12-05-2005 01:00									#61
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

... or filibuster the crazy ones .

Your example is silly though. Every Bush appointee save 10 (IIRC) have been confirmed, and by decent margins.

	12-05-2005 02:15									#62
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi Hopefully, the Republicans will still have a simple majority in the Senate by which they can block them. If the Democrats hold both the Presidency and the Senate, then yes they can go ahead and appoint those liberal judges.

So do you draw a distinction between Judicial nominees being filibustered, and being killed in committee? Do you believe that every nominee deserves an up-or-down vote? If there is a difference between a nominee failing in committee, and failing in a filibuster, what is it, pray tell?

And just for comparisons sake, here's a quote from Chuck Hagel: "The Republicans' hands aren't clean on this either. What we did with Bill Clinton's nominees - about 62 of them - we just didn't give them votes in committee or we didn't bring them up."

So, let's break down the logic of some on the right:

Democrats = bad, because they're filibustering 10 of Bush's nominees, and denying them an up or down vote.
Republicans = good, because they bravely blocked 62 of Clinton's nominees from destroying the America we know and love.

Or am I wrong?

	12-05-2005 02:25									#63
	Suffering from ads?

What you have to remember is that the Republicans were the majority party in the Senate. If they were being blocked in committee because they did not realalistically stand a chance of being approved by the Senate, then that's fine. Blocking unfavorable bills and motions in committee is a regular practice done by both parties.

Is this an abuse of majority power? Possibly. But the party that the people gave a majority to through elections controlling the business of the Congress is not anywhere near as big a problem of a minority having an unconditional right to block whatever it feels like.

Oh, and I would still like an answer from someone besides Imran, who has shown he has a very consistent position, if they would still treasure the filibuster as much in the context of the scenario I posted earlier, with the filibuster sucsessfully blocking the Civil Rights Act.

	12-05-2005 02:29									#64
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: What you have to remember is that the Republicans were the majority party in the Senate. If they were being blocked in committee because they did not realalistically stand a chance of being approved by the Senate, then that's fine.

Bullshit. Most of them would have passed in the full Senate, which is why the Republicans used the blue-slip, where one Senator from the state where the court was in could shelve the person in commitee. It was a filibuster of one.

	12-05-2005 02:48									#65
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi What you have to remember is that the Republicans were the majority party in the Senate. If they were being blocked in committee because they did not realalistically stand a chance of being approved by the Senate, then that's fine. Blocking unfavorable bills and motions in committee is a regular practice done by both parties.

There are a few problems with this argument as I see it. First, while they may not have been approved in an up or down vote, we don't really know, because they didn't have an up or down vote.. Along the same lines, partyline votes, while increasing of late, are still rather rare. Democrats like Lieberman and Miller (though some may not consider them Democrats) have a history of voting with Republicans. Similarly, there are Republican senators who do not always stick to party line votes.

The second problem concerns the idea of regular practice. Yes, blocking bills is regularly done in committee. However, on a Democratic level, what is the difference between that and the filibuster? Both involve using Senate rules to achieve an undemocratic end. Regardless of whether or not that is a good end, I don't think that you can hold a consistent position if you favor death-through-committee, but oppose the filibuster.

quote: Oh, and I would still like an answer from someone besides Imran, who has shown he has a very consistent position, if they would still treasure the filibuster as much in the context of the scenario I posted earlier, with the filibuster sucsessfully blocking the Civil Rights Act.

Again, two points. First, there has been no mention of legislative filibusters. The nuclear option is solely designed to prevent filibusters of judicial nominees. As such, your example is not really relevent.

Second, where do you draw the line between respect for an institution, and doing the Right Thing? If we say, "here is clearly evil, we are justified in changing the rules," to us we may be doing the Right Thing, but others may disagree. Others may also do the same, and attempt to change the rules so that they could do the Right Thing, which we might oppose. In the particular example, this debate is driven by the Christian Right. They consider abortion to be one of the great evils of our time, and may rank it more important than they would have ranked Civil Rights.

My point is that there is no outside, objective group that can go and draw the line. Therefore, we are presented with only two options: having the rules be always changable, which is to say having no rules; or, respecting the rules, even if we disagree with the positions they put us into. It is for this reason that I will always support the filibuster, even if I may disagree with those who wield it. To answer your question, yes, yes I would, yes.

