Filibuster. WTF?

[Back]

Does it shock and alarm anyone one else that Congress wants to end the filibuster (http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/i/filibuster_2.htm?terms=Filibuster)? If you don’t like that link you can always Google filibuster (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=Filibuster&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8).

Its been in the news. Seems they are getting close to making a decision. I can’t even believe its gotten to this point, but not surprising considering how the Republicans have taken over and absolutely have to have everything their way. This ain’t BK, bitch.

WTF??

[Nieninque]

What's a filibuster?
I skim-read that and couldnt get to grips with what exactly it is

[Kainen]

Every session of congress ends at a certain time.. a filibuster is when one member of congress stays on the floor close to the closing time of a sessions of congress and keeps speaking untill the session ends.. so no one else can do anything else.

[Edited on 5-12-2005 by Kainen]

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Nieninque
What's a filibuster?
I skim-read that and couldnt get to grips with what exactly it is

So long as a senator holds the floor, no other action can be taken. Senators have the right to speak and debate before any vote.

Basically it's a delay/kill tactice. Hold the floor with debate each time there is a move to vote on a specific bill. Do so until there is a recess. Eventually one side will either tire of debate, or the other will tire of trying to get a vote through.

And no, not shocking that either party wants to end it when they have the majority.

[Edited on 5-12-2005 by Tsa`ah]

[Back]

Our president nominates judges. Judges have life terms. Congress needs to give their stamp of approval. Because the nomination of judges has such a long lasting impact, the minority of Congress can use a filibuster to stop these nominations. This is especially important when you have one party holding the majority of Congress and as President.

Frist, who is spearheading the campaign to remove the filibuster, didn’t complain when it was used to stop a nomination by Clinton.

Edited to add: Yes, it means holding up the session to stop something from passing. I’m learning more as I read. Strom Thurmond went 24 hours and 18 minutes to try and block the Civil Rights act.

[Edited on 5-12-2005 by Backlash]

[Warriorbird]

Every once in a while either party brings up the idea to end it. Stupid from either end of the spectrum.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Nieninque
What's a filibuster?
I skim-read that and couldnt get to grips with what exactly it is

Go rent "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"
That will clear it up for you.

[Valthissa]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

Originally posted by Nieninque
What's a filibuster?
I skim-read that and couldnt get to grips with what exactly it is

So long as a senator holds the floor, no other action can be taken. Senators have the right to speak and debate before any vote.

Basically it's a delay/kill tactice. Hold the floor with debate each time there is a move to vote on a specific bill. Do so until there is a recess. Eventually one side will either tire of debate, or the other will tire of trying to get a vote through.

And no, not shocking that either party wants to end it when they have the majority.

[Edited on 5-12-2005 by Tsa`ah]

I wish that this was true.

The modern version is just to say you will filibuster without any consequences, such as actually speaking for 24 hours.

I say bring back the filibuster! Make those blowhards speak for hours on end with the cspan cameras rolling.

How many filibusters do you think there would actually be if the senators knew the cameras were recording their every word?

C/Valth

[Hulkein]

They should hire Jazuela to filibuster.

If she talks anything like her posts the place would clear out after about 30 minutes of her rambling.

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Hulkein
They should hire Jazuela to filibuster.

If she talks anything like her posts the place would clear out after about 30 minutes of her rambling.

OMG! :lol2:

I don't remember laughing this hard on the boards before. You guys are killing me today.

Oh it's just dumb to keep talking and talking. Just shut up and decide already. :D

[Back]

A good article on the subject from FAIR.org (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2512).

[Back]

Two more good articles that relate to the topic from FactCheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org)

Are Democrats Causing Delays in Court? (http://www.factcheck.org/article324.html)

Judicial Fight Prompts Duelling, Distorted Ads (http://www.factcheck.org/article325.html)

[Edited on 5-12-2005 by Backlash]

[Warriorbird]

"Oh it's just dumb to keep talking and talking. Just shut up and decide already. "

Of course, amusingly enough, back during the Democrat Congress Republicans fought tooth and nail to preserve it.

