partial victory in senate

[Rokkitsci]

While I wished to see the Democrats get their heads handed to them, I have to admit that I am pleased with the recent compromise.

There are times when a filibuster may well be appropriate. What the Democrats were doing was certainly not one of them.

This will do for now - good judges get approved.

 

[swilphil]

So are you saying a filibuster is appropriate when the Republicans use it?

 

[TXTink]

While I wished to see the Democrats get their heads handed to them, I have to admit that I am pleased with the recent compromise.

There are times when a filibuster may well be appropriate. What the Democrats were doing was certainly not one of them.

This will do for now - good judges get approved.

Yep, I will second that. I'm glad it's over, at least for the time being......

 

[Rokkitsci]

So are you saying a filibuster is appropriate when the Republicans use it?

Not really - What I am saying is that what the Democrats were doing was inappropriate - and unconstitutional.

Democrats were using the filibuster as a matter of course. They were using it to impose an unconstitutional requirement in the judicial nomination process.
Judicial nominations are constitutionally the responsibility of the executive branch.

Democrats were usurping that responsibility by imposing an unconstitutional constraint of requiring sixty votes to confirm an nomination.

Now we are back to where we were before the Democrats played dirty with the filibuster. The only problem is that the genie is now out of the bottle. The Senate will suffer for many years for this lack of respect for tradition by the democrat leadership. We will have to stare down this monster much more often now.

BUT - the primary battle has been won for now. Good judges will get confirmed. Should a really outrageous judge ever be brought forward, it may be a good idea to have the filibuster handy.

So yes - I am satisfied. The filibuster is now in play to stop outrageous nominations. But, it will not be used as an extra-constitutional tool to prevent a popularly elected president from executing his constitutional duties.

My personal choice would have been to not allow filibusters for judicial nominations. But, that would only work in a climate of mutual respect. The democrats have demonstrated that they will not work within such gentlemanly bounds, so perhaps the GOP needs to have it available to prevent some future abuse by the democrats should they ever regain total power.

 

[JudicialTyranny]

So are you saying a filibuster is appropriate when the Republicans use it?

When did they use it on a judicial nominee?

 

[JudicialTyranny]

While I wished to see the Democrats get their heads handed to them, I have to admit that I am pleased with the recent compromise.

I'm not pleased. There is no reason the other two nominees should not have an up or down vote, with a simple majority consenting or not consenting.
_____

"But I think they have given the President of the United States the benefit of the doubt, and if the person is otherwise qualified, he or she gets the vote. ... That is what the Constitution speaks of in our advise and consent capacity. That is what these good and decent people have a right to expect. That is what our oath of office should compel Members to do - to vote for or against. ... Vote them up, vote them down." (Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Congressional Record, 9/21/99, p. S11102)

"[E]arlier this year ... I noted how improper it would be to filibuster a judicial nomination." (Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Congressional Record, 10/14/98)

"We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don't like them, vote against them. But give them a vote." (Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), Congressional Record, 2/3/98, p. S295)

"The basic issue of holding up judgeships is the issue before us, not the qualifications of judges, which we can always debate. The problem is it takes so long for us to debate those qualifications. It is an example of Government not fulfilling its constitutional mandate because the President nominates, and we are charged with voting on the nominees." (Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), Congressional Record, 3/7/00, p. S1211)

 

[peachgirl]

BUT - the primary battle has been won for now.

Not according to the right wing religious zealots who were pushing the hardest. It's a definite loss for them and in the process any Republican who joined the Dem's in the compromise.

James Dobson is not happy:

"This Senate agreement represents a complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats. Only three of President Bush’s nominees will be given the courtesy of an up-or-down vote, and it's business as usual for all the rest. The rules that blocked conservative nominees remain in effect, and nothing of significance has changed. Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist would never have served on the U. S. Supreme Court if this agreement had been in place during their confirmations. The unconstitutional filibuster survives in the arsenal of Senate liberals.

"We are grateful to Majority Leader Frist for courageously fighting to defend the vital principle of basic fairness. That principle has now gone down to defeat. We share the disappointment, outrage and sense of abandonment felt by millions of conservative Americans who helped put Republicans in power last November. I am certain that these voters will remember both Democrats and Republicans who betrayed their trust."​

 

[donaldsgal]

Not according to the right wing religious zealots who were pushing the hardest. It's a definite loss for them and in the process any Republican who joined the Dem's in the compromise.

I think a few people (myself included) with disagree with you on classifying James Dobson as a religious zealot.

 

[Rokkitsci]

Not according to the right wing religious zealots who were pushing the hardest. It's a definite loss for them and in the process any Republican who joined the Dem's in the compromise.