	12-05-2005 02:49									#66
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Does the Blue Slip apply to court of Appeals or just District Court? IIRC it applies to district court where the Senior Senator can block a judicial nominee for judges in his home state. I don't think that's quite as bad, since the judicial districts are in that state and the senator is democratically elected from that state. I don't agree with having the Blue Slip, though, since the federal judiciary should be decided by the full congress IMO and shouldn't be subject to one Senator's motion. I would say though the blue slip at least has some democratic justification, unlike filibustering court of appeals justices.

	12-05-2005 02:52									#67
	Support Apolyton

quote: I don't think that's quite as bad, since the judicial districts are in that state and the senator is democratically elected from that state.

So a filibuster of 1 isn't as bad as a filibuster of 40? I think you are showing your political bias heavily.

(PS, the blue slip also applied to Circuit Court Justices)

edit:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/blueslips.htm

Here is a listing of 2003 blue slips... see where they applied to Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal?

	12-05-2005 03:00									#68
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: What you have to remember is that the Republicans were the majority party in the Senate

What you have to remember is that the Democrats (+Jeffords who voted for Daschle as Majority Leader) were in the majority for the first couple years of Bush's term. And while they had that majority, they didn't enforce Hatch's Clinton-era blue slip rule (Hatch changed his mind with the new President). Incidentally, the Dems were in the majority for the first two years of Clinton's terms as well.

quote: Oh, and I would still like an answer from someone besides Imran, who has shown he has a very consistent position, if they would still treasure the filibuster as much in the context of the scenario I posted earlier, with the filibuster sucsessfully blocking the Civil Rights Act.

Every single legislative procedure, whether defending legislative minorities or supporting legislative majorities, can be used for good things and for bad things. The filibuster included.

What I'm wondering is why the simple majority must always get its way in an institution that over-represents less populated states and doesn't even represent DC? It's an absurd contrivance.

Personally, I'd like to axe the Senate altogether and replace it with a PR body (the House staying FPTP).

	12-05-2005 03:00									#69
	Inflate your Upload Space

"
The second problem concerns the idea of regular practice. Yes, blocking bills is regularly done in committee. However, on a Democratic level, what is the difference between that and the filibuster? Both involve using Senate rules to achieve an undemocratic end. Regardless of whether or not that is a good end, I don't think that you can hold a consistent position if you favor death-through-committee, but oppose the filibuster."

You need to somebody to control the Agenda of the Congress though, the order in which Congress does business. I don't think the power of committees is quite the same thing as the power of the filibuster though, as majority power, and the privileges of controlling the agenda, is something that is only obtained through the consent of the people by election. The filibuster, OTOH, is something that is there whereby people can stop any bill or nomination they want to in spite of their losing the elections for the Senate majority.

Now, committee power is abused plenty of times, and I do think there is an obligation to give a presiden't nominees an up-or-down vote, which in the past has not been the case, but ought to be the case. But I don't think as bad an abuse because commitee power is something your party needs to be elected into.

	12-05-2005 03:02									#70
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I'm glad Ramo slept it off.

	12-05-2005 03:04									#71
	Tired of ads?

Still hurting... Worst hangover I've ever had.

	12-05-2005 03:13									#72
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Dem Senators outnumber GOP Senators in the number of people they represent. So if you're going to appeal to popular sovereignty, the Dems should control the Senate. And so all these whackjob judicial appointments ought to be killed.

	12-05-2005 03:14									#73
	Increase Your PM Length

"
So a filibuster of 1 isn't as bad as a filibuster of 40? I think you are showing your political bias heavily."

As I said, in the case when the Senator is the democratically elected leader from the State where the nomination is, then no.

"
What I'm wondering is why the simple majority must always get its way in an institution that over-represents less populated states and doesn't even represent DC? It's an absurd contrivance."

In any FPTP system you are not going to have perfect equality between the seats. In Britain the amount of constituents per seat varies greatly by district and Gibraltar doesn't have MPs, but that doesn't mean they allow minorities to block legislation randomly. There might be imperfection in democracy when you have a good reason for doing so, such as preserving State's rights or whatever, but just because you have an imperfectly democratic body doesn't mean you just go an adding more restrictions agaisnt majority rule without good reason for doing so. Requiring a 3/5 majority for passage of a bill or approval of a nomination is an absurdly high threshold.