[Edited on 5-12-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Oh it's just dumb to keep talking and talking. Just shut up and decide already. :D

Both sides have already made a decision. That's precisely why the minority side keeps talking.

Jorddyn

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
"Oh it's just dumb to keep talking and talking. Just shut up and decide already. "

Of course, amusingly enough, back during the Democrat Congress Republicans fought tooth and nail to preserve it.

[Edited on 5-12-2005 by Warriorbird]

It's dumb on both sides. It's also dumb how you keep on thinking that I'm strictly Republican. It's getting annoying.

[Skirmisher]

I will support the preservation of the fillibuster even once my Democrats are in the majority.


That may take awhile, but i'll still support it darnit!!

[Warriorbird]

"It's also dumb how you keep on thinking that I'm strictly Republican. It's getting annoying. "

Haven't shown any evidence to the contrary. The justifications also get a little thick.

[CrystalTears]

I have, you just choose to ignore them.

[Warriorbird]

Citations?

Comparison with times you haven't?

;)

[HarmNone]

Heh. The sad thing is, nobody really hears these fillibusterers half the time. There's not a congressman to be seen in the whole place. Dude's standing there blathering to himself and, if he's lucky, two or three other people.

Of course, that's offset by the fact that none of the congressmen really care, including the one that's blathering. The purpose is to delay, and delay they do. Now, if they all were mandated to sit there and listen while the blathering was going on, we might get some changes made. ;)

[CrystalTears]

Comparison? So now I have to have more liberal than conservative opinions for it to matter to you?

I'm not here to suck up to anyone or be on anyone's side. Agree with me, don't agree with me, I don't care. I just don't want you to label me an automatic conservatist with every little thing because I'm not. I know you don't give one iota about anything I say, but at least respect that one request. Thanks.

[Warriorbird]

Perhaps I give you too little credit, CT. You're the swing voter type, after all. I wasn't attempting to be offensive by what I posted up there, but citing hypocrisy in a party tends to get under anyone's skin. I'm sorry. I do value your opinion, even if I think at times you are easily lead. Same can't be said for everyone around here.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Every once in a while either party brings up the idea to end it. Stupid from either end of the spectrum.

[ElanthianSiren]

CT supports birth control.

-Melissa

[CrystalTears]

OMG if I was easily lead, I wouldn't have voted for Clinton when my entire family clearly wasn't and called me a hippy while he was in office. My parents are devoted republicans and vote that way no matter what. At least I listen to the issues and have opinions on them and don't automatically side with people I like or tend to agree with just because it's comfortable. You know so little about me, you assume way too much.

Where was I being a hypocrite anyway? Where have I said one thing and then said something completely different later?

Thanks Melissa. :D

[Edited on 5/12/2005 by CrystalTears]

[Warriorbird]

You weren't. The Republicans were.

[Hulkein]

IT WAS TEH REPUBLICANZ

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Hulkein
IT WAS TEH REPUBLICANZ

Well that goes without saying.

Pisses me off that they are trying to do this. Takes away from the spirit of the legislative branch.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Dave
Pisses me off that they are trying to do this. Takes away from the spirit of the legislative branch.

The GOP has done it just as often and will do the same in the future.

It doesn't take away from the spirit, it is part of the spirit.

[Hulkein]

Does a beeper go off when Dave or Tamral posts, alerting you to come and disagree with some minute point of theirs?

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Does a beeper go off when Dave or Tamral posts, alerting you to come and disagree with some minute point of theirs?

Seems you have a Tsa`ah beeper.

I don't look at times when I post. I read and go back to "today's posts". Should there be something new, I read some more and respond to what I feel like responding to.

Care to fucking add to the conversation or spout more shit from your jack hole?

[Edited on 5-13-2005 by Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

Originally posted by Dave
Pisses me off that they are trying to do this. Takes away from the spirit of the legislative branch.

The GOP has done it just as often and will do the same in the future.

It doesn't take away from the spirit, it is part of the spirit.

Assumption makes an ass out of you.

