Filibuster - Page 2

**The Reaper** · 05-24-2005, 12:18

IMHO, the Republicans were holding the winning hand and folded under media propaganda and an inability to hold their members together.

TR

**Airbornelawyer** · 05-24-2005, 13:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

So who won?

Sen. George Allen.

Sen. Frist wanted both a lot of media attention on him and a clear victory in order to facilitate his presidential ambitions. He got neither. The debate did not focus on him, but on the Democrats and wavering Republicans, and the face all over the news after the deal was McCain, not Frist. And the deal may have its benefits, but it has enough big gaping holes that it cannot qualify as a clear victory.

Cincinnatus · 05-24-2005, 19:12

Someone once said that the measure of a democracy is not how well it determines that the will of the majority is followed, but how well it insures that the rights of the minority are protected. The tradition of filibustering in the Senate is one measure under our system of governance where a committed minority can delay, and on occasion prevent, legislation that it finds onerous. While it can certainly be abused, and I'm confident that someone with a greater knowledge of the history of the Senate than my own could cite examples where those on either side of the aisle have abused the filibuster, it serves to protect the rights of the minority. This is a good thing.

The damage done by invoking the "nuclear option" would have been great, grave, and taken an eternity to repair. One need not agree with the compromise that was reached in this instance, to recognize that a greater good was served.

fish78 · 05-24-2005, 19:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cincinnatus

Someone once said that the measure of a democracy is not how well it determines that the will of the majority is followed, but how well it insures that the rights of the minority are protected. The tradition of filibustering in the Senate is one measure under our system of governance where a committed minority can delay, and on occasion prevent, legislation that it finds onerous. While it can certainly be abused, and I'm confident that someone with a greater knowledge of the history of the Senate than my own could cite examples where those on either side of the aisle have abused the filibuster, it serves to protect the rights of the minority. This is a good thing.

The damage done by invoking the "nuclear option" would have been great, grave, and taken an eternity to repair. One need not agree with the compromise that was reached in this instance, to recognize that a greater good was served.

True enough, the filibuster tends to delay action which sometimes protects the rights of the minority. Judicial appointments do not fall into that category...read Article 2, Section 2...Remember we do not have a parliamentery system where representation and appointments are proportional...that is, the minority does not get to determine a percentage of the judicial appointments based on the previous election. It means that the president appoints and the Senate advises AND consents. There may well be cases where a president appoints a nominee that cannot garner a majority of votes for confirmation and that nominee is rejected. Most important, this is not a democracy...

Cincinnatus · 05-24-2005, 21:51

fish,

Don't be a PITA! I know that we live in, or under, a Republic. And I know that you know I know that. I was quoting, admittedly not verbatim, a sentiment someone else had expressed.

Nor am I arguing that filibustering Bush's judicial nominees was a good idea. Rather, I'm saying that compromising as they did was far preferable to following a course of action that would have resulted in a rules change overturning the filibuster. This is a good thing, a "win" for all as it preserved an institution that is desirable in principle, if not always in execution, and avoided the mother of all pissing matches. Sometimes you have to applaud the way the system works, rather than complaining that you don't like the result. As awkward, flawed, and frustrating as it may be at times, this system of government, this Republic, is a wonderful thing.

BTW - welcome to the board from another noob.

Bravo1-3 · 05-24-2005, 21:53

The deal doesn't say that the GOP will never change the rule. It says that they won't do it as long as the rule is not abused. PErsonally, i think they should go ahead and change the rule now... back to what a real filibuster is. The current rule makes it too easy of an option. The Dems like to use the "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" video clip (why don't they use Byrds oration against the civil rights act of 1964 as an example instead of using a piece of idealistic fiction?), I say we should go BACK to that method instead of just saying "we're going to keep talking".

NousDefionsDoc · 05-24-2005, 21:59

I agree with almost everybody. LOL. I think it is good that they tried to work something out - remember, the right will want to use the filibuster when the left has control. I agree that Senator McCain should be forced to run as a Democrat from now on. I agree that the deal will probably be broken before the ink is fully dry. I think this may be the beginning of a 3rd party. I think the Senators that did this now realize how much power they have and will try to use it again. I agree with AL about Allen. I agree Cincy made a nice post.

DanUCSB · 05-24-2005, 22:20

Slight hijack, but NDD you mentioned the beginnings of a third party. I've been thinking about this lately, and I'm not quite sure how I feel on it. From national politics, I can see the small beginnings of people wanting to split the Republican party, typically envisaged as something like Christian right/"compassionate conservatives" (read: socially conservative and fiscally liberal) versus old-school Goldwater-type conservatives. While this would be momentarily satisfying for me (I am not a big fan of some of the fiscal decisions that have been made in the last five years), I certainly don't wish it so; splitting the party only splits the vote and denies any Republican office (cf. Bull Moose party in 1912).

Another possibility (albeit, less likely--I have a feeling these ideas play well in Santa Barbara where I live, and not so well in real America) as the idea bandied about of the Democrats splitting, with the DNC/big money centrists/Clintonistas on one side, grassroots-style progressives/greens on the other. While I would love this to happen, I don't see it as likely, especially not with Dean as head of the DNC.

Is there ever a time when a party can split, forming a better party in the long run, without totally screwing itself electorally for the next twenty years?

