02-08-2005 23:12									#91
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by shawnmmcc No - a filibuster is NOT a delaying tactic. A filibuster is a tactic used by a strong minority to exercise an de facto veto power over actions they consider not in the best interest of the American people - you and I may disagree with their interpretation, but that is the reason for it.

Seems you and I will part company on this one. Lets go to wikipedia for an impartial ruling

quote: Filibuster - In a legislature or other decision making body, a filibuster is an attempt to obstruct a particular decision from being taken by using up the time available, typically through an extremely long speech. The term first came into use in the United States Senate, where senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose. The term comes from the early 17th century, where Buccaneers were known in England as filibusters. This term had evolved from the Spanish filibustero which had come from the French word flibustier, which again evolved from the Dutch vrybuiter (freebooter). A similar form of parliamentary obstruction practiced in the United States and other countries is called "slow walking". It specifically refers to the extremely slow speed with which legislators walk to the podium to cast their ballots. For example, in South Korea this tactic is known as a "cow walk" . In general it refers to the intentional delay of the normal business of the legislature [1].

No mention of defacto veto. Plenty of mention of obstructionist tactics to chew up a given time frame. seems that fits the bill quite nicely to a delaying tactic.

quote: Secondly, the Constitution tasks the legislative chambers to come up with their own rules. Thus to claim that only when they vote are they exercising their constitutional responsibility is bogus. The parliamentary rules are critical, as the framers of the constitution understood, and you evidently do not.

Yes the framers of the constitution allowed for the legislative to come up with t heir own rules. But that in of itself does not release the Senate of its obligation to actually VOTE on the obligations actually set forth inthe consitution. As a filibuster is NOT a vote but a delaying measure it is NOT a vote and hence is an abidcationof it's responsibilities.

quote: Thirdly, the Senators were never ambassadors and that was never the intent. They were part of a legislative body. Say it again three time slowly. Legislative. The purpose of the Senate was to protect the minority, in this case seen as smaller states, from the unfettered will of the majority. That and the Bill of Rights were both critical parts of the system. At the time fear of the mob mentality - after the example in France - caused the framers of the Constitution to add in layers between the will of the people and direct election. It worked at the time, and made some sense after that horrendous example of mob rule had occured.

AU contraire as long as we are talking about the French Revolution, they most certainly wer amabassadors fromthe states to the federal governement. As such that is why they were tasked with roles of declaration of war etc. that fell more to the sovereign rights of the states. Theirs was not the mundane tasks delegated to the House but moreover they were supposed to be delegates of the sovereign states who being skilled in statesmanship would be knowledgeable enough to make decision for their states and how they fit into the larger world picture.

quote: Even if it was the 1975 versus 1972 - I would have to research it, you misrepresent what I said. I said even for such a good cause as the Civil Rights laws (passed so murderers in the South could be brought to justice, in part) and anti-lynching laws, I found the precedent disturbing. D-I-S-T-U-R-B-I-N-G. We agree on that. Now, do you find the Republican attempt equally disturbing? And for substantially less cause.

No I don't agree on that. Legally speaking it speaks loudly that we had a bunch of dunderheads all those years who didn't act appropriately.

What I find distrubing is that if the constitutional option would have been invoked and should have been invoked lo all those years past we could well have avoided or at least prosecuted to the full extent of the law such travesties as lynching. to continue to support the archaic and hopelessly broken system called the senate rules.

quote: So if a simple up or down vote would have caused all of Clinton's nominees to be defeated, why didn't the Republicans give them the vote? Obviously because at least some of the nominees, perhaps most, could have passed on the floor. That they did not want because they were hoping to win the next Presidential election against Al Gore, who they rightly realized was a flawed candidate.

Thats suppositional. The reason it didn't air in the light of day(in other words Never came to an up or down vote) was that it allowed the republicans a means for these issues to be swept under the carpet without being further tarred with the obstructionist brush.

quote: You don't respond to my point about the only way these rule changes can be stopped. For one party, upon taking the majority control, to get together with the minority to guarantee that, via Senate rulemaking, that these end-runs around parliamentary procedures do not continue to happen. Of course each party loves to play majority partisan games, so it won't happen. If you wish, no Missouri compromise in the near future.

