partial victory in senate

[peachgirl]

Not only did Reid not get his "teeth kicked in", he is apparently very pleased with the compromise...unlike Frist who is slowly twisting the wind and will pay dearly for not delivering to the religious right..



rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/reid_responds_filibuster_deal_523

Senator Harry Reid's Statement:

There is good news for every American in this agreement. The so-called "nuclear option" is off the table. This is a significant victory for our country, for democracy, and for all Americans. Checks and balances in our government have been preserved.

The integrity of future Supreme Courts has been protected from the undue influences of a vocal, radical faction of the right that is completely out of step with mainstream America. That was the intent of the Republican "nuclear option" from the beginning. Tonight, the Senate has worked its will on behalf of reason, responsibility and the greater good.

We have sent President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the radical arm of the Republican base an undeniable message: Abuse of power will not be tolerated, and attempts to trample the Constitution and grab absolute control are over. We are a separate and equal branch of government. That is our founding fathers¹ vision, and one we hold dear.

I offered Senator Frist several options similar to this compromise, and while he was not able to agree, I am pleased that some responsible Republicans and my colleagues were able to put aside there differences and work from the center. I do not support several of the judges that have been agreed to because their views and records display judicial activism that jeopardize individual rights and freedoms. But other troublesome nominees have been turned down. And, most importantly, the U.S. Senate retains the checks and balances to ensure all voices are heard in our democracy and the Supreme Court make-up cannot be decided by a simple majority.

I am grateful to my colleagues who brokered this deal. Now, we can move beyond this time-consuming process that has deteriorated the comity of this great institution. I am hopeful that we can quickly turn to work on the people's business. We need to ensure our troops have the resources they need to fight in Iraq and that Americans are free from terrorism. We need to protect retiree's pensions and long-term security. We need to expand health care opportunities for all families. We need to address rising gasoline prices and energy independence. And we need to restore fiscal responsibility and rebuild our economy so that it lifts all American workers. That is our reform agenda, the people's reform agenda. Together, we can get the job done.

 

[Rokkitsci]

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.

Actually - it was a Democrat/GOP issue. The Democrats chose to use the filibuster as a routine political tool rather than what it was designed to be - a process available to individual senators to prolong debate for as long as they can physically stand and talk.
The GOP never did that - the Democrats did that. And by the way, the Democrats changed the rules on filibuster several times to suit their own purpose. And again by the way, it was Democrats who most recently argued to ELIMINATE the filibuster - even for legislative issues.
Yep - this was a fight initiated by the Democrats - and it was initiated for strictly partisan purposes - far from "national interest." This was a dishonorable fight fueled by extremist elements that now control the Democrat party.

The comparison of what happened to Clinton judges is not relevant to this current filibuster issue. The way the Republic works is that we have elections to decide who gets to make legislative decisions and execute constitutional duties. The Democrats have lost in that arena - The GOP won control of the congress under the "leadership" of Clinton. The committees therefore had more GOP than Democrats in them - which by the way is a result of prior democrat decisions made when THEY controlled the congress to prevent the GOP from having any voice in committee decisions.
By the way - most of these "bottled up" nominees of Clinton were those which occurred in his last year of office. Nominees by a lame-duck president in his last year have routinely been held up - nothing new or out of the ordinary in that.

Cheney would only come into play if the senate were "equally divided" as outlined in the constitution - don't see what is humiliating about that. What is humiliating is that the issue even exists to begin with - thanks to democrats.

I am all for country over party. My personal desires to see the democrats "get their teeth kicked in" <politically of course> takes a back seat to what I think is a resolution that is better for the country at this time. Not sure where you confusion about my statement comes from.

 

[swilphil]

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 Dobson does push his political affiliation and encourages other pastors of the same mindset to do the same. They have entered the arena of politics and are using their position as religious leaders to get votes. I read some bits and pieces of a few Dobson books several years ago. The books strictly on religion were pretty good, but he went a little overboard on some of his parenting books.