NousDefionsDoc · 05-24-2005, 22:26

With the way things have gone lately, I think the Dems would benefit more from a split and you would see more of them jump than repubs. Dean is loco and would drive a lot of the good ones over. Look at Zell Miller.

CRad · 05-24-2005, 22:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by fish78

Most important, this is not a democracy...

It's a free government that derives its power from the consent of the governed either directly or indirectly. My dad used to say "this isn't a democracy..."

Two things come to mind - The last two paragraphs of Federalist 10 and beware the tyranny of the minority.

Cosmic Trigger · 05-24-2005, 23:23

I think this latest episode is a wonderful example of why I am no longer a Republican. They win the battle without a public relations nightmare, and yet they still piss and moan about it, because they didn't get absolutely everything. And McCain once again has to step in as a mature voice of reason while zealots like Frist froth at the mouth rather than exhibiting leadership. Yet people still have the balls to denouce him for it. Ludicrious.
There already is a viable third party, the Libertarian Party (of which I am a member), and I think it'd be great if McCain led an insurrection within the Republicans and took a bunch of people over to us. Of course he'd never do that because he's too damned loyal, no matter how much his own party backstabs him.
But even if its not the Libertarians, I think you'll see a third party form from the disgusted nucleus of the true Republicans, politicians who care more about reducing big government and preserving the Constitution rather than pursuing extremist social agendas. That's because those two sides are a lot further apart and more at odds with each other than leftists and "centrist" Democrats. Hopefully, when it does happen, they'll be able to pull some of those middle of the road dems in with them, and marginalize both the other parties. And if that doesn't happen, quite frankly, I don't care if the Democrats win a few elections while a good center of the road party gets on its feet. I don't know how this ridiculous "fiscally liberal, socially conservative" combination managed to evolve, but IMHO, it's got to stop before it cripples this country.

DanUCSB · 05-24-2005, 23:34

I agree with CT on some things, not on others. Myself, I have strong (small-L) libertarian leanings. That is, fiscally conservative, socially liberal. However, I've long-since realized that a lot of what's in the (big-L) Libertarian party is silly or a sham: I like not paying tolls on the freeways, I like non-privatized police forces, I like a foreign policy that doesn't hide behind our borders; the last Libertarian I saw running on my local ballot was running on a "right to own ferrets" platform (no, I'm not making this up).

Add to that the fact that, when the chips are down and pragmatism is at stake, I'll vote Republican just about every time, simply because they support the things that I hold most dear (gun rights, low taxation, a culture of personal responsibility). Part of the problem people like me (and, I would guess, CT) have is that some of the things we've always liked about the Republicans seem to be disappearing (I appreciate the tax cuts, and I think they should be permanent, but I've balanced my check book enough times to realize that you can't do both cuts and things like the prescription drug benefit, the largest expansion of a federal entitlement program in years).

So what's the solution? Split from the Republican party, like CT has, and join a third party? I don't think so. As much as I'd love to, in theory, pragmatics has a way of biting you in the ass; if half the Republicans go Libertarian, we're simply dooming ourselves to two decades of Hillary Clintons and Janet Renos and Charles Schumers. That's where the tactical voting comes in. I'd love to go with the pie-in-the-sky stuff, but I'd rather compromise on a decent Republican than have the ATF at my door collecting my newly-outlawed firearms.

Cosmic Trigger · 05-25-2005, 07:19

Dan, I think you make some excellent points, and illustrate why so many people vote Republican. Myself, I am tired of the "lesser of two evils". I think the people of this great nation deserve better than to have to choose merely who they hate the least to lead them. And people wonder why the younger generations are so cynical and don't give a shit about anything.
It's true the Libertarians have some wacky ideas in their platform that could never fly in reality, like no taxes on anything, and being against the GWOT. That's because most of the people who have actually taken the step over to them are the most marginalized. But if you look at political polls taken, most people in both the major parties agree with them on most issues. However, its a fear of no longer being with a big winning party that stops people from turning their backs. What you should realize is, that if a large portion of people from both parties came over, it would naturally square away some of the more extreme ideals in the party and make it one most people could feel good about voting for.

fish78 · 05-25-2005, 07:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cincinnatus

fish,

Don't be a PITA! I know that we live in, or under, a Republic. And I know that you know I know that. I was quoting, admittedly not verbatim, a sentiment someone else had expressed.

Nor am I arguing that filibustering Bush's judicial nominees was a good idea. Rather, I'm saying that compromising as they did was far preferable to following a course of action that would have resulted in a rules change overturning the filibuster. This is a good thing, a "win" for all as it preserved an institution that is desirable in principle, if not always in execution, and avoided the mother of all pissing matches. Sometimes you have to applaud the way the system works, rather than complaining that you don't like the result. As awkward, flawed, and frustrating as it may be at times, this system of government, this Republic, is a wonderful thing.

BTW - welcome to the board from another noob.

Hal, I disagree about the JUDICIAL filibuster. Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution is still valid...if you invoke Article 1 Section 3( I think) that says each house shall make its own rules, you then have to accept that each house can change its rules. As for the filibuster being a useful and necessary tool of tradition, it is on LEGISLATIVE matters.
Thanks for the welcome.

fish78 · 05-25-2005, 07:45

An on point column by Ben Shapiro
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/b...20050525.shtml