ibenez wrote:
] ] WASHINGTON - The Senate's top leaders have ended their
] ] attempt to find a compromise on
] ] President Bush's stalled judicial nominees, but other
] ] members continued to work on a possible deal to clear
] ] five blocked appeals court appointees and end threats to
] ] change the long-standing filibuster rules.
]
] Just let them vote. If you don't like the nominee, vote down.
] Republicans were guilty of this same thing just a few years
] back - but Democrats/liberals are taking this to a new level.
]
] But this just reinforces the notion that maybe, yeah, we do
] need to change the rules so that losers from either side can't
] filibuster everything. WTF do these people even get paid for
] anymore if they aren't working?

I don't agree. I think the "just vote" story is spin. There is really nothing that elevates voting above the rest of the procedural system other then that its currently in the interest of the Republicans.

If your nominee is so divisive that you can't even get 5 people from the other party to agree to them after making a national issue out of it for months, that person probably shouldn't be a federal judge. I don't really want radical judges. This isn't supposed to be about picking people who will pursue a partisan agenda. I'd prefer to have moderate, professional judges that most people can plainly see are simply going to do a good job. Requiring a 60% majority of the Senate is a good way to ensure that the justice system isn't abused for partisan purposes.

Decius wrote:
] ibenez wrote:
] ] ] WASHINGTON - The Senate's top leaders have ended their
] ] ] attempt to find a compromise on
] ] ] President Bush's stalled judicial nominees, but other
] ] ] members continued to work on a possible deal to clear
] ] ] five blocked appeals court appointees and end threats to
] ] ] change the long-standing filibuster rules.
] ]
] ] Just let them vote. If you don't like the nominee, vote
] down.
] ] Republicans were guilty of this same thing just a few years
] ] back - but Democrats/liberals are taking this to a new
] level.
] ]
] ] But this just reinforces the notion that maybe, yeah, we do
] ] need to change the rules so that losers from either side
] can't
] ] filibuster everything. WTF do these people even get paid for
]
] ] anymore if they aren't working?
]
] I don't agree. I think the "just vote" story is spin. There is
] really nothing that elevates voting above the rest of the
] procedural system other then that its currently in the
] interest of the Republicans.

Ehh... I tend not to agree with you. I think that most of the nominees have nothing wrong with them - but Democrats will block ANYTHING that comes from the Republicans. This is the problem I have.

Don't get me wrong, it was only a few short years ago that Republicans did the same cowardly thing the liberals are doing now.

What is a filibuster anyways? It's someone saying - Hey, if we vote on this it won't turn out the way we want it to. We'll tough s@#t - go home and cry to your mother is what I say.

I am in favor of the nuclear option - and as soon as the tables are turned and Republicans are filibustering, I'm STILL in favor of it. Vote up or down (or as PDiddy would say - Vote or Die bizatch).
]
] If your nominee is so divisive that you can't even get 5
] people from the other party to agree to them after making a
] national issue out of it for months, that person probably
] shouldn't be a federal judge. I don't really want radical
] judges. This isn't supposed to be about picking people who
] will pursue a partisan agenda. I'd prefer to have moderate,
] professional judges that most people can plainly see are
] simply going to do a good job. Requiring a 60% majority of the
] Senate is a good way to ensure that the justice system isn't
] abused for partisan purposes.

ibenez wrote:

] Ehh... I tend not to agree with you. I think that most of the
] nominees have nothing wrong with them - but Democrats will
] block ANYTHING that comes from the Republicans. This is the
] problem I have.

They are not fillibustering "everything." They are passing bills left and right. They confirmed 204 of Bush's 214 appointments, including Alberto Gonzales, despite significant questions about his legal counsel on torture, and have offered to back down on a large number of nominees that were previously blocked. They are letting a slew of other things pass under the bridge because they are focused on two specific nominees who they see as too radical.

They are the minority party. They have to choose their fights very carefully. They've chosen these fights because they see these nominees as too extreme and the positions as too important. The Republicans should not assume that simple majority is the same as having 100% of the Senate. The Dems are actually going to fight the Republicans on something. This is that something.