The precedents have been done, the dies have been cast unfortunately. Now that the Dems in 75 and other cases have done the damage it unfortunately is a reap what you sow situation. But as usual it will be the Repubs that garner all the negative press for political machinations.

	02-08-2005 23:14									#92
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui How in the world is blocking nominees an abdication of the Advice and Consent responsibilities?! Which rhetoric has come up with that whopper? It's a good part of those responsibilities, I'd think. Probably one of the reasons it was put with the Senate was because the Senate was created as the place for compromise. I would think that a deeply divisive canidate, that has even pissed off a few Republican Senators, would be suitable for blockage. Furthermore, the entire "Blue Slip" policy done by Republican leadership would be considered far more obstructionist and should be considered by you to be a far greater 'abdication of responsibility'.

Agreed completely. That is a NAY vote. Filibuster on the other hand is not a vote on the nominee.

As for the blue slip policy of Hatch I beleive I already alluded to the fact this was one of the reasons I dropped Republican affiliation.

	02-08-2005 23:18									#93
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe Agreed completely. That is a NAY vote. Filibuster on the other hand is not a vote on the nominee.

Doesn't matter. We've decided a looong time ago that Advise and Consent doesn't have to mean you actually put the person to a vote. The Dems are just trying to block nominees in a different way than the Republicans did in the 90s, and different in what was done in the 80s, 70s, etc. But what ties all of them together is that no vote was held in the full Senate.

	02-08-2005 23:23									#94
	Suffering from ads?

Sure it does. Delay is not the same actual advise/consent Yey or Nay. It can be construed potentially as Nay but is quite indeterminant.

And by the by who decided long ago?

	02-08-2005 23:36									#95
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe Sure it does. Delay is not the same actual advise/consent Yey or Nay. It can be construed potentially as Nay but is quite indeterminant.

Of course it is. Nothing said there even had to be a Yea/Nay. The delay (or de facto legislative veto, which mrmitchell is quite right that it is) is part of advising. That this individual is not fit at this time (or ever).

quote: And by the by who decided long ago?

By Senate traditions which evolved into allowing the blocking of people that one party didn't like.

The tendancy for one party to block nominees/appointees of another party has its beginnings in the Midnight Judges of John Adams and the refusal to give the appointees their positions by Secretary of State James Madison (for solely political reasons). This ended up in the case of Marbury v. Madison.

	03-08-2005 00:01									#96
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Of course it is. Nothing said there even had to be a Yea/Nay. The delay (or de facto legislative veto, which mrmitchell is quite right that it is) is part of advising. That this individual is not fit at this time (or ever).

Absolutely incorrect. The delay simply means that no decision has been rendered. Where you guys come up with defacto veto is beyond me.

It is akin if you will to a hung jury. (cepting in the hung jury case at least teh individual jurors have rendered a decision whilst in the case of the filibuster that has not taken place. So in the case of a hung jury the indivduals have done their service to the court while the Senators most definetly have NOT.) No decision rendered. Hence no advice or consent. Black or white its that freakin simple.

The point that it has been used in the past as a means to forestall the decision until a more conducive time means very little within the context of the senates advise/consent obligations. It simply means the parties have in times past simlarly abdicated their consitutional responsibilities.

Something the Senate seems most capable of doing in the case of hard decisions like declarations of war and the like. To crow about it seems like taking pride in being chickenshit.

quote: By Senate traditions which evolved into allowing the blocking of people that one party didn't like. The tendancy for one party to block nominees/appointees of another party has its beginnings in the Midnight Judges of John Adams and the refusal to give the appointees their positions by Secretary of State James Madison (for solely political reasons). This ended up in the case of Marbury v. Madison.