Reread the first post then read my response. I don't think I said that I am pissed at the democrats did I?

Amazing isn't it, I disagree with the republicans on this issue. <gasp> it's the end of the world

[Edited on 5-13-2005 by Dave]

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Seems you have a Tsa`ah beeper.

I don't look at times when I post. I read and go back to "today's posts". Should there be something new, I read some more and respond to what I feel like responding to.

Care to fucking add to the conversation or spout more shit from your jack hole?

[Edited on 5-13-2005 by Tsa`ah]

I'm not insinuating that you post quickly after them, I'm referring to your habit of picking apart relatively small differences between your and their opinions.

You brought up the GOP when Dave only mentioned Congress, and you pointed out that 'It doesn't take away from the spirit, it is part of the spirit.' Nice insight!

Are you gonna add anything relevant? Never heard of a jack hole so I'll end it there.

[Edited on 5-13-2005 by Hulkein]

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Dave
Amazing isn't it, I disagree with the republicans on this issue. <gasp> it's the end of the world

Noo! It isn't the end of the world! It means you're beginning to see the light! :smilegrin:

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Dave
Assumption makes an ass out of you.

Reread the first post then read my responce. I don't think I said that I am pissed at the democrats did I?

A little composition 101 for you Dave.


Originally posted by Dave
Pisses me off that they are trying to do this. Takes away from the spirit of the legislative branch.

Considering your posts and thoughts are generally cut and paste of some neocon newsletter and the term "they" (bolded in your post) is rather vague, as is your entire post, one can only assume you mean the Dems attempting to filibuster.

Now, if you want to convey an original thought, try being specific.

Example:


It pisses me off that the GOP is trying to remove the filibuster, it lessens the legislative spirit.

To anyone familiar with a Dave post ... the original reads like this.


It pisses me off that the Dems are trying to pull a fucking filibuster, those liberal pussies should just bend over and let the GOP tag that ass. Filibusters take away from the legislative spirit.


Originally posted by Hulkein
I'm not insinuating that you post quickly after them,

That's exactly what you insinuated.


I'm referring to your habit of picking apart relatively small differences between your and their opinions.

It's called debate. Perhaps you acquaint yourself with the purpose of such threads and follow up such ridiculous statements with "in my oxygen deprived opinion". Because that's all it really is.


You brought up the GOP when Dave only mentioned Congress, and you pointed out that 'It doesn't take away from the spirit, it is part of the spirit.' Nice insight!

Can't help it that you understand Dave. This is probably due to the two of you sharing half of a parietal lobe.


Are you gonna add anything relevant?

I did, it was you who decided to take a shit in this thread. Next time have the courtesy to flush.


Never heard of a jack hole so I'll end it there.

Can't help it that you live in an area bereft of verbal creativity. Sad that.

[Hulkein]

<< That's exactly what you insinuated. >>

No. I already explained what I was referring to. You can re-read it if it'll help.

<< It's called debate. Perhaps you acquaint yourself with the purpose of such threads and follow up such ridiculous statements with "in my oxygen deprived opinion". Because that's all it really is. >>

No, it's called you having a hard-on with starting shit over and over again, with the same two people.

Speaking of Composition 101, the period goes inside the quotes. Don't talk shit to others about grammar if you're going to fuck up the written word a few lines down. Hypocrite.

<< Can't help it that you understand Dave. This is probably due to the two of you sharing half of a parietal lobe. >>

Funny thing is, you used your preconceived notions of Dave's posting habits to bring up the GOP.

Had someone who has never seen him post before read this thread, they'd be wondering why the fuck you were talking about the GOP.

Who shares the brain, dipshit?

[HarmNone]

>Speaking of Composition 101, the period goes inside the quotes. Don't talk shit to others about grammar if you're going to fuck up the written word a few lines down. Hypocrite.<

This is true only for the American style of punctuation. The British style places the period inside the quotation, and uses single quotation marks for a quotation and double quotation marks for a quote within a quote.

Now, since there are differences, must we argue over punctuation? It's for certain there are plenty of things to debate in this thread without resorting to punctuation. ;)

[Tsa`ah]

Actually debating the fucking topic would be nice.

