Up or down? Ha!

I am not surprised.

 

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.

 

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.

 

No, something close to half. The other half of the liars are those did want filibusters before and did not want a simple vote.

 

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.

 

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.

 

I'm for the fillibuster. We're all much safer, the less Congress can "accomplish".

 

Good point .

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

Your history needs refreshing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/16/AR2005051601434.html