Blocking as I indicated is not defacto veto or in anyway a NAY vote. As for Marbury v. Madison it is similarly clear that Marshall felt his oaths/obligations to uphold the constituion held the supreme court to uphold the constitution above all other laws. Simlarly those same oaths of fealty to the constitution bind the legislative and executive.

	03-08-2005 01:01									#97
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Absolutely incorrect. The delay simply means that no decision has been rendered. Where you guys come up with defacto veto is beyond me.

Oh please Ogie.

It is quite clearly a de facto legislative veto. The bill doesn't get voted on and before the rule changes it paralyzed the Senate. The only way to get around a filibuster is to change the law or change the Senators. You have to give in, stop pushing, or hope some other circumstances can change things.

If the Dems filibuster Bolton, does he get his spot outside of a recess appointment? And if he never got his spot because of a filibuster, wouldn't that be like a veto?

To merely call it a delay is being obtuse.

quote: No decision rendered. Hence no advice or consent. Black or white its that freakin simple.

Bullshit. You are simply reading into advise and consent what you want to because you want to slam the Democrats. It's that freaking simple.

A filibuster satisfies their obligations. It isn't to be a black check for the President. A filibuster of a nominee quite CLEARLY states that these people aren't happy the nominee so far. More stuff needs to come down the pike to allay the fears or else it won't be approved by them. You'd have to be blind not to see the message that is sent. And I'd definetly consider that to be advising the President.

quote: Simlarly those same oaths of fealty to the constitution bind the legislative and executive.

And the legislature has exercised them using the procedural tool of the filibuster. I see nothing wrong or anything close to an abdication of their responsibility in any of this. The message is quite clear and the advice is something the President must heed.

	03-08-2005 01:13									#98
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Absolutely incorrect. The delay simply means that no decision has been rendered. Where you guys come up with defacto veto is beyond me. Oh please Ogie. It is quite clearly a de facto legislative veto. The bill doesn't get voted on and before the rule changes it paralyzed the Senate. The only way to get around a filibuster is to change the law or change the Senators. You have to give in, stop pushing, or hope some other circumstances can change things. If the Dems filibuster Bolton, does he get his spot outside of a recess appointment? And if he never got his spot because of a filibuster, wouldn't that be like a veto? To merely call it a delay is being obtuse.

Why would they be considered the same? There is no sense whatsoever of permanence in the (lack of) decision. That marks the difference between up/down and filibuster. A filibustered nominee presumably can be brought to the floor at any time teh situation allows or changes.

In the case of a definitive NAY vote the nominee in order to get posted to the position would require teh executive renominate if and when teh situation were to change.

One speaks volumes to lack of decision teh other speaks loudly to a negative decision requiring other or additional actions of the executive.

I would have thought legal parsing and hairsplitting would be more becoming of you by this time counselor.

quote: quote: No decision rendered. Hence no advice or consent. Black or white its that freakin simple. Bullshit. You are simply reading into advise and consent what you want to because you want to slam the Democrats. It's that freaking simple. A filibuster satisfies their obligations. It isn't to be a black check for the President. A filibuster of a nominee quite CLEARLY states that these people aren't happy the nominee so far. More stuff needs to come down the pike to allay the fears or else it won't be approved by them. You'd have to be blind not to see the message that is sent. And I'd definetly consider that to be advising the President.

Nope. Until teh measure is addressed specifically tothe nominee and not the procedure the issue is not addressed in advise/consent terms.

As for my partisanship 'gainst Dems. Damn straight I abhor them but that doesn't mean I don't hold the same amount of contempt for the repubs.

I simply find it easy pickins to stir up the vast left wing conspirators of 'poly by tweakin them on their typical anti-bush rants

What I do find more nauseating then anything else is the conduct of the Dems in the senate to call the recess appointment a gross abuse of power when it is their own gross incompetenace that precipitated teh whole affair.

quote: quote: Simlarly those same oaths of fealty to the constitution bind the legislative and executive. And the legislature has exercised them using the procedural tool of the filibuster. I see nothing wrong or anything close to an abdication of their responsibility in any of this. The message is quite clear and the advice is something the President must heed.