Here is a review of his Bringing Up Boys book from the Library Journal (a non-political publication):

From Library Journal
As he has in past books, Dobson advises parents from his overtly conservative, Christian stance. A notable Christian activist, powerfully connected right-winger, and founder and president of Focus on the Family, he has written a work with seemingly good intentions: "If you are honest, trustworthy, caring, loving, self-disciplined, and God-fearing, your boys will be influenced by those traits as they age.... So much depends on what they observe in you." True enough. His underlying arguments, however, are peculiarly mean-spirited. Any outsider who threatens traditional family values comes under fierce attack. Most early feminists, for example, "were never married, didn't like children, and deeply resented men, yet they advised millions of women about how to raise their children and, especially, how to produce healthy boys." Dobson also avows that gays suffer from a "disorder." Clearly, the titular advice and encouragement serve Dobson's agenda. While this book is appropriate for certain religious collections, public librarians should exercise caution; there are Christian parenting titles (e.g., William Sears, M.D., & Martha Sears's The Complete Book of Christian Parenting and Child Care, Broadman & Holman, 1997) that don't polemicize and defame as does this. Douglas C. Lord, Connecticut State Lib., Hartford

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

But Dobson does push his political affiliation and encourages other pastors of the same mindset to do the same. They have entered the arena of politics and are using their position as religious leaders to get votes. I read some bits and pieces of a few Dobson books several years ago. The books strictly on religion were pretty good, but he went a little overboard on some of his parenting books.

Here is a review of his Bringing Up Boys book from the Library Journal (a non-political publication):

As I read the review of Dobson's "Bringing Up Boys" that you pasted, I kept thinking "Yes... and?" I have absolutely no problem with what he writes in that book. I am probably in a minority on the DIS boards in my affirming that. Years ago I became sickand tired of "the world" trying to cram its values on my children. Like millions of other parents (some Christians -and I am sure, some non-Christians) I think it is time to fight back. While I wil NEVER promote a political candidate from the pulpit, I will promote values consistent with belief AND the revolutionary idea that parents can be proactive in parenting.

 

[DisDuck]

Where to begin. I am neither a left-wing/liberal (unless you consider T.Jefferson to be a left wing/liberal) nor am I a right-wing/conservative(unless you think A.Hamilton to be a right-wing/conservative). I do believe that one of the 'good' points in our system is that the 'minority' party has a voice in congress. This voice is the 'filibuster' whether it is used rightly or wrongly its existence protects against the 'majority' running roughshod over congress. This is true for either party when in majority or minority. I have read thru some of the judicial opinions written by the big 3 judges as posted on the Internet and do have problems with how they ruled but don't know whether they will have enough influence on the court of appeals to cause 'problems'. I am sure that if one has the time to delve thru the congressional history of the US one can find instances of 'filibusters' being used by both parties rightly and wrongly. So I don't think what the Democrats tried to do to be a big issue.

Now on Dobson, since several of you brought him up. 30 years ago I read one of books on child rearing and found some sound advice in it. However, comparing his statements today on children and families to what I remember from his book it seems that Dobson has changed his own outlook. It has become a more 'religious' oriented view on family and child rearing. Fine for him and those that follow his religious affiliation. BUT AS I HAVE SAID MANY TIMES ON THE VARIOUS RELIGIOUS DEBATES HERE HIS/YOUR BIBLE IS NOT MINE. DO NOT IMPOSE VIA LEGISLATION YOUR BIBLICAL VIEWS ON ME. I shout because this message seems to be lost on some. If what I have read of Dobson's current thinking were to become law then I would have to abandon some of my religious values. For example, in Judaism homosexuality in and of itself is not wrong. Our rabbi's have interpreted The Torah sayings to mean the 'sex-act' is what makes it 'wrong', ie. 'man shall not lie with man as is done with woman'. However, since there is nothing like this statement for woman our rabbi's have concluded that a lesbian relationship including 'sex' is OK. Then there is 'when life begins' and 'when an abortion is OK'.

Sorry for contributing to some of the 'off-topic' posts but this issue of 'values' and whose 'values' are more important than others is a sore point with me.

 

[swilphil]

As I read the review of Dobson's "Bringing Up Boys" that you pasted, I kept thinking "Yes... and?" I have absolutely no problem with what he writes in that book. I am probably in a minority on the DIS boards in my affirming that. Years ago I became sickand tired of "the world" trying to cram its values on my children. Like millions of other parents (some Christians -and I am sure, some non-Christians) I think it is time to fight back. While I wil NEVER promote a political candidate from the pulpit, I will promote values consistent with belief AND the revolutionary idea that parents can be proactive in parenting.

