways that the minority party can exert some influence. That is why I am against the GOPs threat last year of the "nuclear option". THAT is what is disingenuous...threatening to kill it when they had the majority, but now they are all over it like white on rice.
     
  16. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,935
    Likes Received:
    296
    You found it convenient to leave out a critical fact. Can one not lie by omission as well?

    I agree that politicians lie whenever it's convenient. Must you follow their example while ,at the same time, condemning it?
     
    #16 carpro, Jul 17, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 17, 2007
  17. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    And what you fail to point out is thast dems are crticising and demonizing the GOP for what they themsleves engage in. The hypocracy runs deep on both sides. and you have yet to prove that fillibusters are legitimate when it comes to Jusices confirmation. That is what the Nucleaeroption was about. Which is a legitimate concern.
     
  18. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, the nuclear option was to eliminate the filibuster with a simple majority vote. Period.

    You are right that both sides have plenty of hypocrites. In this thread, I was talking about a specific hypocritical behavior by the GOP. You righties cannot seem to accept criticism of your own house without crying and whining, "Well, they did it too!". Yeah, they are both a bunch of self-serving rich boys. We already know that.
     
  19. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
  20. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are correct...my recollection was flawed. Thanks for setting it straight.

    Still, that brings up another point. I think it is wrong to exempt ANYTHING from examination, filibuster, whatever. So this could set an even worse precedent than a blanket change. Pick and choose what you want to take away from the minority party. If you do that, it could be used against you later.

    I have no doubt that when some future Democratic President has a nominee the GOP doesn't like, they will do the same thing...filibuster. I'll bet you the proverbial dollar to a doughnut on that.

    Like I have said many times before, there is enough hypocrisy and corruption in both major parties to lead us straight into the dustbin of history.
     

Share This Page

Loading...