Unfortunately Hulkiens got another fucking hard on for me.

Not my folder, but stick to the damned topic and take your antagonistic bullshit to U2U ... it has nothing to do with the topic.

[Hulkein]

Ok, so it's cool for you to justify your assumptions by saying 'THIS IS WHAT DAVE MEANS,' but I'm not allowed to call you on it.

If you ask me, both add about the same amount to the topic at hand.

I understand the reasons though, so I'll comply and stop discussing it here.

PS. I think you'd have a hard time convincing anyone I'm out to fight with you. I rarely disagree with you to the point of posting it here anymore.

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
You weren't. The Republicans were.


Originally posted by Hulkein
IT WAS TEH REPUBLICANZ


Originally posted by Skirmisher

Originally posted by Hulkein
IT WAS TEH REPUBLICANZ

Well that goes without saying.


Originally posted by Dave
Pisses me off that they are trying to do this. Takes away from the spirit of the legislative branch.

You know those tests you take in grade school where you have to read a short story and then answer basic questions involving inferance and understanding to measure reading comprehension?

Apparently you didn't pass that section.

Common Sense 101:

The last three posts had the same subject: The Republicans. Therefore it would only make sense that "they" would best be assosicated with the subject "the republicans".

Also, correcting grammeratical errors is a clear sign of last-ditch, cornered attacks from you Tsa'ah, especially when you are the first to start.

Save your vulgarity for someone else besides me. I'm not amused by words like "Jack hole", I got past that in second grade.

Edited to add: Since you brought it up though, you did mispell Hulkeins name though. As for all of my own errors, I could care less. I just thought the person who is going to throw the first stone diserves to be pelted back.

[Edited on 5-13-2005 by Nakiro]

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Actually debating the fucking topic would be nice.

Unfortunately Hulkiens got another fucking hard on for me.

Not my folder, but stick to the damned topic and take your antagonistic bullshit to U2U ... it has nothing to do with the topic.

If you can't understand that, try kickstarting the natural selection discussion again.

PS ... Hulk took the lame jab at the grammatic ... Tsa`ah rarely makes such comments.

But let me try this again for you in case you didn't get it the first time.


Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Actually debating the fucking topic would be nice.

Unfortunately Hulkiens got another fucking hard on for me.

Not my folder, but stick to the damned topic and take your antagonistic bullshit to U2U ... it has nothing to do with the topic.

[Edited on 5-13-2005 by Tsa`ah]

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Actually debating the fucking topic would be nice.

Unfortunately Hulkiens got another fucking hard on for me.

Not my folder, but stick to the damned topic and take your antagonistic bullshit to U2U ... it has nothing to do with the topic.

If you can't understand that, try kickstarting the natural selection discussion again.

I would but I doubt you have half the brain in your head to have a decent conversation.

Besides, everyone makes mistakes, and when they're done on documented conversations like a message board, its easy to bring up the past. But the big difference between you and me is you are always and asshole, and will probably always be one. No one has ever truly appreciated or liked anything you have posted. You exist primarily to cause confrontation and annoy members who have opinions that differ from you. You are more of a nuisance and a trolling twart in any political thread than anyone else on these boards. Even if you have an intelligent opinion, which you just may in that cranium of yours, you are always so flamingly arrogant and self rightous about your views that you immediately turn off anyone who might listen to you or share your perspective. In short, you are by far oen of the worst members on this board.

Yah, I may have made a mistake with the whole Natural Selection thing, but 1) you are the only person who even still cares and 2) I will never be half the jerk you are here.

Just do us all a favor and stop posting with such a cynical and confrontational attitude and cut the aggressive self rightous holier than thou bullshit for just one god damn post.

Thanks in advance.

[Edited on 5-13-2005 by Nakiro]

[Hulkein]

My jab at the grammatical error was only in response to your Composition 101 condescending BS.

Normally I wouldn't have said anything.

I'm finished arguing about that anyway, just wanted to clarify, Tsa`ah.

