There's no such thing as a stupid question, but they're the easiest to answer.
JoinTour
Login
 
Tag Cloud
acer black screen blue screen of death boot bsod computer connection crash css dell display driver drivers email error explorer firefox firefox 3 freeze game hard drive internet internet explorer itunes laptop malware monitor network networking nvidia outlook outlook 2003 outlook express partition password printer problem router slow sound sprtcmd.exe startup trojan usb video virus vista windows windows xp wireless
Civilized Debate
Search
Search in:
 
Advanced Search
Tech Support Guy Forums > Community > Civilized Debate >
Will They Reach A Fillibuster Compromise


HELLO AND WELCOME! Before you can post your question, you'll have to register -- it's completely free! Click here to join today! We highly recommend that you print a copy of our Guide for New Members. Enjoy!

View Poll Results: Will They Reach a Fillibuster Compromise
Yes 4 57.14%
No 3 42.86%
Voters: 7. You may not vote on this poll

 
Thread Tools
linskyjack's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 22,477 posts.
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
15-May-2005, 09:18 PM #1
Will They Reach A Fillibuster Compromise
Will they reach a compromise-it appears that the compromise would maintain the fillibuster and confirm some of the 7 radical right wing judicial activists that have been held up.
Mulderator's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 49,761 posts.
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
15-May-2005, 09:20 PM #2
Linsky--you need to explaint this more--very few people follow that issue.
linskyjack's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 22,477 posts.
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
15-May-2005, 09:27 PM #3
Oh--I thought it was the biggest thing since swiss cheese---Actually everyone I think knows about the fillibuster. I just read that Luger, McCain and a couple of the other moderate Republicans are working feverishly with some moderate Democrats to come up with a compromise. The idea would be that the fillibuster would stay intact, but democrats would throw their votes to maybe half of the nominees that are being held up,and thus they would be confirmed. By the way, I like the compromise--only because I really believe in the fillibuster. As a guy who tends to vote Democrat, it would be to the party's advantage if Frist tries to push for the rule change. As an American I think it critical that they compromise and retain the fillibuster. Mulder you might be right and maybe lots of people aren't watching this, but as far as I am concerned it is a very important moment in the Bush presidency.
Ciberblade's Avatar
Computer Specs
Community Moderator with 15,703 posts.
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Heart of the Bluegrass Ky
Experience: Mostly Harmless
15-May-2005, 09:30 PM #4
I am thinking they will not...I do not wish to re-hash the filibuster as a whole...but for this handful of judges, it seems that they are pushing for the full-out vote.
Ciberblade's Avatar
Computer Specs
Community Moderator with 15,703 posts.
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Heart of the Bluegrass Ky
Experience: Mostly Harmless
15-May-2005, 09:33 PM #5
Quote:
Originally Posted by linskyjack
Will they reach a compromise-it appears that the compromise would maintain the fillibuster and confirm some of the 7 radical right wing judicial activists that have been held up.
You've mentioned the radical part before...but I have yet to see you produce any rulings or cases that support that claim. These people have had a successful career thus far for a reason
linskyjack's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 22,477 posts.
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
15-May-2005, 09:43 PM #6
The judges in question (one in fact actually said this) believe that the ascendency of Roosevelt and the New Deal programs that were passed by Congress are unconstitutional As a whole, they have ruled against plantiffs in sexual harassment suits, enviornmental suits and they tend to think that corporations can do no wrong. As I posted somewhere else, this administration has had more judges confirmed then any administration in the last 25 years. I think its something like 208 out of 215. Two of the judges from Michigan are being held as payback for what the Republican controled judiciary did to 63 of Clinton's nominees. None of them even got to the floor of the Senate. There are a whole bunch of tricks (like the blue slip trick) that were used to keep them from getting an up or down vote. The Blue Slip, used against Clintons Michigan nominees essentially allows the two senators from that state to hold up a vote on the floor of the Senate.
Mulderator's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 49,761 posts.
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
15-May-2005, 09:43 PM #7
I think they will reach a comrpromise of 55 votes needed to end a fillabuster!
Mulderator's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 49,761 posts.
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
15-May-2005, 09:44 PM #8
Quote:
Originally Posted by linskyjack
The judges in question (one in fact actually said this) believe that the ascendency of Roosevelt and the New Deal programs that were passed by Congress are unconstitutional As a whole, they have ruled against plantiffs in sexual harassment suits, enviornmental suits and they tend to think that corporations can do no wrong.
So where's the problem?
linskyjack's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 22,477 posts.
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
15-May-2005, 09:45 PM #9
I didn't think of that possibility---you would still need 5 democrats and that would have to be part of the deal---Maybe its 55, and the democrats guarantee the Republicans that several but not all of the judges nominated will get some votes. I could live with that.
Mulderator's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 49,761 posts.
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
15-May-2005, 09:47 PM #10
Quote:
Originally Posted by linskyjack
I didn't think of that possibility---you would still need 5 democrats and that would have to be part of the deal---Maybe its 55, and the democrats guarantee the Republicans that several but not all of the judges nominated will get some votes. I could live with that.
No--that's was a joke because there are 55 Republicans--its a reference to when the Dems changed the rule from 67 to 60 when they had 60 Senators!
Mulderator's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 49,761 posts.
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
15-May-2005, 09:48 PM #11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulder
So where's the problem?
BTW--this was a joke also! (except for the sexual harrasment part--I would like to see that law struck down! )
Ciberblade's Avatar
Computer Specs
Community Moderator with 15,703 posts.
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Heart of the Bluegrass Ky
Experience: Mostly Harmless
15-May-2005, 09:53 PM #12
Quote:
Originally Posted by linskyjack
The judges in question (one in fact actually said this) believe that the ascendency of Roosevelt and the New Deal programs that were passed by Congress are unconstitutional As a whole, they have ruled against plantiffs in sexual harassment suits, enviornmental suits and they tend to think that corporations can do no wrong. As I posted somewhere else, this administration has had more judges confirmed then any administration in the last 25 years. I think its something like 208 out of 215. Two of the judges from Michigan are being held as payback for what the Republican controled judiciary did to 63 of Clinton's nominees. None of them even got to the floor of the Senate. There are a whole bunch of tricks (like the blue slip trick) that were used to keep them from getting an up or down vote. The Blue Slip, used against Clintons Michigan nominees essentially allows the two senators from that state to hold up a vote on the floor of the Senate.
You keep adding in other nominations to increase the total number to 63 -- it was 20 judges, and the Republicans did not control the judiciary at that time...they garnished a very small seat lead during the next election cycle...We are seeing now just now hwo a small lead in seats is still not enough to have sweeping control.
__________________
82,268
*AD-Aware*AIDA32*AVG-7*Filemon*Hijack This*PortMon*Process Explorer*TSG Forums menu*

