GOP set to push nuclear button on Judges

[Bubba Wheels]

Dawgfan, this headline ok? Don't want to give anybody 'unnecessary jitters' or anything. Fox news reporting that GOP will go ahead with changing the filibuster rules tomorrow at 9am if I heard correctly. Democratic response by Reid was if that happens, Dems will 'shut down congress." Anybody care?

[Easy Mac]

Strom Thurmond would be proud.

[rkmsuf]

no

[gstelmack]

Yes. Shutting down Congress is what the public has been asking for for a LONG time. I might even vote Democrat in the next election if they promise to sit around and do nothing for 4 years

[DaddyTorgo]

personally I guess I'm looking forward to this. The republicans did it during the Newt years, and if the Dems can do it and can get public opinion on their side (which IMO they ought to be able to do...or at least the opinion of the educated people who realize that the filibuster is a time-honored and important part of the American political landscape), then it could prove very harmful to the Republicans. Not to mention the fact that it increases the enmity between the sides in Congress, which honestly is always a little bit amusing to watch.

[Galaxy]

What exactly is filibuster?

[Arles]

I think most people that can be swayed will just roll their eyes at both sides on this. Count me as one enjoying the government shutdown and seeing how all this plays out.

[Bubba Wheels]

Oops...off to spelling police jail I go again...

[RainRaven]

Eh.. Republicans whining about the same thing that they pull when it's a democrat as president and a democrat controlled congress. I hope the public demands that the republicans step down and shut up.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

What exactly is filibuster?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...ine:Filibuster

I think it's outrageously short-sighted by the Republicans. Should the Democrats ever regain the Senate, the Republicans will just have shot themselves in the foot.

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...ine:Filibuster

I think it's outrageously short-sighted by the Republicans. Should the Democrats ever regain the Senate, the Republicans will just have shot themselves in the foot.

Much of what the Republicans have done in the last few years have "shot themselves in the foot" once they are out of power. I really don't think they believe they ever will be.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Fox news reporting that GOP will go ahead with changing the filibuster rules tomorrow at 9am if I heard correctly. Democratic response by Reid was if that happens, Dems will 'shut down congress." Anybody care?

As I understand it, debate on one of the judges up for confirmation will begin tomorrow. If they are not able to get an up or down vote by early next week, then the Republicans would move forward with the rule changes.

[stevew]

I think its pretty lame you cant get an up or down vote on a judicial appointment. But I also think the whole "tyranny of the majority" bullshit is gonna eff the republicans hard some day, and a lot sooner than people think.

[amdaily]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...ine:Filibuster

I think it's outrageously short-sighted by the Republicans. Should the Democrats ever regain the Senate, the Republicans will just have shot themselves in the foot.

As if they wouldn't do it anyways

[judicial clerk]

ON VASQUEZ wired and intense.

VASQUEZSen. Nelson D-Neb
All right, we can't blow the fuck
out of them...why not roll some
canisters of CN-20 down there.
Nerve gas the whole nest ?

HUDSONSen. Kerry D-Mass
Look, man, let's just bug out and
call it even, okay?

RIPLEYSen. Clinton D-NY
(to Vasquez)
No good. How do we know it'll
effect their biochemistry? I say
we take off and nuke the entire
site from orbit. It's the only
way to be sure.

BURKEHoward Dean
Now hold on a second. I'm not
authorizing that action.

RIPLEY
Why not?

Burke senses the challenge in her tone and backpedals
flawlessly into conciliatory mode.

BURKE
Well, I mean...I know this is an
emotional moment, but let's not
make snap judgments. Let's move
cautiously. First, this physical
installation had a substantial
dollar value attached to it --

RIPLEY
They can bill me. I got a tab
running. What's second?

BURKE
This is clearly an important
species we're dealing with here.
We can't just arbitrarily
exterminate them --

RIPLEY
Bullshit!

VASQUEZ
Yeah, bullshit. Watch us.

HUDSON
Maybe you haven't been keeping up
on current events, but we just got
out asses kicked, pal!

Ripley faces Burke squarely and she's not pleased.

RIPLEY
Look, Burke. We had an agreement.

Burke moves in, lowering his voice. He takes her aside
from the others.

BURKE
I know, I know, but we're dealing
with changing scenarios here. This
thing is major, Ripley. I mean
really major. You gotta go with
its energy. Since you are the
representative of the company who
discovered this species your
percentage will naturally be
some serious, serious money.

Ripley stares at his like he's a particularly
disagreeable fungus.