	12-05-2005 03:17									#74
	Support Apolyton

quote: As I said, in the case when the Senator is the democratically elected leader from the State where the nomination is, then no.

'Then no'?! I'll quote myself again:

quote: I think you are showing your political bias heavily.

You are being a hack. If it was the other way around, you'd be yelling to the rafters that the filibuster is so important.

	12-05-2005 03:20									#75
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: In any FPTP system you are not going to have perfect equality between the seats. In Britain the amount of constituents per seat varies greatly by district and Gibraltar doesn't have MPs, but that doesn't mean they allow minorities to block legislation randomly. There might be imperfection in democracy when you have a good reason for doing so, such as preserving State's rights or whatever, but just because you have an imperfectly democratic body doesn't mean you just go an adding more restrictions agaisnt majority rule without good reason for doing so. Requiring a 3/5 majority for passage of a bill or approval of a nomination is an absurdly high threshold.

No, the reason for the Republican over-represenation has absolutely nothing to do with FPTP. It has to do with the retarded rules that treat every state equally regardless of population that made the Senate the states' house rather than the peoples' house. I don't think there should be a states' house. But I don't see why on majoritarian principles, the simple majority must always win in the states' house.

And what makes 3/5 "absurdly high?"

quote: As I said, in the case when the Senator is the democratically elected leader from the State where the nomination is, then no.

These are federal courts, Shi. The people of California didn't vote for Santorum. Why did he have the right to kill a nominee? And under Hatch's rule, either Senator could kill a nominee - so if the states' Senators disagreed, the nominee gets screwed.

	12-05-2005 03:27									#76
	Increase Your PM Length

And I don't see why "states' rights" is a good reason for an imperfection in democracy, while giving strong legislative minorities a little bit of influence in how judicial appointments are made is a bad "imperfection in democracy."

	12-05-2005 03:29									#77
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Ramo And I don't see why "states' rights" is a good reason for an imperfection in democracy, while giving strong legislative minorities a little bit of influence in how judicial appointments are made is a bad "imperfection in democracy."

And I'm consistent in that I approve both imperfections .

	12-05-2005 03:30									#78
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

If I were being a hack, I would say I agreed with the blue-slip policy, which I said I don't. I think both are bad.

There is a good reason, however, to make a distinction between the blue slip and the filibuster- The Blue slip effect the judiciary in one state on the basis of what the elected senior Senator of that State said, as opposed to the filibuster whereby even a national judge(SCOTUS) can be blocked by a 2/5 +1 minority of the national Senators. You're just resorting to insults now.

So far your argument in favor of the filibuster have just been tradition, civility in the Senate, and that a minority of 41 being able to block anything the majority wants is a good thing to have so the majority doesn't run over the minority. That's fine if you think those are good reasons. But any other means by which we don't have pure democracy such as the blue slip or the Senate representing States doesn't mean we should have additional anti-democratic measures such as the filibuster.

Obviously we don't have perfect and pure democracy. One way in which we restrict is by having representatives instead of direct democracy. Another is allowing representation by State. I don't deny in that some cases it can be alright to have some anti-democratic elements, such as representatives instead of just letting the people vote on anything. But just because we have some anti-democratic elements doesn't justify forgetting about the whole concept and introducing unneccesary ones such as the filibuster.

	12-05-2005 03:32									#79
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui You are being a hack. If it was the other way around, you'd be yelling to the rafters that the filibuster is so important.

Given that he's parroting the same arguements Dems were using (The reason I said that he was in good Democratic company) against the filibuster in general and the Republicans killing Judicial nominees in committee. I'd say that is a safe assumption.

	12-05-2005 03:33									#80
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

"And I don't see why "states' rights" is a good reason for an imperfection in democracy, while giving strong legislative minorities a little bit of influence in how judicial appointments are made is a bad "imperfection in democracy.""

IF you want to argue whether having a Senate represented by State's is a legitimate perfection, that's a seperate topic. I don't see though why you support additioanl imperfections on top of the ones we already have though.

