What's the deal w/ Bill Frist?

[Guest MikeSC]

Hmm, I don't know what a period is? Your tank really that empty? Oh well.

Wow, you really are dense.

 

Your tank is VERY much empty.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Your comment was doltish, Mike. Menstruation is something that happens only to women. If someone is anemic and they cut their finger, they're not menstruating. Since you equated menstruation to idiocy, he rightfully called you a sexist fuckwad.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Except the government CAN, you fucking twit. It does so regularly.

 

Does it every April 15th, for example.

Taxes are covered by the Constitution.

[Guest MikeSC]

Except the government CAN, you fucking twit. It does so regularly.

 

Does it every April 15th, for example.

Taxes are covered by the Constitution.

Which doesn't really change that it's a rather obvious violation of privacy.

-=Mike

[Guest Cerebus]

Frist is a weak willed pussy (see my previous post). He should have done this MONTHS ago, and if he did there would have been a much lower chance it would have been reframed by the ass clowns that make up the Jerry Falwell wing of the party.

The "Jerry Falwell wing" didn't reframe this. The people organizing the event framed it with posters like the image posted earlier in this thread. If Frist didn't agree with the tone of that message, he probably wouldn't have shown up.

 

As it is, I'm not to pleased about the way some Dems have treated Catholic judges so I can't say this is too egregious.

 

It will probably get repeated over and over on Al Franken and Bill Maher's programs for a week and forgotten about, because aside from being controversial it simply isn't true. Shame, though, as it'd be exciting to see a true secularist power in US politics.

 

But, PR wise, I still think its well over the line because there is a very compelling argument that the blocking of the judges is a circumvent of the Constitution (as is the Filibuster itself in my opinion) and that the Democrats use of it is a shameless abuse of Senatorial power.

 

Isn't the way the rule works that if one party has (x) number of seats, and the Republicans currently are just a hair short, that they can overrule fillibusters? I've heard a lot of discussion (or fearmongering) about how the Republicans only have to win a seat here and there and they can end the fillibuster and the Democrats will have lost their last method to have any influence in the direction of the government, and will be forced to sit and watch in horror as the Republicans do what they want, when they want, and as much as they want. A true backseat party.

 

If this is not fiction, then by having a rule to overturn filibusters, then it's not an illogical conclusion to assume that somebody thought that eventually someone would make one.

First of all, if you think the filibustering of the judges in question have nothing to do with abortion you're either blind or, most likely, havn't read much of anything about it. One of the main reasons Estrada's nomination was tanked is because he didn't have anything to say about abortion one way or the other (email me, I still have the transcripts of the hearing for the paper I had to do on it). And judges HAVE been called into question based on their religious beliefs (see here)

 

And filibusters (basically) work like this. Theoretically, Senators have unlimited time to debate but can voluntarily give up their time (which 9.8 times out of 10 they do). However, a Senator (unlike a Representative) can speak for unlimited time (on a germane topic or not) unless 60 out of 100 senators vote to end debate right then and there. (You can read the rule yourself here)

 

The filibuster rule is in the Senate rules, meaning it requires 2/3 of the Senate to get rid of it. This "no filibuster on judges" rule change is a sly way around it, but since, in my opinion, the rule and the 2/3 restriction on change are both unconstitutional, and the Republican rule change is a sly way around Senate rules not the Constitution, I don't have much of a problem with it.

[Vyce 0]

First of all, if you think the filibustering of the judges in question have nothing to do with abortion you're either blind or, most likely, havn't read much of anything about it. One of the main reasons Estrada's nomination was tanked is because he didn't have anything to say about abortion one way or the other (email me, I still have the transcripts of the hearing for the paper I had to do on it). And judges HAVE been called into question based on their religious beliefs (see here)

 

Ah, Cerebus vindicates me!

[Guest MikeSC]

Frist is a weak willed pussy (see my previous post). He should have done this MONTHS ago, and if he did there would have been a much lower chance it would have been reframed by the ass clowns that make up the Jerry Falwell wing of the party.