RIPLEY
You son of a bitch.

BURKE
(hardening)
Don't make me pull rank, Ripley.

RIPLEY
What rank? I believe Corporal Hicks
has authority here.

BURKE
Corporal Hicks!?

RIPLEY
This operation is under military
jurisdiction and Hicks is next in
chain of command. Right?

HICKSSen. Reid D-Nev
Looks that way.

Burke starts to lose it and it's not a pretty sight.

BURKE
Look, this is a multimillion
dollar operation. He can't make
that kind of decision. He's just
a grunt!
(glances at Hicks)
No offense.

HICKS
(coolly)
None taken.
(into mike)
Ferro, you copying?

FERRO
(voice over; static)
Standing by.

HICKS
Prep for dust-off. We're gonna
need an immediate evac.
(to Burke)
I think we'll take off and nuke
the site from orbit. It's the
only way to be sure.

He winks. Burke looks like a kid whose toy has been
snatched.

Its funny when you read it as if the aliens are republicans and the marines are democrates. Make Hudson be John kerry

[JPhillips]

The Repubs may yet win, but if they haven't forced a vote yet its because they aren't sure they have the votes. If they could have won they would have done this weeks ago.

[QuikSand]

Honestly, I think those who are forecasting "doom and gloom" for the GOP on this are overestimating the public's ability to understand this. I think the GOP strategists are absolutely correct when they suspect that the phrase "up or down vote" will, as usual, hold more water with Jonh and Jane Purplestate than will the 200-word response they hear from John Kerry or Harry Reid about the sanctity of the minority voice and the tyranny of the majority.

I think this eventually plays well for the Republicans... but betting on them on battles of ideology has been a safe bet for some time now. Just look how many blue collar types say they support getting rid of the "death tax."

[digamma]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Honestly, I think those who are forecasting "doom and gloom" for the GOP on this are overestimating the public's ability to understand this. I think the GOP strategists are absolutely correct when they suspect that the phrase "up or down vote" will, as usual, hold more water with Jonh and Jane Purplestate than will the 200-word response they hear from John Kerry or Harry Reid about the sanctity of the minority voice and the tyranny of the majority.

It's funny because it's true.

[dawgfan]

More like "It's sad and disturbing because it's true"...

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by RainRaven

Eh.. Republicans whining about the same thing that they pull when it's a democrat as president and a democrat controlled congress. I hope the public demands that the republicans step down and shut up.

You could exchange the word "Republican" with "Democrat" and you'd still sound like a moron. Party-liners will be the fall of democracy. Mark my words.

[Whar]

"Extremist power grab" is as short as "up or down vote". Fear always plays better than principle, Republicans have taught us that at least. The Republicans were spectacularly wrong regarding the public's reaction over the Schiavo case and the Nuclear option is even less popular. For me this is a win-win ... the extremist elements of the Republican party will look foolish and the Senate grinds to a halt.

[Glengoyne]

Those saying that the Republicans are doing the "same thing" are wrong. Yes the Republicans have done everything they could historically to prevent Democratic Nominees from being approved. Often not even because of differences in ideology. Often just because the nominee was a Democrat. This was pretty much a two way street. The Dems have historically done the same. Previously the minority party could bounce a nominee automatically just by having a Senator hold office in the Judge's home state. Almost all of of the stifling of nominees was done in the committee process, not once the nomination was brought up for a vote before the whole Senate.

The difference now is that the Dems are doing something relatively unprecedented. As I understand it prior to 2000, the number of times either party had filibustered or even planned to filibuster can be counted on one hand, possibly with an additional finger or two on the second hand.

I don't see this as tyrrany of the majority, I see the Dems selecting a few judges that they claim are "out of the mainstream" of America. I really haven't seen any evidence of this. At least not evidence that has stood up to minor scrutiny. The female Judge from Texas, her name escapes me, has been held out as an opponent to abortion rights. The record is that the only times she has opposed "abortion" was in rulings upholding the law requiring minors needed parental consent before the procedure. She didn't even always find against the minor seeking an abortion. If the Democratic leadership thinks that the "American Mainstream" doesn't think minors should have parental permission before having an abortion, then I think they are doomed for the near future.

It boils down to the Democrats disagreeing not with the competency of a nominee, but with the nominee's politics. I don't think that is a reasonable litmus test for a judge. I felt the same way when the Republicans were stifling Clinton's choices. I said that it would come back and bite them, of course when I said that, I thought it would be when the Dems won back the Senate.