You have no problem with homosexuality being called a "disorder?" Dobson also says in the same book that it can be cured. Dobson also pushes a male-dominated household where the wife is submissive. In his books on discipline, Dobson calls for beating children into submission with switches and wooden spoons, along with tactics such as leaving the switch next to the child's bed so they can see it. Is that what you call "proactive" parenting?

 

[ThAnswr]

As I read the review of Dobson's "Bringing Up Boys" that you pasted, I kept thinking "Yes... and?" I have absolutely no problem with what he writes in that book. I am probably in a minority on the DIS boards in my affirming that. Years ago I became sickand tired of "the world" trying to cram its values on my children. Like millions of other parents (some Christians -and I am sure, some non-Christians) I think it is time to fight back. While I wil NEVER promote a political candidate from the pulpit, I will promote values consistent with belief AND the revolutionary idea that parents can be proactive in parenting.

So, do you have any problem with using a switch or a stick on a child, until they cry, because they want it? This is James Dobson?

"Some strong-willed children absolutely demand to be spanked, and their wishes should be granted. . . [T]wo or three stinging strokes on the legs or buttocks with a switch are usually sufficient to emphasize the point, 'You must obey me.'"
From The Strong-Willed Child, pp. 53-4.

Or maybe it's because Dobson is getting a thrill writing about it, some "Christian" parents are getting a zing reading about it, and other "Christian" parents" get their jollies doing it?

Back to the OP........it's about time the real mainstream showed the rightwing crackpots and opportunists like Captain Video Frist and Rick Sanitarium who really represents the American people. There couldn't have been a more stinging rebuke to Bush, Frist, and the religious right than to have 7 Republican senators band together to preserve the rights of the minority. And, I'm sure, like Dobson's fictitious child, they'll thank them for it later.

 

[swilphil]

I just read the morning paper. McCain led the compromise effort. He impresses me more and more. His efforts may have cost him the Republican nominiation, but he put the good of the country ahead of his own ambitions.

 

[momof2inPA]

It's encouraging to see senators from both parties working together for a compromise.

 

[rcyannacci]

It's encouraging to see senators from both parties working together for a compromise.

Amen!!! That's the story that's getting lost, I guess because compromise doesn't produce good sound bites and fuel the rancor that's keeps cable news plugged in.

Edit- although it's probably pointless to talk about compromise on a thread titled "partial victory." It seems as though many are sad because they were looking for a showdown rather than government at work. Maybe we can start looking elsewhere for entertainment and let them do their job.

 

[JudicialTyranny]

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.

Why would it be "dispicable"? It would simply be Constitutional.

Cheney would only have had to vote if there were a tie, and as specified in the Constitution, the Vice President (who is President of the Senate) votes to break ties in the Senate. You don't know that the vote to change the rules would have been tied (and the Constitution allows the Senate to make its own rules - and the filibuster, or cloture, is just that - a rule - it is not in the Constitution).

Cloture used to require 67 votes under Senate rules, and the rule was changed to 60 votes in 1975 with Democrat Robert Byrd as Senate Majority Leader. Was that "dispicable"?

Do you think it was "dispicable" and "humiliated our entire nation" when Al Gore, as VP, cast the tie breaking vote to pass Clinton's first budget?

 

[jrydberg]

I'm glad some on both sides had the sense to step in and say we're going to be reasonable, party lines be damned.

 

[dcentity2000]

filibuster

I have no idea what this is



Rich::

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

You have no problem with homosexuality being called a "disorder?" Dobson also says in the same book that it can be cured. Dobson also pushes a male-dominated household where the wife is submissive. In his books on discipline, Dobson calls for beating children into submission with switches and wooden spoons, along with tactics such as leaving the switch next to the child's bed so they can see it. Is that what you call "proactive" parenting?

To answer the first question... correct, however "disorder" is a bit more clinical term than I would personally use

Re. husband/wife relationship... he does not advocate male dominance at the price of female subordination. There have been many, many, many conversations on similar topics and it all just comes down to the fact that there will never be agreement on understanding and interpreting what Dobson and others are saying. I for one can live with that fact.