The "Jerry Falwell wing" didn't reframe this. The people organizing the event framed it with posters like the image posted earlier in this thread. If Frist didn't agree with the tone of that message, he probably wouldn't have shown up.

 

As it is, I'm not to pleased about the way some Dems have treated Catholic judges so I can't say this is too egregious.

 

It will probably get repeated over and over on Al Franken and Bill Maher's programs for a week and forgotten about, because aside from being controversial it simply isn't true. Shame, though, as it'd be exciting to see a true secularist power in US politics.

 

But, PR wise, I still think its well over the line because there is a very compelling argument that the blocking of the judges is a circumvent of the Constitution (as is the Filibuster itself in my opinion) and that the Democrats use of it is a shameless abuse of Senatorial power.

 

Isn't the way the rule works that if one party has (x) number of seats, and the Republicans currently are just a hair short, that they can overrule fillibusters? I've heard a lot of discussion (or fearmongering) about how the Republicans only have to win a seat here and there and they can end the fillibuster and the Democrats will have lost their last method to have any influence in the direction of the government, and will be forced to sit and watch in horror as the Republicans do what they want, when they want, and as much as they want. A true backseat party.

 

If this is not fiction, then by having a rule to overturn filibusters, then it's not an illogical conclusion to assume that somebody thought that eventually someone would make one.

First of all, if you think the filibustering of the judges in question have nothing to do with abortion you're either blind or, most likely, havn't read much of anything about it. One of the main reasons Estrada's nomination was tanked is because he didn't have anything to say about abortion one way or the other (email me, I still have the transcripts of the hearing for the paper I had to do on it). And judges HAVE been called into question based on their religious beliefs (see here)

 

And filibusters (basically) work like this. Theoretically, Senators have unlimited time to debate but can voluntarily give up their time (which 9.8 times out of 10 they do). However, a Senator (unlike a Representative) can speak for unlimited time (on a germane topic or not) unless 60 out of 100 senators vote to end debate right then and there. (You can read the rule yourself here)

 

The filibuster rule is in the Senate rules, meaning it requires 2/3 of the Senate to get rid of it. This "no filibuster on judges" rule change is a sly way around it, but since, in my opinion, the rule and the 2/3 restriction on change are both unconstitutional, and the Republican rule change is a sly way around Senate rules not the Constitution, I don't have much of a problem with it.

One thing Cerebus --- Senate rules are not applicable to subsequent Senates if a majority of the Senate decides it's not. That is the fundamental issue.

 

It didn't take 2/3 of the Senate to drop the number of votes for cloture from 67 to 60 back in 1975.

 

And it'd only take a simple majority to eliminate it right now, if they so desired.

-=Mike

[Guest Cerebus]

You are incorrect Mike, as Rule XXII states:

 

"Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.

 

However, the way they are going around it is (according to the WaPo):

 

...seek a ruling from the chamber's presiding officer, presumably Vice President Cheney, that filibusters against judicial nominees are unconstitutional. Under this procedure, it would take only a simple majority or 51 votes to uphold the ruling -- far easier for the 55-member GOP majority to get than the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster or the 67 votes needed to change the rules under normal procedures.

 

Apparently, this is the same way the Dems broke it in 1975 (see here)

 

Also, read this and this about why I feel the law is illegal, put forth by a much better informed person than me.

[Guest MikeSC]

You are incorrect Mike, as Rule XXII states:

 

"Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.

 

However, the way they are going around it is (according to the WaPo):

 

...seek a ruling from the chamber's presiding officer, presumably Vice President Cheney, that filibusters against judicial nominees are unconstitutional. Under this procedure, it would take only a simple majority or 51 votes to uphold the ruling -- far easier for the 55-member GOP majority to get than the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster or the 67 votes needed to change the rules under normal procedures.