[Glengoyne]

Dola,

Originally Posted by Whar

...The Republicans were spectacularly wrong regarding the public's reaction over the Schiavo case and the Nuclear option is even less popular. ....

I don't think the Nuclear option is less popular than the Schiavo case. In the Schiavo case there was almost NO support in public opinion. I believe the Republicans are on much sounder ground here, if only because of the reasons mentioned by QS.

[Glengoyne]

double dola,

Oh and QS I hate the "death tax"...I have no chance to inherit a million dollars from someone, but I'm seriously opposed to applying taxes on money that has already been taxed and then saved. The Government doesn't have any right to that money, it already got its share.

[Daimyo]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

. . . public opinion . . . the opinion of the educated people . . .

Unfortunately those seem too be two completely disparate things right now with the latter pretty much outnumbered.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

The difference now is that the Dems are doing something relatively unprecedented. As I understand it prior to 2000, the number of times either party had filibustered or even planned to filibuster can be counted on one hand, possibly with an additional finger or two on the second hand.

But, Glen, why are they doing something unprecedented? Could it be because other avenues previously used to defeat appointments have been taken awayfrom them?

Sure the spoils may go to the victor, but in a sense, isn't that exactly what the concept of preventing the tyranny of the majority is all about?

[digamma]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

More like "It's sad and disturbing because it's true"...

Fair enough, but I was just trying to quote the Simpson's.

[Radii]

Any reports of this on the net anywhere? It's not on the main CNN/Fox sites at the moment.

[JPhillips]

From an article by American Enterprise Institute fellow Norman Ornstein:

Let us put aside for now the puerile arguments over whether judicial filibusters are unprecedented: They clearly, flatly, are not. Instead, let's look at the means used to achieve the goal of altering Senate procedures to block filibusters on judicial nominations.
Without getting into the parliamentary minutiae--the options are dizzying, including whether points of order are "nested"--one reality is clear. To get to a point where the Senate decides by majority that judicial filibusters are dilatory and/or unconstitutional, the Senate will have to do something it has never done before.

Richard Beth of the Congressional Research Service, in a detailed report on the options for changing Senate procedures, refers to it with typical understatement as "an extraordinary proceeding at variance with established procedure."

To make this happen, the Senate will have to get around the clear rules and precedents, set and regularly reaffirmed over 200 years, that allow debate on questions of constitutional interpretation--debate which itself can be filibustered. It will have to do this in a peremptory fashion, ignoring or overruling the Parliamentarian. And it will establish, beyond question, a new precedent. Namely, that whatever the Senate rules say -- regardless of the view held since the Senate's beginnings that it is a continuing body with continuing rules and precedents -- they can be ignored or reversed at any given moment on the whim of the current majority.

There have been times in the past when Senate leaders and presidents have been frustrated by inaction in the Senate and have contemplated action like this. Each time, the leaders and presidents drew back from the precipice. They knew that the short-term gain of breaking minority obstruction would come at the price of enormous long-term damage -- turning a deliberative process into something akin to government by the Queen of Hearts in "Alice in Wonderland."

Rule XXII is clear about extended debate and cloture requirements, both for changing Senate rules (two-thirds required) and any other action by the Senate, nominations or legislation (60 Senators required). Ignored in this argument has been Senate Rule XXXI, which makes clear that there is neither guarantee nor expectation that nominations made by the president get an up-or-down vote, or indeed any action at all.

It reads: "Nominations neither confirmed nor rejected during the session at which they are made shall not be acted upon at any succeeding session without being again made to the Senate by the President; and if the Senate shall adjourn or take a recess for more than thirty days, all nominations pending and not finally acted upon at the time of taking such adjournment or recess shall be returned by the Secretary to the President, and shall not again be considered unless they shall again be made to the Senate by the President."

By invoking their self-described nuclear option without changing the rules, a Senate majority will effectively erase them. A new precedent will be in order--one making it easy and tempting to erase future filibusters on executive nominations and bills. Make no mistake about that.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

double dola,

Oh and QS I hate the "death tax"...I have no chance to inherit a million dollars from someone, but I'm seriously opposed to applying taxes on money that has already been taxed and then saved. The Government doesn't have any right to that money, it already got its share.

There's exactly one solution to this "problem" -- have the government take a cut of the money as it leaves the mint. Then you won't have any problems with any money getting taxed more than once.

