 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001
time: 21:18
|
|
They had a majority of like one or two seats. As you may remember 10 years ago the Republicans weren't very disciplined, especially in the Senate, which meant that Democrats could count on several defecting and voting their way. As I recall it was the pro-life crowd which was mad about Clinton nominating pro-choice judges and who were afraid pro-choice Republicans would vote for them.
Basically, it was expected that moderate Republicans would vote yes and the far right wanted to stop those votes from happening. They did this on a much wider scale then Democrats have been doing to Bush yet no one complained as it was just a fair part of living in a democracy. Now all the sudden the far right is claiming their same tactic is undemocratic? I say something smells rotten in Denmark.
Last edited by Oerdin on 18-11-2004 at 13:17
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Oerdin, you still have not answered the question about how the Republicans, with a majority "blocked" Clinton's appointees other than by not confirming them through a vote in the Senate. The opening post was not about whether the nominees were confirmed or not, it is about whether the Republicans were twarting democracy by DEMANDING a VOTE. |
He did answer it. They didn't want a vote because it was very likely the Judges *would* get confirmed. The Moderate Republicans would have sided with the Democrats in all likelihood. Hence the more conservative Republicans worked to make sure that no vote happened. They succeeded quite often.
On a more general note, the 60-vote requirement to overturn a filibuster is important. Since we only have two parties, it is too easy to get a one-party majority in the Senate. This one party does not in fact represent the American people very well, because we are too varied for a two-party system to recognize us. Hence a 60-vote requirement works to make sure the American people are better represented. It isn't perfect, but we'd have to go to a multi-party system to do better.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gatekeeper
I remember when the Dallas Cowboys were all-powerful in the 1990s ... their owner basically told the NFL to f*ck off when it came to profit sharing agreements he had with the league because his team was No. 1 at the time and a marketing gold mine. Then their twilight came, as it inevitably does, and now the Cowboys are just another NFL team (and a rather bad one this season so far).
My point? The Republicans are playing the same game now, and they're going to live to regret it. Unless, of course, they succeed in completing the subversion of the government at the federal level to ensure their grip on power, ala Mexico for many, many decades. (And we all see how Mexico benefited from one-party rule ...) In that case, all Americans — except for those with the right connections — will live to regret it.
Gatekeeper |
Good point.
How can the check and balances between the judicial, executive, and legislative branches function if one political party controls all three?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Last Conformist
Nah. You'd just get coalitions with 1-5 point majorities. |
No crap, but those are *coalitions* of multiple parties, and hence better represent the make-up of America. Coalitions can have members disagree with each other much more easily than a single party can as well. It is extremely unlikely a coalition would ever get into the position the Republicans are currently in, where every member of every coalition party is pressured to toe the line.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Oerdin, you still have not answered the question about how the Republicans, with a majority "blocked" Clinton's appointees other than by not confirming them through a vote in the Senate. The opening post was not about whether the nominees were confirmed or not, it is about whether the Republicans were twarting democracy by DEMANDING a VOTE. |
I'm kind of fond of the idea the founding fathers had against limiting absolute power to prevent tyranny. At this point, I say let the Republicans have everything they want so 20 years from now I can say I told you so from my secret hiding place in the last supposedly free territory. Antartica.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-11-2004 09:18
|