	12-05-2005 03:37									#81
	Inflate your Upload Space

It's not a separate topic. The rules are such that Republicans are over-represented in the Senate. Why should the simple majority always get its way in a body where the deck is stacked against the Democrats? The nuclear option's a shameless power grab.

	12-05-2005 03:40									#82
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: And I'm consistent in that I approve both imperfections

There are probably some imperfections in democracy that you don't support though. Has nothign to do with consistency.

	12-05-2005 03:41									#83
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: There is a good reason, however, to make a distinction between the blue slip and the filibuster

You continue on your path to partisan hackery...

quote: The Blue slip effect the judiciary in one state on the basis of what the elected senior Senator of that State said, as opposed to the filibuster whereby even a national judge(SCOTUS) can be blocked by a 2/5 +1 minority of the national Senators. You're just resorting to insults now.

I've already shown you that the blue slip applied to Circuit Court of Appeals. The blue slip has been used against Circuit judges MUCH more than they've been filibustered.

2/5+1 minority is far more democratic than one Senator in the state, whether District or Circuit. These are FEDERAL Judges, not State Judges. They deal with federal law. By saying it affects the judiciary in one state is being disingenous.

	12-05-2005 03:43									#84
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ramo Still hurting... Worst hangover I've ever had.

Please tell me that exams are over for you.

	12-05-2005 03:44									#85
	Increase Your PM Length

And again, under Hatch's rules during the Clinton era, either Senator could kill a nomination.

Last edited by Ramo on 12-05-2005 at 03:49

	12-05-2005 03:47									#86
	Tired of ads?

Two more to go. Both easy. Luckily this morning's final was really easy with a lot more time than was necessary. I had to convalesce for the first hour or so before I could do any coherent thinking (I threw up - first time ever from alcohol - a couple minutes before taking the test).

	12-05-2005 03:54									#87
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

"It's not a separate topic. The rules are such that Republicans are over-represented in the Senate. Why should the simple majority always get its way in a body where the deck is stacked against the Democrats? "

Again Ramo, what you are saying is because we have one imperection in democracy(unequal size of electoral districts), why not have another one(you need 60% to pass anything). Using that logic you may as well say becaus we have representative allowing for the passage of bills that people might not support, why not just have a king who rules by decree?

Something being more democratic is an argument in favor of something. In any case, there could be arguments against it which could overrule it- in the case of direct democracy it isn't very practical to do that most of the time, which we take to overrule the fact that direct democracy is more democratic. But I don't see any of the arguments in favor of the filibuster as justifiying the sacrifice to democracy it causes.

I don't really so how with your ideology you support the filibuster on principle, other then you like it's results given the current makeup of the Senate. If that is the case, I have no problem with that, but don't go upholding the filibuster like it some great American institution.


"
I've already shown you that the blue slip applied to Circuit Court of Appeals. The blue slip has been used against Circuit judges MUCH more than they've been filibustered."

OK. For the Circuit courts, that is also a problem that they don't get up and down votes, and I have said multiple times I don't approve of the blue slip. But even still, there is at least some(although weak) Justification so long as the blue slip privilege is applied constituency since the Senator is still from the area and the whole Senate isn't from the area. The filibuster, OTOH, could be applied to SCOTUS(as the Dems have said there would be if a pro-lifer is nominated), of which the whole Senate is a part, and of which is there no reason for one particualr senator have more say then another particular Senator.

	12-05-2005 03:56									#88
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Ramo Two more to go. Both easy. Luckily this morning's final was really easy with a lot more time than was necessary. I had to convalesce for the first hour or so before I could do any coherent thinking (I threw up - first time ever from alcohol - a couple minutes before taking the test).

Why would you get that drunk during Finals week and not after?

	12-05-2005 07:18									#89
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Who says you can't do both?

quote: But even still, there is at least some(although weak) Justification so long as the blue slip privilege is applied constituency since the Senator is still from the area and the whole Senate isn't from the area.

No, there isn't. Not even weak justification. These are federal judges, the not state judges.

	12-05-2005 07:22									#90
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Who says you can't do both?

This might be a good reason: I had to convalesce for the first hour or so before I could do any coherent thinking (I threw up - first time ever from alcohol - a couple minutes before taking the test).