It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GOP to Block Judicial Nominee Filibusters

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 05:16 AM
link   
Robert Novak is reporting that Republican senators have decided to block any attempt by Democrats to filibuster the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown's nomination to the U.S. District Court of Appeals. The attempt to confirm Brown should take place in about a month.



WASHINGTON -- Senate Republican leaders have decided to begin their use of the "nuclear option" -- forcing confirmation of President Bush's judicial nominations with a majority Senate vote -- on an African-American woman blocked by Democrats from a federal judgeship.
 
Townhall.com


As I understand it, this will work by a Senator making a parliamentary objection of the filibuster to the Senate President (Dick Cheney) who will then rule and his rule only needs to be upheld by only 51 senators.

I think it's a good idea because there is nothing in the Constitution requiring a supermajority of Senators to approve judicial nominees.




posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 09:14 AM
link   
This should have been done in Bush's 1st term.

This is a good idea since it will prevent Democrats from blocking qualified minority candidates.

Can you imagine if Condi Rice or Gonzales were democrats and the republicans bashed them like the dems did? Nevermind the democrats would never promote qualified minorites in the 1st place.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 09:30 AM
link   
I think this is really short sighted. Republicans are in power currently, but if they make a bunch of rules to give them even more power, what are they going to do when they're out of power?



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
I think this is really short sighted. Republicans are in power currently, but if they make a bunch of rules to give them even more power, what are they going to do when they're out of power?


In all the history of the time Republicans were the minority in the Senate, they never used the filibuster to block a Presidential judicial nominee. In fact it was used in that context for the very first time ever by the Democrats in Bush's first term.

The Constitution makes it very clear when a supermajority is required for something to pass. It clearly isn't required to confirm appointees. I believe all presidential nominees deserve an up or down vote in the Senate no matter which party controls the Senate and the White House.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 09:38 AM
link   
But do you think the dems, if they get back into power, would use the powers granted to the majority fairly or judicially? I don't; look at what they're doing to everything Bush is trying to do. They've become an angry, spiteful bunch being led by Ted Kennedy and Michael Moore. It's too bad, to, because we used to have a choice on who to vote for if you were a moderate. Now, we don't.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   
The only way the Dems could take it further if they were in power would be to try to get rid of the filibuster entirely, but for that to occur they'd need to pass new rules.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
As I understand it, this will work by a Senator making a parliamentary objection of the filibuster to the Senate President (Dick Cheney) who will then rule and his rule only needs to be upheld by only 51 senators.

But the democrats have stated that they have 45 senators that will vote to sustain the filibuster, does the GOP have 51 senators who will stop it?


In all the history of the time Republicans were the minority in the Senate, they never used the filibuster to block a Presidential judicial nominee

When did they have to votes to make the filibuster effective tho? I don't know if they did or did not at any time or on any candidate that they'd want to block


junglejake
But do you think the dems, if they get back into power, would use the powers granted to the majority fairly or judicially

This is not about 'creating new powers' or anything like that. The Democrats are going to initiate a filibuster, that means that they are, literally, going to monopolize speaking time on the senate floor in order to take up all the time available so that a vote is never gotten to. THe GOP is saying that there is a process to stop a filibuster, it requires X numbers of votes according to the rules of order, and they are going to go thru with it. If they are successful, nothing changes, itsnot like a new precedent will be created or a new rule that the democrats can use against the republicans when they are in power. Heck, the democrats are apparently the ones 'breaking precedent' by filibustering the nominee, and that makes it very easy for the republicans to do it to the democrats when they inevitably are in power.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   
There are 55 Republican senators so even if they have a few defections they should be able to do this no problem.

[edit on 2/6/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Ah, i see, I had thought that this was the usual method to end a filibuster, but apparently this is an all together differentthing

They are forcing a majority vote. I don't understand tho, why is this possible here?

I just noticed that this is from that security comprimising scumbag bob novak. Yuck.

[edit on 6-2-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
They are forcing a majority vote. I don't understand tho, why is this possible here?


This is how:

Dick Cheney will be in attendance at the Senate as President of the Senate (his Constitutional right/responsibility). A Republican Senator will rise and make an objection to Cheney that the filibuster is unconstitutional since it effectively puts a supermajority requirement on the advice and consent role of the Senate in confirmation of Presidential appointees -- something the framers of the Constitution didn't expect. Cheney will rule that the objection is valid and the Senate must hold an up or down vote. According to present Senate rules, only 50% + 1 votes will be required to uphold Cheney's decision.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Here is a decent article on filibuster issue with respect to judicial nominees.

Filibuster

I personally think the president should appoint more moderate individuals for lifetime positions.

*Edit*Article basically says what dj just typed.



