"Thirty-five percent sided with changing Senate rules, 19 percent agreed
on keeping the filibuster and 34 percent wanted filibuster rules to
remain intact but for nominees to receive a full Senate vote."

(So 69% of those polled are siding with the Republican's *stance* on the
judicial nomination issue...)

"48 percent said they favored the Democrats in the dispute and 40 percent
favored the GOP."

(...but 48% favor the Democrats in the dispute?)



These polls are a joke, because the respondents are idiots. Who the hell
even takes the time to respond to the pollsters when they call?

"NOYB" wrote in message ...
"Thirty-five percent sided with changing Senate rules, 19 percent agreed
on keeping the filibuster and 34 percent wanted filibuster rules to
remain intact but for nominees to receive a full Senate vote."

(So 69% of those polled are siding with the Republican's *stance* on the
judicial nomination issue...)

"48 percent said they favored the Democrats in the dispute and 40 percent
favored the GOP."

(...but 48% favor the Democrats in the dispute?)



These polls are a joke, because the respondents are idiots. Who the hell
even takes the time to respond to the pollsters when they call?


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.

CN

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.

On 25 May 2005 00:58:58 -0000, er (Freddy the
Troll) wrote:


OK, this time I agree with you. You probably have me kill filed, I really
don't care.

Starting an OT post in rec.boats is not a welcome thing. I discourage it in
perhaps a more vehement mannner than you.

Rec.boats is a boating newsgroup. We should be taking lessons from other
groups on proper behavior. Look at hthe GPS groups, dissention is common
but all on topic. It is the off topic posts I hate so much.


My goodness! When have you *not* agreed with me? Since I unfiltered Harry, I
have no one filtered. As he has remained semi-rational for a week, I've not
re-filtered him.

--
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!)

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