[Tsa`ah]

How fucking retarded are you two?


Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Actually debating the fucking topic would be nice.

Unfortunately Hulkiens got another fucking hard on for me.

Not my folder, but stick to the damned topic and take your antagonistic bullshit to U2U ... it has nothing to do with the topic.

[Hulkein]

You're adding in shit to the argument as well, douche bag.

Just because you're quoting your own 'STAY ON TOPIC,' while going off topic, doesn't change anything.

Here's a quote for you.


Originally posted by STFU
kthx

[Edited on 5-13-2005 by Hulkein]

[HarmNone]

Here's a quote from me:

Take it out of this topic and off the boards. There is a topic, and it isn't about any of you. It's about fillibusters in congress. Stay on it.

[Nakiro]

Just take the god damn advice. We both know we are off topic but your attitude is something that needs to be addressed where and when it happens apparently.

This is all irrevelant. Hopefully, but unlikely, you'll read my previous post, think twice about who you are around here, and do us all a favor and change yourself for the better.

As for me, don't bother reposting the same thing three times. I've read it, but felt it was more important to get that off my chest for now.

I'm going to bed anyways, I have better things to do tomorrow than waste the rest of my night arguing with a twart like you. If you have anything to say to me, I'm sure you can take it to a U2U, though I doubt you'll get as much satisfaction when you're already confident that unless its something halfway less heartless than your normal bullshit then I'm just going to delete it halfway through anyway.

Anyway, goodnight.

[HarmNone]

I'm leaving Nakiro's post only because it was being written while I was posting. That's enough. Knock it off!

Any further posts along this line will be deleted. I don't care who posts them, they will go missing.

[Edited on 5-13-2005 by HarmNone]

I think they are filibustering the thread Harmnone. :)

[Wezas]

Bump for some info I've been looking over:

# of Clinton Nominees that were Obstructed by Republicans (anonymous holds, denied committee hearings, etc) : 65

# of Bush Nominees Filibustered (first term): 10

Of those 10 Nominees, how many is Bush Re-nominating this term: 7

Bill Frist himself (the main Senator against the Filibuster) voted to Filibuster a Clinton Judicial appointee in 2000.

there is a difference between holds and a filibuster, maybe you used the wrong words

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Dave
there is a difference between holds and a filibuster, maybe you used the wrong words

Both are to the same effect with the same result.

It's a rather moot point.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Dave
there is a difference between holds and a filibuster, maybe you used the wrong words


Originally posted by Wezas
Bump for some info I've been looking over:

# of Clinton Nominees that were Obstructed by Republicans (anonymous holds, denied committee hearings, etc) : 65

# of Bush Nominees Filibustered (first term): 10

Of those 10 Nominees, how many is Bush Re-nominating this term: 7

Bill Frist himself (the main Senator against the Filibuster) voted to Filibuster a Clinton Judicial appointee in 2000.

Nope Dave. I worded it exactly how the facts are.

Did I say that the Republicans filibustered anyone? No.

I'll also add the the republicans attempted to filibuster six total court nominees of Clinton when he was president. They just didn't have the votes to pull it off.

As for hearing holds and why the Dems need the filibuster (biased, but factual):


In 1994 Senator Hatch added language to the Senate rules for confirming nominees. His objective: to allow a single senator to easily--and secretly--block nominations from leaving committee. It worked. Judge Marsha Berzon's nomination was secretly stymied for more than two years. (Senator Bob Smith finally admitted his role.) The nomination of Judge Ronnie White, who had bipartisan support in the Senate, languished in committee for almost two and a half years. Judge Helen White waited four years for a hearing; she never got one. This behind-the-scenes scheming proved to be so popular, Republicans were able to block more than sixty of Clinton's nominations. (To no one's surprise, as soon as Bush took office, Hatch abandoned this procedure, allowing nominees to sail through.) The bottom line: While a filibuster requires at least forty-one Senators on board to block a nominee, under Republican leadership, it took only a single dissent.

::edited to add more bolding::

[Edited on 5-18-2005 by Wezas]