[edit on 2/6/2005 by swintersVT]



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Oh yes, only dems use filibusters. Not to mention the longest filibuster was used by a republican to stall the vote on a early version of the civil rights law.(Thurmond, I think that how it spelled, went I think a little over a day)



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   
You do realize this makes the joke on the Daily Show seem more like rela life then a joke? "Of course democrats have the right to speak, when spoken to by a republican." Mo Rocca from The Daily Show.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Oh yes, only dems use filibusters. Not to mention the longest filibuster was used by a republican to stall the vote on a early version of the civil rights law.(Thurmond, I think that how it spelled, went I think a little over a day)


Strom Thurmond was a Democrat when he did that!

Anyway, that had nothing to do with confirming a Presidential nominee.

[edit on 2/6/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Oh yes, only dems use filibusters.

I don't think anyone was saying republicans don't filibuster, just that they don't normally do it on the matter of the presidents judicial nominees.


djohnsto77
filibuster is unconstitutional since it effectively puts a supermajority requirement on the advice and consent role of the Senate in confirmation of Presidential appointees -- something the framers of the Constitution didn't expect

Hmmm. Can't say I agree. The framers were invovled in making the rules of order for the senate, and didn't think it necessary to include any 'anti-filibuster' rules, they sensibly made rules about situations where there is no effective limit on debate. This way, people can debate as much as they want, and requires a supermajority be finished with the actual debating to force a vote. Hmmm. Intersting arguement tho. I really don't see it as very persuasive tho, that its overriding the matter of 'congressional advice and consent'. Filibustering is of course rather underhanded, but what if there was serious actual debate on an issue, but one side had a 51 majority? The rules of order seem to insist that there be full debate until a supermajority has made up their minds.

I see why its called a 'nuclear bomb', its trying to get outside the system, in a sense, and force the issue.

Of course on one hand it makes sense, a majority of the senate is ready to confirm these people, so what difference does it make even if there was more room for debate?

But still, if they are arguing that the Founders didn't know how parliaments and congresses operated, well, that really is rather weak.

The republicans don't have much to loose tho, because if the democrats did it in the future, well, since republicans tend to not block some presidential nomination votes, its a moot issue really, and wouldn't appl to issue repulicans tend to filibuster on.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 01:43 PM
link   
No, he was a Dixie crat, aka republican. You do know what a Dixie Crat was right? Someone who lived in the north but wanted blacks as sub humans, so they left the democrats and became Dixie Crats, or liberal republicans. Sorry, he wasn't a democrat, only republicans think that.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 09:57 AM
link   
The "Dixie Crats" were in fact members of the Democratic Party. Thurmonds party affiliation at the time was that of the Democratic Party. They were called the 'dixiecrats' because they were southerners, from Dixie, and were different than the other democrats. Eventually, becuase of the support their fellow democrats gave to the civil rights movement, they bolted the party en mass and became pro-segregation republicans. The Republicans, formerly the party for abolition and protection of blacks, had by this time become an 'anti-segration' (under the guise of 'states rights') party.

Bizzare no? Both parties, without technically changing themselves, became their opposites, in a sense. The people labelled 'dixiecrats' tho were indeed democrats.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 03:04 AM
link   
As democrat as a billionaire catholic anti-women rights who supports a war for oil while using illegal aliens to make more money. Like a black gay jewish female republican who supports abortion.

Dixie crats were liberal republicans. They didn't share the beliefs of the democratic party, therefore, not democrats. I can say I am a libertarian, but if I don't hold any of the beliefs, then not a libertarian. Or say I was a republican, then someone hit me in the head and the blinders fell off and I realized women, jews, blacks, mexicans, they were all more then slaves of the white rich christian, so I had the beliefs of a democrat, but still called myself a republican, even though I obviously wasn't. So no, he may have once been a democrat, but people do change parties, we had one only a few years ago that took the power away from republicans and gave it to the democrats, and then 2000 comes along and republicans steal the election.

If it quacks like a duck, flies like a duck, looks like a duck, is it a mongoose cause it says it is? No, so if someone thinks like a republican, acts like a republican, believes like a republican, are they a democrat cause they say so? No.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Dixie crats were liberal republicans.

They were members of the Democratic Party. They were in government as democrats. They were merely anti-segregation. They were not 'liberal republicans' or even 'conservative democrats', though one could say that the stance on segregation was 'conservative'.

They didn't share the beliefs of the democratic party, therefore, not democrats.

The democrats at the time certianly didn't consider them republicans.

I can say I am a libertarian, but if I don't hold any of the beliefs, then not a libertarian.

If you are elected to office as a libertarian and disagree with one social issue on the rest of the party then you are still a libertarian. The dixiecrats were voted in by democrats, against republican candidates, and were fully a part of the democratic party. Their stance on segregation ultimately was too much for the dixicrats, so many of them left the democratic party.

Or say I was a republican, then someone hit me in the head and the blinders fell off and I realized women, jews, blacks, mexicans, they were all more then slaves of the white rich christian,

This is bull#, since republicans don't think this, any more than democrats are limp wristed tax and spend immoral theives.

If it quacks like a duck, flies like a duck, looks like a duck, is it a mongoose cause it says it is?

Good point, and since the dixiecrats agreed with the democrats on everything except segregation, they were democrats, not republicans.




top topics



 
0

log in

join