 

Apparently, this is the same way the Dems broke it in 1975 (see here)

 

Also, read this and this about why I feel the law is illegal, put forth by a much better informed person than me.

I'm aware what the rule says. I'm saying a simple majority can simply decide that the rules only applied to the previous Senate and not to their Senate. And since the Constitution does not mention supermajorities in Congress for much of anything outside of overriding vetoes, there is no legal requirement for the filibuster to begin with.

 

As the second article you posted stated --- the ONLY people who can enforce Senate rules are the Senate (the Courts have no standing, whatsoever, to rule on the rules in either House of Congress and neither House would bother listening if they said anything).

 

And if a majority decides the rule is no longer in effect, it's no longer in effect. Period.

 

The Republicans, if they wanted to, could decide that ALL filibusters violate the rules and they could eliminate the filibuster until they lose control of the Senate. It's not a viable alternative because nobody wants the outright removal of the filibuster.

-=Mike

[Guest Cerebus]

What you're arguing is that past Senatorial rule decisions SHOULDN'T be binding to the current Senate, which I wholeheartedly agree. Precedents are one thing (if we didn't have them, the Senate would NEVER get anything done) but required supermajorities legislated by a bunch of dead white guys from the early 20th century binding the Senate in 2005 does not make sense, either logically or constitutionally.

 

Either way, this is not the arguments the Republicans will be making or that the Democrats made in 75. What they're doing is spelled out here (which, by the way, is where that MSN group I linked to stole its text from):

 

The way this procedural maneuver would work — as it did in 1975 — would be that, at the time of a cloture vote to end debate, the Senate majority would secure a ruling from the chair that Standing Rule XXII does not apply. The chair, likely the Vice President, would probably agree and rule in favor of the majority. The issue would then be brought to a vote, and the minority, probably through the Minority Leader, would note that the issue is debatable and, hence, also subject to a filibuster.

 

The parliamentarian, relying on Senate precedent, would agree. The chair would then recognize a non-debatable motion to table. At this point, the majority could overrule the anti-majoritarian precedent, uphold the ruling of the chair, and proceed to a final yea-or-nay vote on the original question by securing a simple majority vote in favor of the motion to table.

 

If all that seems complex, it is. But the basic import of such procedural maneuvering is that a simple majority of the current Senate can force a change in Rule XXII to reduce the supermajoritarian cloture requirement, thus making it possible to end debate by simple majority vote.

[Guest MikeSC]

Fair enough. Seems the Republicans are using an incredibly inefficient tactic to achieve what they desire.

-=Mike

[Guest Cerebus]

They couldn't legally ignore the filibuster rule for obvious reasons. They also don't have the votes to change the rule DIRECTLY. So they have to circumvent it, that's all. No other way around it really.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

95% of Bush's nominees have been approved (Clinton got 85%).

 

Let's take a look at some of the nominees being blocked:

 

California Supreme Court Justice Janice Brown: argues that the 1st Amendment allows corporations to make false and/or misleading representations without legal penalties.

 

Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen: her moves to undermine protection for women trying to get abortions were so radical that none other than Alberto "Naked Pyramid" Gonzales called one of them an "unconscionable act of judicial activism."

[Guest Cerebus]

What is "source"? Was it all a dream, or was it really there?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

What is "source"? Was it all a dream, or was it really there?

Brown-Nike vs. Kasky

 

Owen-

 

Her critics cited Gonzales' own words in an abortion case, in which he characterized Owen's interpretation of a statute as an "unconscionable act of judicial activism," as evidence of her unfitness for the court of appeals.

 

http://www.law.harvard.edu/alumni/bulletin...eature_1-2.html

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Except the government CAN, you fucking twit. It does so regularly.

 

Does it every April 15th, for example.

Taxes are covered by the Constitution.

Which doesn't really change that it's a rather obvious violation of privacy.

-=Mike

But because they're covered by the Constitution, your right to privacy isn't valid, since it's a right you have by default only when the Constitution doesn't say otherwise.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

First of all, if you think the filibustering of the judges in question have nothing to do with abortion you're either blind or, most likely, havn't read much of anything about it.

