Subject:
|
Re: It must be just me...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 5 Sep 2003 16:48:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
158 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> > Or are the conservatives of America all doing their best to raise a stink
> > about anythinkg to deflect attention from the man in charge.
> >
> > Between the California recall (and the resultant circus thereof) to the 10
> > commandments in a courthouse...
>
> I don't have much time for elaborate conspiracy theories, but something has
> occurred to me in all of this. Democrats have approved all but a tiny handful
> of Dubya's judicial appointees, and Republicans are howling about the few who've
> been stalled (e.g., Estrada, Owen, and Pryor).
I think what *I'm* howling about (to the extent that I'm howling) is the
process.
In my view, the filibuster has been subverted. In the olden days, if you felt
strongly about something, you filibustered and it brought ALL BUSINESS in the
senate to a stop. It meant something pretty serious, and other senators would
look hard at what you were saying and if they disagreed, invoke cloture and that
would be that, and senate business would go on. Or if they could not invoke
cloture (the 3/5 majority rule to stop debate), everything came to a halt till
the issue was resolved, which forced some sort of compromise to be reached as it
had a dramatic impact on overall operations.
NOW, the filibuster is a much more precise weapon. It doesn't bring *everything*
to a stop, just whatever it is that you don't like. Very neat, very tidy, very
convenient.
And very wrong, I think. (1)
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the notion that everything (potentially) needs
a 60 vote margin to approve, but only if someone feels like filibustering, else
it needs 51. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the notion that "consent of the
senate" to appointees == 60 votes sometimes and 51 sometimes. To me it seems to
mean 51 all the time, not 60 some of the time.
But as to the republicans complaining about their nominees being held up for two
years plus... I'm not sure I'm sympathetic. Turnabout is fair play after all.
1 - At least I think I think it is. Convince me differently. You (whoever you
are) may use the fact that I've in the past suggested that a 1/3 +1 was a good
threshold to eliminate laws and 2/3 +1 a good threshold to enact them. But make
sure you explain away the inconsistency of sometimes 51 and sometimes 60
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: It must be just me...
|
| (...) I don't have much time for elaborate conspiracy theories, but something has occurred to me in all of this. Democrats have approved all but a tiny handful of Dubya's judicial appointees, and Republicans are howling about the few who've been (...) (21 years ago, 4-Sep-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
