On Mon, 23 May 2005 20:30:51 -0400, =?Windows-1252?Q?Capt._Neal=AE?=
wrote:


Polls are just another way for the media to make up news stories.

That being said, the Democrats will lose their effort to not allow an up
or down vote on judicial nominees. They've gotten away with their
obfuscation way too long and it's way way overdue for the Senate to get
back to established rules and procedures.

Established rules and procedures like the filibuster? Unlimited debate
has been a hallmark of the Senate since it's beginnings. The filibuster
can be ended with cloture, if the Republicans have the votes. The system
has worked for over 200 years, quit your whining.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 May 2005 20:30:51 -0400, =?Windows-1252?Q?Capt._Neal=AE?=
wrote:


Polls are just another way for the media to make up news stories.

That being said, the Democrats will lose their effort to not allow an up
or down vote on judicial nominees. They've gotten away with their
obfuscation way too long and it's way way overdue for the Senate to get
back to established rules and procedures.

Established rules and procedures like the filibuster? Unlimited debate
has been a hallmark of the Senate since it's beginnings. The filibuster
can be ended with cloture, if the Republicans have the votes. The system
has worked for over 200 years, quit your whining.

The filibuster is a US Senate rule. It is not based upon law nor is it in
the US Constitution. The rules of the Senate can be changed by the Senators
at anytime as the US Senate has done for over 200 years.

The US Senate should return to being comprised of members elected from the
several states legislatures rather than being popularly elected. This will
remove a tremendous amout of money out of politics as so many on the left
desire to happen. And, the biggest reason is we are the United STATES of
America not the United PEOPLE of America.

On Tue, 24 May 2005 07:26:43 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


Established rules and procedures like the filibuster? Unlimited debate
has been a hallmark of the Senate since it's beginnings. The filibuster
can be ended with cloture, if the Republicans have the votes. The
system has worked for over 200 years, quit your whining.

The filibuster is a US Senate rule. It is not based upon law nor is it in
the US Constitution. The rules of the Senate can be changed by the
Senators at anytime as the US Senate has done for over 200 years.

BS. The filibuster is not a rule. Unlimited debate is the rule. A
filibuster is the name given to the process of holding the floor to
prevent a vote. The Constitution dictates the Senate "Advise and consent"
the President's judicial appointments. Would you have the Senate abrogate
their sworn duty? Where were your complaints when the Republicans
filibustered Clinton's Paez nomination? Or when they blocked 16 of his
appellate court nominees? The system has worked for over 200 years, now
you want to change the rules?

The US Senate should return to being comprised of members elected from the
several states legislatures rather than being popularly elected. This will
remove a tremendous amout of money out of politics as so many on the left
desire to happen. And, the biggest reason is we are the United STATES of
America not the United PEOPLE of America.

That was changed for one reason, a direct vote is more democratic, small
d. Democracy is a bitch isn't it? The checks and balances our
forefathers put into this system mean this country will be ruled from the
center, not from the right or the left. Why is it the Republicans always
want to change the rules?

The filibuster is a US Senate rule. It is not based upon law nor is it
in
the US Constitution. The rules of the Senate can be changed by the
Senators
at anytime as the US Senate has done for over 200 years

**********

It isn't wise to rewrite the rules of the Senate every time the
majority changes. Right now, the Ripuplickin's have a couple of vote
advantage. The day come when the Demoncraps are on top again, and when
that day comes you right wingers will once again be *very* interested
in the traditional senate respect for the voice of the minority.

If you want to marginalize the minority, when have 100 Senators at all?
Send the 48 non-Republicans home, save the taxpayers the money for
their salaries, and you guys can just run roughshod over the government
like it's your private feifdom.

On 24 May 2005 17:15:20 -0700, wrote:

The filibuster is a US Senate rule. It is not based upon law nor is it
in
the US Constitution. The rules of the Senate can be changed by the
Senators
at anytime as the US Senate has done for over 200 years

**********

It isn't wise to rewrite the rules of the Senate every time the
majority changes. Right now, the Ripuplickin's have a couple of vote
advantage. The day come when the Demoncraps are on top again, and when
that day comes you right wingers will once again be *very* interested
in the traditional senate respect for the voice of the minority.

If you want to marginalize the minority, when have 100 Senators at all?
Send the 48 non-Republicans home, save the taxpayers the money for
their salaries, and you guys can just run roughshod over the government
like it's your private feifdom.

Chuck, you're getting awfully political lately.

You're not building up to another sabbatical, are you? We'll miss the good stuff
if you take one.


--
John H
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes (A true binary thinker!)

How else is representative government supposed to operate if majority
doesn't rule? Repubs have the majority of the votes in the Senate,
House, and the White House. What else do they need to get a few judges
approved? How is it fair for the minority (however close in numbers)
to just say "We're taking our ball and going home."? Are you a
democrat? You're satisfied that the representative that you voted for
and are paying won't do his job and vote yes or no on a nominee? The
dems tried this crap in the Texas state legislature a few years ago.
They actually left the state twice en masse and shut down the
legislature. In my book, that amounts to mob rule. They should have
all been impeached. I would have been just as mad if it was the repubs
pulling that crap, as I'm sure you would.

wrote:
How else is representative government supposed to operate if majority
doesn't rule?

How about by not trampling on the minority... especially a minority that
can summon a majority on many of the more right-wing proposals?


.... Repubs have the majority of the votes in the Senate,
House, and the White House.

Yes, but the far right does not have a majority, even within the
Republican Party. That's why the 'nuclear option' and arm-twisting...
why do several Republican Senators say that they've been 'beat up' by
the Bush cabinet?