[JPhillips]

Glen: Apologies for threadjacking, but do you also support an end to the sales tax and to the tax on Social Security income and to tariffs and to flat fees and to property tax and to state tax and locality tax? Afterall all this income has been taxed already.

This comes to a point that I have been longing to make. We can't look at any tax individually. We have to look at all the taxes and all the government expenses. Since I think we can agree that this group of Repubs isn't about to cut spending in any meaningful way, we have to tax in various forms to pay the bill. (well as least part of the bill)

What tax would you increase to make up for the loss of inheritance tax? Wat tax is "more just"?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by digamma

But, Glen, why are they doing something unprecedented? Could it be because other avenues previously used to defeat appointments have been taken away from them?

Sure the spoils may go to the victor, but in a sense, isn't that exactly what the concept of preventing the tyranny of the majority is all about?

Well yes, they did get rid of the Green Slip or Blue Slip rule(which ever of those it was), and I'm not entirely opposed to that because it was an arbitrary measure. I really truly believe that the only, and I mean only measure of a judge should be their competency to apply the rules of law while on the bench. That should be it. It shouldn't matter if they are pro-choice or pro-death penalty or any other such thing. Their politics shouldn't matter.

And again, I don't really think that nominating and appointing qualified judges to positions qualifies as Tyranny of the Majority. I do think that filibustering qualified judges to prevent their appointment is pretty much Tyranny of the minority. Now...Unilaterally changing the rules of the Senate...THAT is Tyranny of the majority.

While I'm not happy with the Democrats tactics, and want the filibustering to stop. I'm not sure that the ends would justify the Republican's means.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

From an article by American Enterprise Institute fellow Norman Ornstein:

Exactly. What makes it the 'nuclear option' is that it is not a rules change. A rules change requires a 2/3 majority. What the GOP is trying to do is
ignore the rules. That is the unprecedented thing in this whole affair, and a terrible precedent. It is tyranny by the majority, pure and simple.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Now...Unilaterally changing the rules of the Senate...THAT is Tyranny of the majority.

Yup, that's exactly my point.

[Lucky Jim]

Up or down vote works for me, democracy being the worst form of government and all that.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

It boils down to the Democrats disagreeing not with the competency of a nominee, but with the nominee's politics. I don't think that is a reasonable litmus test for a judge.

I don't understand you here. A nominee making political decisions is exactly what should disqualify someone. And that is exactly what Janice Rogers Brown does. In 1996 when she was nominated to the State Supreme Court the local bar association found her unqualified because of her politically motivated rulings. As a member of the State Supreme Court she was often the only dissenting opinion in a ruling. She refers to the "Socialist revolution of 1937" and calls liberal tolerance a 'lie'.

Two of the judges being filibustered are also not being filibustered for their politics, but because of the tactics used by the GOP to keep those seats from being filled by Clinton.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

While I'm not happy with the Democrats tactics, and want the filibustering to stop. I'm not sure that the ends would justify the Republican's means.

Getting rid of the filibuster would not be good for the GOP in the long term. Their major policy goal, tax cutting, is not subject to a filibuster and can be easily repealed. On the other hand, Democrat initiatives (civil rights, national health care, SS) have a ton of inertia once they are put into place, and even if the Dems are in charge of congress for 2 years we could see national health care and the GOP would never be able to get rid of it (nobody in Canada is clamoring for an end to national health care, nobody would be here either once it comes).

[Lucky Jim]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Getting rid of the filibuster would not be good for the GOP in the long term. Their major policy goal, tax cutting, is not subject to a filibuster and can be easily repealed. On the other hand, Democrat initiatives (civil rights, national health care, SS) have a ton of inertia once they are put into place, and even if the Dems are in charge of congress for 2 years we could see national health care and the GOP would never be able to get rid of it (nobody in Canada is clamoring for an end to national health care, nobody would be here either once it comes).

One, the nuclear option applies solely to judicial filibusters. Two, a number of countries that have national healthcare programs have begun moving toward privatization (Great Britain for example) as it simply isn't all that efficient. And I guess three (cause isn't it always better to have three of something?), would everything be alright if the evil tyranny of the majority consisted of 60 republicans (the number needed for cloture and an up or down vote) instead of their current 55? This seems to be a big flaw if the Senate is really set up to allow minority parties to indefinitely delay action on pending decisions.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Lucky Jim

One, the nuclear option applies solely to judicial filibusters.

What's the logic that says that up and down votes are good for judges, but not for legislation? Ending the judicial filibuster is just a step in the direction.