Re. spanking children... up until they are are 7-8 years old, a swat or tow with a hand, switch, etc does a world of good. Personally I find that the parent's show of emotion is what emphasizes the point more than the swat itself. IMO spanking is reserved for the important things and quickly loses its value and meaning when over used.

What I call proactive parenting is not allowing my children to watch rattlesnakes crawl out of severed heads on the CSI commercials that may air during Survivor. More than that, proactive parenting may include sending a note or email to CBS telling them that you are not pleased with them dragging this junk into your home. Before condescension begins -Yes, I have a remote. (Not singling out CBS here; just making a concrete illustration)

Should anyone wish to continue this conversation, may I suggest starting thread about Dobson. I will be glad to defend him somewhere else, without jacking this thread.

 

[frozone]

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

Pretty strong language...and racially coded at that. I'd appreciate you being a little more careful mixing words like "poverty" and "pimp."

 

[sodaseller]

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

.

Not even remotely close. There is no plausible argument that a filibsuter was unconstitutional

 

[sodaseller]

Dupe post

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Not even remotely close. There is no plausible argument that a filibsuter was unconstitutional

Charles Fried is a former US solicitor general and currently teaches constitutional law at Harvard Law School. Here's what he said about this on May 19th:

The Republican leadership may change Senate procedures so that a minority of 41 of the 100 senators could no longer permanently block a floor vote for judicial nominees. This is really a political, not a constitutional fight, and in figuring which side to support, the public should at least not be confused by bogus claims of constitutional principle.

The confirmation process has been politicized beyond anything we've seen in the past. Special interest groups have staked out extreme positions on a host of issues -- the death penalty, racial preferences in education, and partial birth abortion, to name a few. If a nominee fails to meet a litmus test on any one of these issues, the groups demand a filibuster. All that is required is the announcement by the minority that it is filibustering and the normal presumption of simple majority rule is notched into a three-fifths requirement.

Accordingly, filibusters are now more readily available. The predictable has occurred: interest groups have been unleashed, and the confirmation process has become longer, more contentious, and more divisive.

This problem is not limited to the left. If the precedent is set that a minority may filibuster judicial nominees at will, whoever is in the minority will exercise that power to dictate whom the president may appoint to the federal bench. When the Republicans are in the minority, we could expect to see an equally destructive display by the right. The Terri Schiavo debacle has proven that the far right is just as able to forgo principle in favor of power and just as willing to lead its party down the path of foolishness.

The Constitution does not say one word about filibusters, but it does state that ''each house may determine the rules of its proceedings." Does it speak by implication? In the case of impeachments ''no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members" of the Senate. Either house may expel a member for disorderly behavior but only with the concurrence of two-thirds of the members of that house. Treaties must be ratified by two-thirds of the senators present. The president's veto may be overridden by two-thirds of each house. And to propose amendments to the Constitution, two thirds of both houses are necessary. It is therefore a fair inference that, unless another voting rule is prescribed, in all other cases only a simple majority is required. And no other rule is prescribed for the voting on each house's rules. To say that in a democracy majority rule is at least the default rule is hardly wild speculation.

What then of checks and balances? That principle is a description of our constitutional structure, not a provision of the Constitution itself, where the term does not appear. In the debates of the constitutional convention and the Federalist, it describes the checking by one branch of government of the power and authority of another. Its use to describe the blocking power of a minority within one of the democratically elected branches -- rather than between them -- is therefore a rhetorical stretch. Remember that when used to prevent the Senate from voting on a nominee, the filibuster is not a device for assuring deliberation or second thoughts. It gives a Senate minority an absolute veto.

On rare occasions, it has been attempted for judicial nominations, and more rarely still has it succeeded -- until 2003. Since then it has been threatened and used as a tool for preventing up-or-down votes on an unprecedentedly repeated, partisan, and systematic basis.

It is true that many of President Clinton's nominees never made it to the floor. When, however, you ask whether the nominees' failure was attributable to the will of a Senate majority or of a filibustering minority, the issue cuts in favor of the GOP argument -- after all a majority's blocking of a nominee either in committee or on the floor is an exercise of normal democratic prerogatives and doesn't speak to the legitimacy of filibusters. So in the end it comes down to politics. Absent some specific prohibition, majorities have the power to vote legislation and change rules--that's called democracy. But in a democracy, power cannot be, or cannot long be, exercised without public support. And in choosing which side to support, the public should know what is really at issue -- a question of politics.