Well, they're discriminating on religious faith, which I don't think is really that bad a thing as people who are less seriously into the Jesus stuff is less likely to bring it with them into the courtroom. And I think we all know that those in control of the right-wing see this as an oppertunity to advance agenda issues, particularly ones where there's no real good arguement for it other than a religious one, that wouldn't fly very well if it was up to any kind of majority vote, whether Congressional or an election.

 

However, a Senator (unlike a Representative) can speak for unlimited time (on a germane topic or not) unless 60 out of 100 senators vote to end debate right then and there.  (You can read the rule yourself here)

 

Well then, isn't that the balance? If you dominate the chamber to such an extent, or can convince others to agree with you, you can order whoever is debating to stop.

 

It seems to me, especially with the way everything just keeps coming down to party-line voting anymore, that the Republicans are crying that they just don't have enough control of the government to make the Democrats shut up for good, and want to take away their stalling tactic. And yes, I'll admit it's nothing more than a stall tactic, but you can't just easily say you should get rid of it because by doing so you're moving things closer, however small a step, to a one-party government, which is a serious issue to consider. Unless your party is the one that stands to gain from the change, I guess.

[Guest Cerebus]

First of all, if you think the filibustering of the judges in question have nothing to do with abortion you're either blind or, most likely, havn't read much of anything about it.

Well, they're discriminating on religious faith, which I don't think is really that bad a thing as people who are less seriously into the Jesus stuff is less likely to bring it with them into the courtroom. And I think we all know that those in control of the right-wing see this as an oppertunity to advance agenda issues, particularly ones where there's no real good arguement for it other than a religious one, that wouldn't fly very well if it was up to any kind of majority vote, whether Congressional or an election.

 

However, a Senator (unlike a Representative) can speak for unlimited time (on a germane topic or not) unless 60 out of 100 senators vote to end debate right then and there.  (You can read the rule yourself here)

 

Well then, isn't that the balance? If you dominate the chamber to such an extent, or can convince others to agree with you, you can order whoever is debating to stop.

 

It seems to me, especially with the way everything just keeps coming down to party-line voting anymore, that the Republicans are crying that they just don't have enough control of the government to make the Democrats shut up for good, and want to take away their stalling tactic. And yes, I'll admit it's nothing more than a stall tactic, but you can't just easily say you should get rid of it because by doing so you're moving things closer, however small a step, to a one-party government, which is a serious issue to consider. Unless your party is the one that stands to gain from the change, I guess.

It IS a a bad thing actually and here's why.

 

I'm a devout Catholic. I, personally, perscribe to nearly all of the Church's tenants (I havn't always, but that's besides the point). I would personally never give my permission for my wife to have an abortion, and would be opposed to my sisters having an abortion either.

 

As a matter of LAW, however, I believe abortion is and should be legal for the first 2 trimesters even though I personally find it repugnant on moral and religious grounds. I believe this because of endless court decisions as well as the fact that I am a govermental conservative and I firmly believe that the government and the courts should have as little to do with people's lives and health as possible.

 

By refusing to make a distinction between religious, legal, and political opinions in selecting judges its not only discriminatory but its downright insulting and backwards thinking. Sure, some people may choose to be legally and poltically against abortion because of religious, but some people are against it for purely secular moral reasons, legal, social, or political reasons.

 

In other words, it shouldn't matter whether someone opposes abortion or anything else because they're Catholic, Jewish, an atheist, or because their hair is black. The REASON should be ignored, only the opinion ITSELF should matter. By discriminating against Catholics for this absurd reason makes them no better than the "Jesus freaks" who want anyone who doesn't agree with their opinion shunned.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

By refusing to make a distinction between religious, legal, and political opinions in selecting judges its not only discriminatory but its downright insulting and backwards thinking.

