Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

Should the filibuster be banned?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Phil, May 20, 2005.

  1. Phil

    Phil IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    192
    Should the filibuster be banned?

    Filibuster Fight

    As many of you probably know, there is a battle going on dealing with filibusters and preventing candidates from being nominated to any number of positions, especially Supreme Court Justice appointments.

    What do you think? Should the filibuster be disallowed?

    phil
     
  2. Ash Housewares

    Ash Housewares IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    Messages:
    21,802
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    467
  3. DurfBarian

    DurfBarian IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    9,707
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    467
    If we ban it we need to ban it retroactively and get up-or-down votes on all the judge nominees Clinton put up. Oh, and Papa Bush. And Reagan. And Carter, Ford, Nixon . . . Go back far enough and most of the nominees will be sacks of bones in a graveyard somewhere, but dammit, they still deserve a vote!The Repubs/Dems have gone too far in filibustering just to serve their conservative/liberal scheming!

    It's an old tradition that serves the purpose of keeping a balance of powers in government. The Republicans have about as much business whining about its use as the Democrats have whining about increased spending programs from the Bush administration.

    :thumbsup:
     
  4. jmervyn

    jmervyn IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,277
    Likes Received:
    368
    Trophy Points:
    498
    What Ash said. Can I get a Freet-lock?
     
  5. kryo

    kryo IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Only the Democrats have ever tried to apply the filibuster to judicial nominees (and that's the "new" abuse that is subject to banning, not the filibuster in entirety).

    The Republicans have only ever kept the nominees in committee indefinitely--which, while just as annoying, is a perfectly legitimate (constitutional) tactic... the Dems could do it too if they got a majority on the committee. But they can't right now, so they have no right/ability to deny a vote.
     
  6. jimmyboy

    jimmyboy IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,551
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Why is a "judicial" fillabuster unconstitutional whereas a fillibuster on other issues legit?
     
  7. kryo

    kryo IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    42
    The full Senate's role in judicial nominations is to advise and consent (or decline). It was never intended that nominees could be held up indefinitely once they were passed from committee to the Senate floor. Thus if you want to stop a nominee, get a majority on the committee. That method already exists and is perfectly legitimate.

    Holding the nominations indefinitely as is being done now only serves to backlog the courts (being judgeless) even worse than they already are. If they were approved, they could start work, and if they were denied, someone else could be nominated. As it stands though, their jobs go undone.
     
  8. maccool

    maccool IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    165
    You mean the 47 vacancies currently, as opposed to the 96 vacancies when Bush took office in 2001? And because everyone needs a little Clin-Ton, in 1999, there were 67 vacancies. dirty commies

    You'd be better off saying that the increase in the number of federal cases has led to the backlog instead of watching commercials on TV and then parrotting them here.
     
  9. Johnny

    Johnny Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    9,101
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Living in a country where the parties doesnt make commersilas to counter eachother and where they barely make any commersials to advertise thier own existance I found it unbellivable at first til I saw the republicans anti Kerry TV commersial on a webpage where some guy runs around at a wedding kissing other people and other wierd things.

    What a huge waste of money.
     
  10. KillerAim

    KillerAim IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,348
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    121
    jimmyboy:
    Neither are unconstitutional, however there is some logic behind arguing that a filibuster over legislation makes more sense then a filibuster over the appointment of a judge or Cabinet position.

    A threat of a filibuster or an actual filibuster itself could easily lead to a modification of the proposed legislation via amendments or re-writes. In other words, the majority might be able to sway enough of the minority to go along with the bill if they modify its wording. Compromise is the rule in this case.

    This can’t be the case with a judge. The majority cannot offer a compromise; the Senate either approves or rejects each candidate. That is why the Republicans now argue that judges deserve an "up or down" vote. It is also the same argument used by the major players in the Democratic Party just a few years ago when they were in power.
     
  11. jimmyboy

    jimmyboy IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,551
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Sure you want to stick with this answer?
     

Share This Page