 

[wvrevy]

It is true that many of President Clinton's nominees never made it to the floor.

That's the only sentence in that article that really matters. It is the hypocritical position the right wing has chosen to take that "all nominees deserve an up or down vote". That is not nearly the same as objecting solely to the use of the fillibuster.

I also find it hilarious that a few pompous members of the right are claiming even "partial victory" for their side. This compromise sends a clear message to the Shrub white house that they can not simply walk all over the minority in the senate. It is not remotely what blowhard Bill Frist was demanding. It guarantees votes for only a handful of Bush's ultra-conservative nominees, while resering the right to fillibuster the remaining candidates. So, how is this a "partial victory" ?

It's actually not much of a victory for either side, which means it is probably a pretty good compromise on both sides' part. Despite wishes to see the other side "have it's teeth kicked in", smarter, more sensible heads prevailed. It's unfortunate that some people have that attitude, but hardly surprising. (And before I'm accused of it...no, I don't want the conservative voice completely silenced. The simple FACT is that most of the best solutions to our problems are somewhere in between the far right and the far left. I'm enough of a realist to admit that. However, the trampling of the voice of the minority and the blatant abuse of power now rampant on the right is something I could never support. Not even if it were coming from my own party.)

 

[sodaseller]

As previously set forth at Link

I beg to differ. The judges that have been "freebooted" occupy the far extreme of current jurisprudence, assuming you could even call it that.

And the filibuster is plainly Constitutional. Exah chamber sets the rules of its own proceedings, and since Thomas Jefferson authored the Rules for Senate procedure, it has favored "privilege" and minority rights that was explicitly contemplated. Basic research will confirm that

First, the Senate's role in formirmation is plenary and coextensive

Senate History

Rather than adopt the Massachusetts model immediately, the convention delegates initially granted the president the power to appoint the officers of the executive branch and, given that judges’ life-long terms would extend past the authority of any one president, the Senate would appoint the members of the judiciary. Framers in favor of a strong executive, however, argued that Senate appointments would lead to government by a “cabal” swayed by the interests of constituents. Other delegates, fearful of monarchies, wanted to remove the president entirely from the appointment process. On September 4, the Committee of Eleven reported an amended appointment clause. Unanimously adopted on September 7, the clause, based on the Massachusetts model, provided that the president shall nominate and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint the officers of the United States.

Second, the Constitutional text pursuant to the separation of powers commands that each Chamber sets teh rules of its proceedings

Art 1, Sec 5

Section 5.

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Senate Rules are not some recently dastardly liberal development

Senate Rules

A MANUAL OF PARLIAMENTARY PRACTICE:
for the Use of the Senate of the United States.
BY THOMAS JEFFERSON.
SECOND EDITION. WITH THE LAST ADDITIONS OF THE AUTHOR
GEORGE TOWN:
PUBLISHED BY JOSEPH MILLIGAN; AND BY WILLIAM COOPER, WASHINGTON.
1812.

And they can hardly be said to have never contemplated that the rules woudl be sued by the minority

So far the maxim is certainly true, and is founded in good sense, that as it is always in the power of the majority, by their numbers, to stop any improper measures proposed on the part of their opponents, the only weapons by which the minority can defend themselves against similar attempts from those in power, are the forms and rules of proceeding which have been adopted as they were found necessary from time to time, and are become the law of the House; by a strict adherence to which, the weaker party can only be protected from those irregularities and abuses which these forms were intended to check, and which the wantonness of power is but too often apt to suggest to large and successful majorities. 2 Hats. 171, 172.

The argument that the filbuster somehow offends the Constitution is so much Rushspeak propogated among the true believers. It is unsupportable. Parenthetically, for those offended at "minority obstructionism" or whatever that day's agreed talking point buzzword is, under the blue slip system that Orrin Hatch used, a single GOP Senator often blocked nominees. Jesse Helms used this power to keep the 4th Cir. segregated

There is no honest argument that a filibuster is unconstitutional