Sen. Miller seeks to bust filibusters after 30-hour debate

AccessNorthGA ^ | 11/12/03

[expatpat]

They may need it in the future. Think of a small Democrap majority in the Senate ramming through a bunch of Commie judges.

[TSgt]

If the Republican Senators truly believed in service they would keep the Senate in session throughout the holidays until the Dems finally gave up. I've already heard whining by Dems about possibly getting out late for the Thanksgiving Holiday due to the Republican filibuster.

All the while our young men and serve night and day overseas through the holidays.

[LiteKeeper]

SPOTREP - ZEL MILLER CHEER

[TrappedInLiberalHell]

You might have to kiss your FreeRepublic account goodbye. That is not tolerated around here.

Heck, I bet a fair number of Freepers agree with me. From everything I've seen, a southern Democrat is further to the right than a northeast Republican.

Besides, what's wrong with voting for a candidate that will side with your cause on the important issues (war, tax cut, judicial nominees)?

Or were you just ribbing me?

[Free2Be49]

do a recess appointment with people like judge bork

What do you mean like Judge Bork? What's wrong with Judge Bork?

[Protagoras]

Or were you just ribbing me?

I was being sarcastic about everything except your account. This is FreeRepublican.com now. They might boot ya, no joke.

[MamaLucci]

Oooooh, good catch.
I wonder if the "President of the Senate" is in an undisclosed location?

[Consort]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'd vote for Zell Miller over a good number of Republican Senators.

And you would help to give control back to the Democrats and Zell would be ignored by the rest of his party. "Great" thinking.

[1Old Pro]

What do you mean like Judge Bork? What's wrong with Judge Bork?

O.K. I'll be clearer: Appoint Judge Bork as soon as they recess.

[MamaLucci]

Pssssst!
The dems already have control.

[TrappedInLiberalHell]

They might boot ya, no joke.

I don't doubt it sometimes. Posting history should count for something, I think. I realize that with 100,000+ members it's not practical or practicable to research a poster's probable intent with a particular post, though.

I had an idea for a FR improvement for both posts and replies: a checkbox asking the moderator to 'OK' the post or reply before it posts. This would help the users demonstrate that they are aware a post may be iffy, without just posting it and having to prove himself afterwards. I've had only one post pulled in three years. I had a little email back-and-forth with JimRob about it where he said I was posting racist troll bait.

It upsetted me, but if I had been able to submit it 'for review' I could have been told much more kindly what was wrong with my post. As it was, Jim probably thought I was just trying to stir up trouble, no matter that my posting history shows that I am very careful with my wording and tend to avoid conflict on issues that are likely to provoke me.

[TrappedInLiberalHell]

And you would help to give control back to the Democrats and Zell would be ignored by the rest of his party. "Great" thinking.

I'm not that stupid. I wouldn't do it if control of the Senate were remotely at stake. I just think Zell has more principles than many on 'our' side. And that is to his credit.

[looscnnn]

Really? Wow, I thought this place was for discussing issues and possibly figure out how to fix them. Some of the issues involve poor representation by some Republicans. Jeffords would have been one, had he not become an "independant". He gives independants a bad name. If this is pro-Republican only website and that means you can't comment on some Republicans that have not been doing the right thing, then maybe having your account taken away is best. Zell Miller at least has represented his state better than say Bloomburg has. Zell Miller, Ed Koch and Tammy Bruce may be Democrats, but they side with Republicans when it is the correct side to be on.

I was taught to have an open mind, look at all sides, make a decision based on proven facts and stand up for what I believe in. If I get kicked out of a group, or whatever, for it, I could care less. That just proves how narrow minded the group is.

[Consort]

Then how did the partial birth abortion ban, the vast majority Bush court nominees, and tax cuts, etc, get passed?

[cinFLA]

This freakin' rule is the reason we don't have HillaryCare.

HillaryCare fell apart when CSPAN broadcast the images of the clerks bringing in the armloads of paper that contained the bill while the democrats were demanding a vote even before the bill had been passed out! Even a lot of democrats were upset about voting for something that big that they had never seen.

[Congressman Billybob]

The reasons why the judicial appointments are critical to the future of the nation were covered in my last two columns. Both of these have discussion treads on FreeRepublic.

"Open Judicial Mouth, Insert Foot" concerns Justice O'Connor's speech about using foreign laws and decisions to decide US Supreme Court cases. The subject of "Janice Brown: Guilty of 'Judging while Honest'" is obvious from the title.

Normally, the appointment of federal judges (which ultimately leads to appointment of Supreme Court Justices) is a back-burner issue that most folks ignore. I hope that here, on FreeRepublic, that is has become, and will remain, a front-burner issue all the way through the 2004 election.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "The 2004 Election is Over, Now," discussion thread. IF YOU WANT A FREEPER IN CONGRESS, CLICK HERE.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

Republicans do not have the Ba!!s to properly conduct a filibuster, or to break a filibuster.

[Congressman Billybob]

Keep in mind that the filibuster is not an all-or-nothing issue. A filibuster concerning ordinary legislation is one thing. That's a matter of the internal operations of the Senate.

A filibuster on judicial appointment is a different matter. The Constitution makes it clear that the "Advise and Consent" clause requires only a majority of the Senators present is sufficient to approve a judicial (or other) presidential appointment. Applying the filibuster to that violates the Constitution, by increasing the vote margin from 51 votes to 60 votes.

Don't get caught up in the idea -- which the Democrats are peddling -- that ending the filibuster for legislation will happen if the filibuster is ended for judicial nominations. That is flat-out false. Both methods of freeing the judicial nominations leave the filibuster untouched with respect to ordinary legislation.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "The 2004 Election is Over, Now," discussion thread. IF YOU WANT A FREEPER IN CONGRESS, CLICK HERE.

[deport]

Rule changes require a 2/3rds vote.

---

Rules changes only require a majority vote.... but a if a rules change is being filibustered then it requires a 2/3rds of those present and voting to bring cloture. If cloture is secured then the rule change can be approved with a majority vote.

[gathersnomoss]

Bingo.