Nope until the vote comes down they have not decided anything on the appointment but instead have putzed around issues of procedure which are not one in the same.

	03-08-2005 01:34									#99
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: One speaks volumes to lack of decision teh other speaks loudly to a negative decision requiring other or additional actions of the executive.

Not at all. When there is a filibuster, I don't know who really think that means oh, there just isn't a decision here. People know that a bill or person filibustered has been denied by a strong minority.

Just because a Nay vote is a more loud pronouncement of disagreement doesn't mean that softer pronouncements of disagreement isn't actually saying anything.

It's quite obvious to all on Capital Hill what a filibuster means. It means 'no'.

quote: Until teh measure is addressed specifically tothe nominee and not the procedure the issue is not addressed in advise/consent terms.

Once again, bullshit. Advise and Consent has no specific definition and you are simply pushing a definition to make the Dems out to be the villans. There is no requirement that they actually vote on the nominee. They can advise by refusing to vote, which sends the same message.

Even if a nominee is tabled or blue slipped or filibuster (all tactics used by the Senate to deny votes on nominees) any half-brained President gets the message. He has been advised by the Senate that there are some problems with the nominee.

quote: Nope until the vote comes down they have not decided anything on the appointment but instead have putzed around issues of procedure which are not one in the same.

That 'putz[ing] around' is quite clear in what message it sends to the White House.

And since when is a vote absolutely required in Advise and Consent. If they consent, then yes, by all means. But in Advising the President? None is needed nor suggested.

	03-08-2005 01:39									#100
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe It don't work that way, son. Congress = House and Senate. House has NO say. Senate has advise and consent responsibilities, only (not nomination). Too bad they don't take their responsibilities seriously.

Hurrah for the BS response!

Did the Senate consent to Bolton as UN ambassador? ZOMFG THEY DIDN'T!!!1

	03-08-2005 01:55									#101
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui It's quite obvious to all on Capital Hill what a filibuster means. It means 'no'.

It actually signals not yet quite a bit different then NAY.

And Not Yet is not really a decision but a means to avoid making one.

quote: quote: Until teh measure is addressed specifically tothe nominee and not the procedure the issue is not addressed in advise/consent terms. Once again, bullshit. Advise and Consent has no specific definition and you are simply pushing a definition to make the Dems out to be the villans. There is no requirement that they actually vote on the nominee. They can advise by refusing to vote, which sends the same message. Even if a nominee is tabled or blue slipped or filibuster (all tactics used by the Senate to deny votes on nominees) any half-brained President gets the message. He has been advised by the Senate that there are some problems with the nominee.

Nope until the matter is concretely decided, not the measures that talk to whether all discussion is done or all evidence provided etc etc, the inference you make that senate has given advise/consent is simply that an inference not actual advise/consent.

quote: [q]Nope until the vote comes down they have not decided anything on the appointment but instead have putzed around issues of procedure which are not one in the same.[/q That 'putz[ing] around' is quite clear in what message it sends to the White House.

Its an inference not their responsibility. Similar to a rumor. BFD.

	03-08-2005 01:57									#102
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by joncha Hurrah for the BS response! Did the Senate consent to Bolton as UN ambassador? ZOMFG THEY DIDN'T!!!1

Precisely the slackards won't do their job.

	03-08-2005 01:57									#103
	Increase the size of your Attachments

So if they didn't consent then that means....?

	03-08-2005 01:59									#104
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by joncha So if they didn't consent then that means....?

They didn't do a damn thing.

	03-08-2005 02:03									#105
	Tired of ads?

Right, fine. So then John Bolton has the consent required? Oh, I guess he doesn't!

	03-08-2005 02:03									#106
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: One speaks volumes to lack of decision teh other speaks loudly to a negative decision requiring other or additional actions of the executive. Not at all. When there is a filibuster, I don't know who really think that means oh, there just isn't a decision here. People know that a bill or person filibustered has been denied by a strong minority.

What crack have you been smoking?

There have been any number of times the tactic was simply used as a horse trading manuever for some to get their way on other issues.