Not really. If this country's political and religious makeup went differently than it did, and we had secularists VS the faithful, that the matter of whether somebody was deeply religious, kinda religious, or not religious would be a fairly important debating point.

 

In the case of our country as it is, people who subscribe to one belief or another dominate such a large percentage of our country demanding an appointee who isn't religious is an impossibly tall task, due to the difficulties of finding one.

 

However, just because that's the case, doesn't mean it's "insulting and backwards." It would be, however, if belief in God was something that was forced on you through biologically or otherwise.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Cerebus, I'm interested in some of your views given your conservatism and your devout Catholicism.

 

How do you feel about the church's views on the war in Iraq? The death penalty? Birth control?

 

I was raised in a conservative Southern Baptist church. I think a lot of my resentment and distrust toward authority came from my youth in the church. I was actually quite conservative until my late teen years, when I started to question everything I'd been taught. In 2000, when I was about 17 years old, I went into church and read a little slip of paper given out by the deacons that endorsed Bush for president. I was pretty pissed.

 

Also, a while back I went to my grandma's Pentecostal church with her. The preacher basically gave a pro-war in Iraq sermon. I had to bite my tongue.

 

I still go to the church occassionally, but only when I'm back home and only to make my mom happy--I'm actually agnostic. I don't think I would function well as a member of that church anymore.

[Guest MikeSC]

95% of Bush's nominees have been approved (Clinton got 85%).

 

Let's take a look at some of the nominees being blocked:

Clinton's appointees died in committee (which means they wouldn't have won in a floor vote, either). Bush's appointees would be approved if allowed to be voted upon.

 

Big difference. The judges of Clinton's WOULDN'T have been approved. Bush's WOULD be.

California Supreme Court Justice Janice Brown:  argues that the 1st Amendment allows corporations to make false and/or misleading representations without legal penalties.

Shockingly enough, you don't mention the rampant inconsistencies in the commercial speech doctrine, where the CA Supreme Court decided to simply ignore precedent.

Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen:  her moves to undermine protection for women trying to get abortions were so radical that none other than Alberto "Naked Pyramid" Gonzales called one of them an "unconscionable act of judicial activism."

If you expect me to criticize somebody for limiting juvenile abortion without parental consent, you're nuts.

Well, they're discriminating on religious faith, which I don't think is really that bad a thing as people who are less seriously into the Jesus stuff is less likely to bring it with them into the courtroom.

Yet, if they discriminate based on, oh, sexual orientation --- THAT'D be horrible.

 

True, they might bring that "gay stuff" to the bench...

And I think we all know that those in control of the right-wing see this as an oppertunity to advance agenda issues, particularly ones where there's no real good arguement for it other than a religious one, that wouldn't fly very well if it was up to any kind of majority vote, whether Congressional or an election.

There is as much an argument AGAINST abortion as there is FOR abortion.

 

Which is why YOU fervently support litmus tests.

Well then, isn't that the balance? If you dominate the chamber to such an extent, or can convince others to agree with you, you can order whoever is debating to stop.

Except that, like it or not, the Senate is WILLFULLY ignoring its Constitutional mandate to "advise and consent".

 

If they REFUSE to do so, they should be stripped of the power.

It seems to me, especially with the way everything just keeps coming down to party-line voting anymore, that the Republicans are crying that they just don't have enough control of the government to make the Democrats shut up for good, and want to take away their stalling tactic.

And the Democrats hate the concept of majority rule and are seeking to kill it.

And yes, I'll admit it's nothing more than a stall tactic, but you can't just easily say you should get rid of it because by doing so you're moving things closer, however small a step, to a one-party government, which is a serious issue to consider. Unless your party is the one that stands to gain from the change, I guess.

Well, the Dems used to be ALL for judges getting floor votes, even if they lost in committee.

 

But that was back in the 1990's. NOW, they support not giving judges votes who PASS committee.

Not really. If this country's political and religious makeup went differently than it did, and we had secularists VS the faithful, that the matter of whether somebody was deeply religious, kinda religious, or not religious would be a fairly important debating point.