Far righty-tighty Wingnut Libertarian ( ) - annoyingly free thinking with no tendency to agree on anything with anyone. - BF

If you wish...you can now come to church with me! A church that is NOT normal...a church for people who don't like 'church'
linskyjack's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 22,477 posts.
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
15-May-2005, 10:16 PM #13
Sorry Ciber--I'm not making this up:

Spurring Democrats’ anger is Republican hypocrisy in complaining of obstructionism, given the 63 highly capable, moderate Clinton nominees who were never confirmed. The rancor culminated as Republicans staged a 30-hour “reverse filibuster” in mid-November to protest Democrats’ persistence. The debate ended in failed cloture votes to halt debate on three of the president’s most controversial nominees. Here is the website; http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/mai...sappointments/
Here's another one http://www.blogd.com/archives/000358.html

Mulder, I 'm a sleep at the wheel---you got me and I am not happy.
Ciberblade's Avatar
Computer Specs
Community Moderator with 15,703 posts.
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Heart of the Bluegrass Ky
Experience: Mostly Harmless
15-May-2005, 10:29 PM #14
Quote:
Originally Posted by linskyjack
Sorry Ciber--I'm not making this up:

Spurring Democrats� anger is Republican hypocrisy in complaining of obstructionism, given the 63 highly capable, moderate Clinton nominees who were never confirmed. The rancor culminated as Republicans staged a 30-hour �reverse filibuster� in mid-November to protest Democrats� persistence. The debate ended in failed cloture votes to halt debate on three of the president�s most controversial nominees. Here is the website; http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/mai...sappointments/
Here's another one http://www.blogd.com/archives/000358.html

Mulder, I 'm a sleep at the wheel---you got me and I am not happy.
Why is it when Clinton nominates a judge...that person is a moderate, but when Bush does it...that person is automatically a radical?

Also, you make the assumption that a nominee has the same political philosophy as the person who nominated them...and then willing to act politically rather than legally.
__________________
82,268
*AD-Aware*AIDA32*AVG-7*Filemon*Hijack This*PortMon*Process Explorer*TSG Forums menu*

Far righty-tighty Wingnut Libertarian ( ) - annoyingly free thinking with no tendency to agree on anything with anyone. - BF

If you wish...you can now come to church with me! A church that is NOT normal...a church for people who don't like 'church'
linskyjack's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 22,477 posts.
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
15-May-2005, 10:47 PM #15
Thats not the issue---the issue is that the Republicans availed themselves of the rules to block many of Clinton's nominees. The Democrats are doing the same---now the Republicans want to change the rules. If these guys are only concerned with up or down voting--then why the hell did they use every rule under the sun to stop Clinton from getting the men he wanted on the Senate floor for an up or down vote?
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
WELCOME TO TECH SUPPORT GUY! Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question -- for free! Our site is run completely by volunteers who help people like you solve computer problems. See our Welcome Guide to get started.



Thread Tools


You Are Using:
Server ID
Advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:32 PM.
Copyright © 1996 - 2008 TechGuy, Inc. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin, Copyright © 2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.1.0
Powered by Cermak Technologies, Inc.