I don't really care what Dobson thinks or does. He is as predictable and stupid as Jesse Jackson.

I would have liked to see Harry Reid get his teeth kicked in - but overall, I am pleased that we have kicked this unneccessary problem down the road a ways. We can get the judges confirmed and get on about the business of the nation.

I have no doubt that Reid and his gang would have done everything they could to carry out their promise to 'shut the Senate down.' While this would have been a great campaign issue to use against them, I am still happy that we can get the important work done.

Nothing but good for the nation as far as I can see. Even if my personal wishes to see the democrats humiliated didn't come true.

I can live with that.

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

I don't really care what Dobson thinks or does. He is as predictable and stupid as Jesse Jackson.

Last time I checked Dobson was not a lying swindler who carried on affairs with his coworkers. Dobson is an honorable man who is villified by liberals and secular types who are afraid because he speaks as one with the authority of scripture.

 

[Rokkitsci]

I'm not pleased. There is no reason the other two nominees should not have an up or down vote, with a simple majority consenting or not consenting.
_____

"But I think they have given the President of the United States the benefit of the doubt, and if the person is otherwise qualified, he or she gets the vote. ... That is what the Constitution speaks of in our advise and consent capacity. That is what these good and decent people have a right to expect. That is what our oath of office should compel Members to do - to vote for or against. ... Vote them up, vote them down." (Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Congressional Record, 9/21/99, p. S11102)

"[E]arlier this year ... I noted how improper it would be to filibuster a judicial nomination." (Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Congressional Record, 10/14/98)

"We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don't like them, vote against them. But give them a vote." (Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), Congressional Record, 2/3/98, p. S295)

"The basic issue of holding up judgeships is the issue before us, not the qualifications of judges, which we can always debate. The problem is it takes so long for us to debate those qualifications. It is an example of Government not fulfilling its constitutional mandate because the President nominates, and we are charged with voting on the nominees." (Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), Congressional Record, 3/7/00, p. S1211)

I agree with your overall sentiment. But as a pragmatist, I am glad that we got the best deal done for the nation that was possible given the situtation and the personalities involved.

Dealing with the outlandish egos that senators acquire is an art that sometimes requires compromise with what is logically and morally correct.

We had a saying in the space biz = "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." I forget the original author of that, but I have tried to apply the thought to all human endeavors.

Accentuating the crass hypocrisy of the Democrats invovled in this sorry process is nice, but it falls on deaf ears - or ignorant - or ideologically challanged. Everyone knows the democrats are hypocritical to the ultimate degree, but they have been that so long that everyone just expects it of them. The media lets them get away with their mealy-mouthed rhetorical defense of their hypocrisy = what can you do?

Move on. Rejoice in small victories. Slowly step the nation back toward where it should be before the left wing radicals got control of the judicial process.

 

[Rokkitsci]

Last time I checked Dobson was not a lying swindler who carried on affairs with his coworkers. Dobson is an honorable man who is villified by liberals and secular types who are afraid because he speaks as one with the authority of scripture.

I can't dispute what you say in defense of Dobson. Perhaps I spoke too harshly of his real motivations.

The truth is that I know practically nothing about him, and perhaps I have been influenced by the only information I have heard - from the Left Wing radicals thru their willing accomplices in the media.

I retract my characterazation of Dobson in comparing him to that lying poverty pimp reprobate Jesse Jackson.

I still don't care what Dobson says or does though. I have gotten along fine without his influence.

However, if the Left Wing radicals are so opposed to him - then I probably agree with him.

 

[tar heel]

I think Dobson is the new Jerry Falwell. He's no longer some innocent, honorable preacher -- he's a Republican kingmaker with a Republican=good, Democrat=bad mentality. I apparently missed the part in my Bible that gave him the "authority" to do this. I personally think he's scary and getting scarier.

What in the heck does "speaks as one with the authority of scripture" mean BTW?

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

Truce accepted.... It's just that I have come to appreciate Dobson over e recent years. I am dismayed at how he he bashed so brazenly by his detractors, so maybe I am quick to defend him

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

What in the heck does "speaks as one with the authority of scripture" mean BTW?

He speaks as one who believes what the Bible says is true, and acts on it with a spirit of discipleship

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

I think Dobson is the new Jerry Falwell. He's no longer some innocent, honorable preacher -- he's a Republican kingmaker with a Republican=good, Democrat=bad mentality. I apparently missed the part in my Bible that gave him the "authority" to do this. I personally think he's scary and getting scarier.