Filibuster means nothing other than delay.

	03-08-2005 02:04									#107
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by joncha Right, fine. So then John Bolton has the consent required? Oh, I guess he doesn't!

So lets pillary Bush when it's the Senate that has failed their responsibilities ehh?

	03-08-2005 02:07									#108
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Have they? I don't recall a deadline being part of advise and consent.

	03-08-2005 02:08									#109
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by joncha Have they? I don't recall a deadline being part of advise and consent.

Touche.

OTOH as an historical backdrop use of recess appointment is not call for the histrionics and crocodile tears the Senate Dems are shedding.

	03-08-2005 02:17									#110
	Support Apolyton

quote: Nope until the matter is concretely decided, not the measures that talk to whether all discussion is done or all evidence provided etc etc, the inference you make that senate has given advise/consent is simply that an inference not actual advise/consent.

You've done similar 'inference'. Actual advise/consent is open to interpretation and I'd think letting the President know that you don't approve by tabling, blue slip, or filibuster of a nominee fulfills that responsibility.

quote: Filibuster means nothing other than delay.

Bullshit. If filibuster meant only delay than you'd anticipate that once filibuster was over, the person or bill would get a vote. However, that has not always or mostly been the case. A bill or person filibustered has on plenty of occasions not come up for a vote ever. Hence, not a delay, unless you think that bills that have been filibustered and then dropped are still "on delay".

	03-08-2005 02:18									#111
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Guynemer And best of luck to you! I, of course, will be moving to Saskatoon, post-haste.

I'll help you find a place to live here

	03-08-2005 02:20									#112
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Filibuster means nothing other than delay. Bullshit. If filibuster meant only delay than you'd anticipate that once filibuster was over, the person or bill would get a vote. However, that has not been the case. A bill or person filibustered has on plenty of occasions not come up for a vote ever. Hence, not a delay, unless you think that bills that have been filibustered and then dropped are still "on delay".

Presumably during the course of a given session of the Senate they could and has happened on a number of occassions. Witness the pact of the 14 senators (even tho' no true filibuster took place).

	03-08-2005 02:23									#113
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by GePap The president has the power to fill any position if Congress is in recess and in theoy is unable to do so. The person then gets one year in office until they must be approved by the Congress. as a provision it makes sense in emergency situations, but most of the time its just a way fro the President to put someone in they can;t get through Congress.

Can he do this with the Supreme Court and his cabinet?

	03-08-2005 02:24									#114
	Put an end to popups!

Yep happened on any number of occasions including Eisenhower.

New Jersey judge William J. Brennan was appointed to the United States Supreme Court by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956 through a recess appointment.

	03-08-2005 03:21									#115
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe So lets pillary Bush when it's the Senate that has failed their responsibilities ehh?

My understanding is that Frist refused to call the issue to a vote, cuz he knew Bolton would lose.

	03-08-2005 03:22									#116
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove Can he do this with the Supreme Court and his cabinet?

Yes.

	03-08-2005 03:33									#117
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Thanks Imran - you made it clear it wasn't just me.

Ogie has officially entered the Nedaverse - personal interpretations trumping historical facts, precedents set, and how things work in the actual world. He even admits he doing this to be obnoxious.

[q]I simply find it easy pickins to stir up the vast left wing conspirators of 'poly by tweakin them on their typical anti-bush rants[/b]

That's the difference, at least Ned had the integrity to actually have a conversation, this is just Ogie being, well, Ogie. BTW, it's nice to know you are now a "vast left wind conspirator." Hell, I guess that makes me a member of Che's communist party.

	03-08-2005 03:39									#118
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

* chegitz guevara begins the shawnmmcc project.

	03-08-2005 03:55									#119
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Yes.

Why didn't he solve all of his problems at once then?

	03-08-2005 04:00									#120
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove Why didn't he solve all of his problems at once then?

Because these appointments only last 1 year before the Congress does have to vote on them- it would be political suicide to utterly bypass Congress and then expect to get a free pass form them 1 year later.