 

In the case of our country as it is, people who subscribe to one belief or another dominate such a large percentage of our country demanding an appointee who isn't religious is an impossibly tall task, due to the difficulties of finding one.

And just deciding that people are not deserving of a seat with no ACTUAL proof of them ignoring the law or being bad judges is the exact thing people like YOU used to bitch about.

 

Racial profiling? Bad. Forbidding Christian guys from being judges? Good.

However, just because that's the case, doesn't mean it's "insulting and backwards." It would be, however, if belief in God was something that was forced on you through biologically or otherwise.

There's no proof that homosexuality is genetic.

 

I doubt you'd support banning gays from the bench.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Clinton's appointees died in committee (which means they wouldn't have won in a floor vote, either). Bush's appointees would be approved if allowed to be voted upon.

 

Big difference. The judges of Clinton's WOULDN'T have been approved. Bush's WOULD be.

Republicans filibustered Clinton appointee Richard Paez who was nominated for the 9th Circuit Court.

 

But don't pontificate on the floor of the Senate and tell me that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States of America by blocking a judge or filibustering a judge that I don't think deserves to be on the circuit court because I am going to continue to do it at every opportunity I believe a judge should not be on that court. That is my responsibility. That is my advise and consent role, and I intend to exercise it. I don't appreciate being told that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States. I swore to uphold that Constitution, and I am doing it now by standing up and saying what I am saying." (March 7, 2000)

-Sen. Bob Smith (R-NH)

[Guest MikeSC]

Clinton's appointees died in committee (which means they wouldn't have won in a floor vote, either). Bush's appointees would be approved if allowed to be voted upon.

 

Big difference. The judges of Clinton's WOULDN'T have been approved. Bush's WOULD be.

Republicans filibustered Clinton appointee Richard Paez who was nominated for the 9th Circuit Court.

 

But don't pontificate on the floor of the Senate and tell me that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States of America by blocking a judge or filibustering a judge that I don't think deserves to be on the circuit court because I am going to continue to do it at every opportunity I believe a judge should not be on that court. That is my responsibility. That is my advise and consent role, and I intend to exercise it. I don't appreciate being told that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States. I swore to uphold that Constitution, and I am doing it now by standing up and saying what I am saying." (March 7, 2000)

-Sen. Bob Smith (R-NH)

I don't CARE. A filibuster of a nominee is WRONG, if a Republican OR a Democrat does it. The Democrats are just doing it with alarming frequency.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I don't care who it is, the 9th Circuit needs some serious filibustering -- the less red diaper doper babies in that place the better...

[Guest MikeSC]

I don't care who it is, the 9th Circuit needs some serious filibustering -- the less red diaper doper babies in that place the better...

The idea to split the Circuit was a great one. Let the 9th Circuit handle San Fran and Berkeley and create a 10th Circuit to handle everybody else out there.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Can we split the building with the judges in there? Figuratively, of course, I wouldn't wish death upon an extremist judge...

[Guest MikeSC]

Can we split the building with the judges in there? Figuratively, of course, I wouldn't wish death upon an extremist judge...

We can give the 9th Circuit the same room that they keep the unwashed hobos in before they are brought before a judge.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

MikeSC

Clinton's appointees died in committee (which means they wouldn't have won in a floor vote, either).

 

Me

Republicans filibustered Clinton appointee Richard Paez

 

MikeSC

I don't CARE.

 

I love how erudite the level of debate is here sometimes.

[Guest MikeSC]

MikeSC

Clinton's appointees died in committee (which means they wouldn't have won in a floor vote, either).

 

Me

Republicans filibustered Clinton appointee Richard Paez

 

MikeSC

I don't CARE.

 

I love how erudite the level of debate is here sometimes.

No, it means that even if the GOP did it, they were WRONG.

 

I love your blindness.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Guess who voted in favor of the Paez filibuster?