There is really not much of a comparison between Falwell and Dobson -other than they are both Christians. I am guessing you haven't actually listened to Dobson's comments on his radio shows or on his website. You probably haven't read some of his books such as "Bringing Up Boys" and "Marriage Under Fire". When speaking Dobson does an excellent job of acquitting himself of the silliness and meanness that secularists accuse him of.

I think you are on to something in that leftists would love to characterize Dobson as the "new Falwell". Unfortunately for them, that just doesn't hold water. Falwell is more the celebrity type. Contrary to leftist propoganda Dobson is a humble visonary who is active in the public arena because he is convinced that he needs to bring the Word of God to bear in public issues. I applaud his efforts and his commitment... and I understand your right not to.

 

[peachgirl]

I think a few people (myself included) with disagree with you on classifying James Dobson as a religious zealot.

I agree, there are many people who don't see Dobson as part of the religious right...which is why this compromise is being looked at as a huge loss for the right wing base of the Republican party.

As for is he an extremist or not....a few of his more memorable quotes..

My observation is that women are merely waiting for their husbands to assume leadership.

"State Universities are breeding grounds, quite literally, for sexually transmitted diseases (including HIV), homosexual behavior, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, alcoholism, and drug abuse."

“Without question in my mind, the greatest danger to our moral perspective and to the family and indeed to the
nation is the homosexual activist movement.... Homosexuals want it all. They want everything.… They want it all,
and what’s scary about it is they’re getting it all.”

“Children are the prize to the winners in the second great civil war. Those who control what young people are taught
and what they experience – what they see, hear, think, and believe – will determine the future course for the nation.”

I agree, he's definitely scary.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

I agree, there are many people who don't see Dobson as part of the religious right...which is why this compromise is being looked at as a huge loss for the right wing base of the Republican party.

As for is he an extremist or not....a few of his more memorable quotes..

I agree, he's definitely scary.

I read the quotes. Now where's the scary part.

 

[donaldsgal]

I agree, there are many people who don't see Dobson as part of the religious right...which is why this compromise is being looked at as a huge loss for the right wing base of the Republican party.

I don't and did not dispute your categorizing him as a member of the religious right. I would agree with you on that point 100%. However, I maintain my disagreement that being a member of the religious right equates to being a zealot.

Some of those quotes are easily found to be objectionable if you don't share Dobson's belief system. Personally, I find him to be doing honorable and necessary things for families - such as promoting active parenting, encouraging men to be as involved in parenting as their wives are, fighting for loving and lasting marriages, and advocating adoption. I don't see these as issues supported by a zealot. I see a zealot as a terrorist who belongs to any religious group and actively seeks to punish and murder those who oppose them.

If anything, Dobson is promoting a world that is peaceful and glorifies God. You may not agree with him on what does and does not glorify God, but I still contend he cannot be put on the same par as a zealot simply because he is a member of the religious right. I would not label a member of the liberal left who supports the pro-choice movement a zealot; I simply would disagree with them on his or her values.

Along the lines of what tarheel said, Dobson, as with any pastor or preacher, has no right to push any political affiliation on members of his church or readers of his books; many people could - and did - vote their conscious or vote with prayerful consideration for Kerry, Nader, Bush, etc. The beauty of "separate and equal" is that church and religious beliefs are kept out of government, and government is kept out of church and religious beliefs. That relationship working both ways benefits both sides, and for a pastor, reverend, priest, minister, etc. to equate Republican with good or Democrat with bad is overstepping his bounds. His best advice is to consider with prayer who to support and act on that. These issues should be discussed in religious communities, but no one has the right to push their ideals on anyone else.

But I digress. Just wanted to point out my original point: I don't think being a member of the religious right makes a person a zealot.

 

[Aristocath]

I would have liked to see Harry Reid get his teeth kicked in - but overall, I am pleased that we have kicked this unneccessary problem down the road a ways. We can get the judges confirmed and get on about the business of the nation.

I have no doubt that Reid and his gang would have done everything they could to carry out their promise to 'shut the Senate down.' While this would have been a great campaign issue to use against them, I am still happy that we can get the important work done.

Nothing but good for the nation as far as I can see. Even if my personal wishes to see the democrats humiliated didn't come true.

I can live with that.

The problem here is that this is not a Democrat/Republican issue. More of Clinton's nominees never got an up or down vote than Bush's nominees. This is a matter of following the rules of the Senate and protecting our long established system of checks and balances.

To use the nuclear option, Cheney would have had to break the rules of the Senate. That is dispicable and would humiliate our entire nation.

I find it more honorable to put Country before political party. And if you find joy in kicking teeth in and humiliating other Americans, counseling may be in order.