... What else do they need to get a few judges
approved?

Pick judges that aren't fascist whackoes.

You'll notice that Reagan chose his judicial appointments, for the most
part, after consulting with Congressional leaders from both majority &
minority sides... Bush doesn't have the tact or the patience for this,
and his agenda is a bit more aggressive than Reagan's.


... How is it fair for the minority (however close in numbers)
to just say "We're taking our ball and going home."? Are you a
democrat? You're satisfied that the representative that you voted for
and are paying won't do his job and vote yes or no on a nominee? The
dems tried this crap in the Texas state legislature a few years ago.
They actually left the state twice en masse and shut down the
legislature. In my book, that amounts to mob rule.

Did it amount to 'mob rule' in your book back in the early 1990s when
Newt Gengrich led the Republican minority in the exact same kind of tactics?

DSK

DSK wrote:
wrote:
How else is representative government supposed to operate if majority
doesn't rule?

How about by not trampling on the minority... especially a minority that
can summon a majority on many of the more right-wing proposals?

How is insisting on a vote trampling on the minority?



.... Repubs have the majority of the votes in the Senate,
House, and the White House.

Yes, but the far right does not have a majority, even within the
Republican Party. That's why the 'nuclear option' and arm-twisting...
why do several Republican Senators say that they've been 'beat up' by
the Bush cabinet?

What does that have to do with getting them to "just vote dammit"?




... What else do they need to get a few judges
approved?

Pick judges that aren't fascist whackoes.

In your opinion only. But it's not your job or priviledge to decide if
they are fascist. At this point it is the Senate's job and a minority
of Senators are holding up the process. The minority should not have
the power to shut down the system if they don't like what's going on.
The minority never does like what's going on, that's why they are the
minority. The dems only have to convince a few measly Senators that
these appointees are "fascist". If they can't do it, then what rights
should they have to block them from taking the bench?

Did it amount to 'mob rule' in your book back in the early 1990s when
Newt Gengrich led the Republican minority in the exact same kind of tactics?

I already said ,"I would be just as mad if the repubs pulled this
crap", but you snipped it. I was too young at the time to care about
Newt, but yes it was dirty politics. Did you have a point?

wrote in message
oups.com...


DSK wrote:
wrote:
How else is representative government supposed to operate if majority
doesn't rule?

How about by not trampling on the minority... especially a minority that
can summon a majority on many of the more right-wing proposals?

How is insisting on a vote trampling on the minority?



.... Repubs have the majority of the votes in the Senate,
House, and the White House.

Yes, but the far right does not have a majority, even within the
Republican Party. That's why the 'nuclear option' and arm-twisting...
why do several Republican Senators say that they've been 'beat up' by
the Bush cabinet?

What does that have to do with getting them to "just vote dammit"?




... What else do they need to get a few judges
approved?

Pick judges that aren't fascist whackoes.

In your opinion only. But it's not your job or priviledge to decide if
they are fascist. At this point it is the Senate's job and a minority
of Senators are holding up the process. The minority should not have
the power to shut down the system if they don't like what's going on.
The minority never does like what's going on, that's why they are the
minority. The dems only have to convince a few measly Senators that
these appointees are "fascist". If they can't do it, then what rights
should they have to block them from taking the bench?

Did it amount to 'mob rule' in your book back in the early 1990s when
Newt Gengrich led the Republican minority in the exact same kind of
tactics?

I already said ,"I would be just as mad if the repubs pulled this
crap", but you snipped it. I was too young at the time to care about
Newt, but yes it was dirty politics. Did you have a point?


NO, he just choose to lie....Newt G, was the speaker of the house , he had
absolutely NO power in the Senate.

THe liebrals are desparate and will do anything not to give up
power......unfortunately, a few spineless moderate republicans don't know
how to act like a majority.

wrote:
How is insisting on a vote trampling on the minority?


When it is changing the rules so the minority cannot practice their rights.




Yes, but the far right does not have a majority, even within the
Republican Party. That's why the 'nuclear option' and arm-twisting...
why do several Republican Senators say that they've been 'beat up' by
the Bush cabinet?


What does that have to do with getting them to "just vote dammit"?


What does "just vote dammit" have to do with the way the Congress
operates? It is not how we elect the President either.



... What else do they need to get a few judges
approved?

Pick judges that aren't fascist whackoes.


In your opinion only.

Not 'my opinion only' but rather in the opinion of a large number of
people. A large enough number of people that it would be well to back
off and re-think the appointment, or figure out some way to ram it down
all their throats just like in a dictatorship.

That is how a republic works... if you want 51% of the voters, or of
Congressmen, to be able to do anything they please, then you need to
drastically change the nature of our gov't... which is what Bush &
Cheney and their supporters are busily doing.


... But it's not your job or priviledge to decide if
they are fascist. At this point it is the Senate's job and a minority
of Senators are holding up the process.

Which is the Senate's job & privilege.

Sorry, but the way this appointment stuff is working is exactly how it's
supposed to work. The President is not supposed to be able to pack the
judiciary with any old body he pleases, not when he's a liberal and not
when he's a uber-Christian proto-fascist



Did it amount to 'mob rule' in your book back in the early 1990s when
Newt Gengrich led the Republican minority in the exact same kind of tactics?


I already said ,"I would be just as mad if the repubs pulled this
crap", but you snipped it. I was too young at the time to care about
Newt, but yes it was dirty politics. Did you have a point?

That many people are spittin' mad about how those darn libby-rull
Democrats are trying to ruin all of President Bush's plan, never mind
the Constitution and never mind that the Republicans did the exact same
thing, only worse, when they were in the minority...

DSK