Originally Posted by Lucky Jim

Two, a number of countries that have national healthcare programs have begun moving toward privatization (Great Britain for example) as it simply isn't all that efficient.

NHS would not be the system that I would support, I like something like the French system, and I would agree that some aspects of national health care should be market based. But the fact is that we spend more on health care than any other country in the world and get worse results than most countries with national health care. Therefore, national health care has been found to be very efficient.

Originally Posted by Lucky Jim

And I guess three (cause isn't it always better to have three of something?), would everything be alright if the evil tyranny of the majority consisted of 60 republicans (the number needed for cloture and an up or down vote) instead of their current 55? This seems to be a big flaw if the Senate is really set up to allow minority parties to indefinitely delay action on pending decisions.

60 is an arbitrary number, for sure (it used to be 2/3), but 60-40 is a lot different than 50-50. I like the idea that major initiatives should be bipartisan, and than presidents should be forced to make moderate choices in their nominations.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Lucky Jim

Two, a number of countries that have national healthcare programs have begun moving toward privatization (Great Britain for example) as it simply isn't all that efficient.

Though it's far more efficient than our system where 50% is spent on overhead.

[Lucky Jim]

They're currently looking at a compromise proposal that would send all but three of the nominees to the floor for a vote, and this looks to have Democratic approval. I guess the only thing I don't understand is how Reid can appeal for five "profiles in courage" from Republicans that will stand up to do what is right and vote down the nuclear option, but he doesn't believe that he could somehow convince those same five to simply vote down an "unqualified" judge in a vote. If Democrats are comfortable essentially with all but three of the nominees you would think they would be comfortable convincing a small minority of Republicans of why these three (of some two hundred previous nominations) are unworthy of being approved. Clearly these three have somehow heinously distinguished themselves and if there is any reasonable weight to Dems' arguments then a handful of Repubs will cross the aisle.

They'll compromise I'm sure, and Frist will look good almost no matter what happens. This is all the culmination of the last few years, with Hatch getting basically owned in committee, memogate, etc, and Dems finding a way to come off looking victimized at every turn. As a pretty neutral observer (I know it seems hard to believe from this thread) I can say that this is just as much Democrats' fault as it is Republicans. The Dems have outmaneuvered the GOP on judiciary stuff for the last few years and they haven't really taken the high road in doing it, so one good turn deserves another I guess.

And as far as healthcare, I haven't been to a doctor in almost six years so the added taxes of a nationalized system don't really appeal to me. I recognize that might put me in a minority, and that I may one day be subject to the tyrannical forces of democracy.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Glen: Apologies for threadjacking, but do you also support an end to the sales tax and to the tax on Social Security income and to tariffs and to flat fees and to property tax and to state tax and locality tax? Afterall all this income has been taxed already.

This comes to a point that I have been longing to make. We can't look at any tax individually. We have to look at all the taxes and all the government expenses. Since I think we can agree that this group of Repubs isn't about to cut spending in any meaningful way, we have to tax in various forms to pay the bill. (well as least part of the bill)

What tax would you increase to make up for the loss of inheritance tax? Wat tax is "more just"?

I think we should blame QS for the thread jack.

Just about any tax, in my opinion, is more "just" than the estate tax. Also Mr. Wednesday, I'm not opposed to physical dollars being taxed multiple times. That would be a fairly ridiculous thing to be opposed to.

I'm opposed to an individual earning and saving enough wealth to be passed on to their family when they die. That individual accumulated that wealth over a lifetime of toil, and they paid their taxes on that wealth over that time. That money belongs to them and those they decide to leave it to. The Government already got its share. The rest is private property.

Sometimes it isn't just cash a family has to pay. Sometimes a family has to sell off the very assett that earned the wealth being inherited. It is unreasonable to force heirs to sell off the business they have inheirited just to pay the inheiritance tax.

Oh and one more thing...don't even begin to blame only the Republicans for the deficit. It isn't like the Democrats are working to tighten the Government's belt. Neither party is genuinely interested in solving that particular problem...they all have their own interests to protect.

[ShaqFu]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

What exactly is filibuster?

Watch "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" with Jimmy Stewart.

Unilike the House, the Senate rules don't set time limits on how long someone is allowed to speak. Once a Senator begins talking, he may talk as long as he pleases and may yield to fellow party members. They can read the dictionary, encyclopedia, a dusty law book, the Sunday newspaper, or this forum aloud.

It's an effective tool, because you can stall controversial bills and confirmations. In the end, the Senate is likely to reach a compromise or vote against.

Bush and many Republicans want to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominations. Eliminating the filibuster would allow Bush to easily push his nominees (including those forthcoming for the Supreme Court) through to the bench.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

That individual accumulated that wealth over a lifetime of toil, and they paid their taxes on that wealth over that time.

That is incorrect. In most cases taxes were never paid on this wealth, that's why the estate tax was implemented. Taxes on stock, real estate appreciation, business appreciation, etc, are not taxed until the asset is sold. Therefore, if you die with it in your possession any capital appreciation has not had taxes paid on it.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Lucky Jim

The Dems have outmaneuvered the GOP on judiciary stuff for the last few years and they haven't really taken the high road in doing it, so one good turn deserves another I guess.

How long a time period is 'the last few years'? The Dems haven't gotten anyone appointed to the Supreme Court since Carter, and most of the chicanery in recent years was done by the GOP to my knowledge. The GOP got rid of any non-filibuster techniques when they got into power.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I'm opposed to an individual earning and saving enough wealth to be passed on to their family when they die. That individual accumulated that wealth over a lifetime of toil, and they paid their taxes on that wealth over that time. That money belongs to them and those they decide to leave it to. The Government already got its share. The rest is private property.

(Foreword: I will admit to an incomplete understanding of the estate tax, any misunderstandings or inconsistencies in my position may arise from that.) The problem I have is that this analysis ignores the other side of the equation. You are seeing the money taxed when the individual earned it and taxed again when he dies (notwithstanding some capital gains that don't get taxed at all -- surely you would want to see this fixed). I am seeing the individual's heirs make a windfall of unearned and untaxed income, and I think that is extremely unfair.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by ShaqFu

Bush and many Republicans want to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominations. Eliminating the filibuster would allow Bush to easily push his nominees (including those forthcoming for the Supreme Court) through to the bench.

More precisely, they want to determine that cloture rules in the Senate do not apply to votes on judicial nominees, so that they can do this with a simple majority vote rather than the 2/3 vote required to actually change their rules.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Honestly, I think those who are forecasting "doom and gloom" for the GOP on this are overestimating the public's ability to understand this. I think the GOP strategists are absolutely correct when they suspect that the phrase "up or down vote" will, as usual, hold more water with Jonh and Jane Purplestate than will the 200-word response they hear from John Kerry or Harry Reid about the sanctity of the minority voice and the tyranny of the majority.

I think this eventually plays well for the Republicans... but betting on them on battles of ideology has been a safe bet for some time now. Just look how many blue collar types say they support getting rid of the "death tax."

The other thing that really helps them is that before the GOP loses power, there will be a time when they are still in the majority but less powerful and at that point, they'll see the writing on the wall and turn it on the Democrats that the "time-honored filibuster should be brought back" or some such nonsense. Isn't this like how much of the "Contract with America" stuff is being erased because it was "a different generation" of Republicans and people have short memories?

This has as much danger written on it for the Dems as it does for the GOP. The GOP caught a ton of flack for shutting things down under Clinton.

SI

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Lucky Jim

If Democrats are comfortable essentially with all but three of the nominees you would think they would be comfortable convincing a small minority of Republicans of why these three (of some two hundred previous nominations) are unworthy of being approved.

The party - line can be so intimidating and sometimes threatening that it makes it difficult to agsainst it for both sides, even if you wanted to. At the city council level, my city councilwoman told me that the Republican Womens club dropped a loyalty oath on her desk and suggested she sign it before a big vote....she wouldnt do it and the club told her that she is ending her own career. So instead of bowing out she is going to leave the city council and run for senate. I will vote for her since she has back bone....Republican or not, having two feet to stand on with the special interest or party line clouding your judgement is mucho respectable.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by digamma

Yup, that's exactly my point.

Well yes...while completely ignoring my point that what the Dems are doing is nearly as bad as what the Republicans are contemplating.


Also, and this isn't directed at you Digamma; this isn't the first step toward getting rid of the filibuster. It is a procedural change related to nominee confirmations, more likely only judicial nominee confirmations. As I understand it, by calling it a procedural change, they can pass it with a bare majority. I don't understand the semantic differences between rule change and procedural change, but that is the explanation as I understood it. Again this isn't a move to remove the filibuster...if it were I don't seriously believe that more than a handful of individuals would be supporting the idea.

I'm not supporting the action being threatened, I'm just addressing some of the thoughts touched on above.