Posted on 05/12/2005 12:02:54 AM PDT by nickcarraway
Did anyone hear Rush today, reading a history from 1889 or so, when a similar Senate rules battle took place?
To have a battle, don't you need two sides? I haven't seen my GOP senators show a pair yet.
I think teddy the swimmer should be challenged with harpoon gun's at 100 yards.
Never misunderestimate the power of weakness to reward the enemy with victory.
To ask for a majority of Senators to embark upon something that they perceive as being "dangerous" politically generally gets the same results as asking a class of thrid graders to probe a field of landmines. It just doesn't get done. Now, if the Repulican Senate were composed of "normal people" who have faced adversity and/or real danger in their lives beyond the near paralyzing fear of being called a name by someone in the opposition, this wouldn't even be an issue.
Out here in the real world, when someone's inaction can cause you to lose money that you actually NEED to live on, or cause you to lose your job and all that goes with it, it becomes a simple matter to actually threaten their safe little world. Actions have consequences for the little guy. It's time for our Senators to understand that they aren't merely living in some syndicated soap opera. It's time for them to face consequences for malfeasance of office, for violating their oath of office, and for violating the laws they write.
They aren't our LORDS. The last set of those we had 225+ years ago, we ran out on a rail. We can do the same with this set as well.
It's up to the people to phone in and convince them it's financially and politcally "safer" in the minefield. : )
bump
"My guess is that the Republicans are going to win."
I hope he is right.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Gold_Gupta_JLPP_article.pdf
Lots of history. Before 1806, Senate rules expressed, specifically, a process of moving to the vote on a simple majority. The unanimous consent rule was used rarely from then, through the 1800's, to stifle taking a vote. The first use of Senate Rules to avoid taking the vote were in the late 1830's, over censuring President Jackson for withdrawing federal deposits from the Bank of the United States. Filibuster reform was attempted in 1850, 1873 and 1883 by trying to add the pre-1806 rule. In 1890, some Senators tried to create a cloture precedent via majority vote. The cloture rule we have today (Rule XXII) didn't exist until 1917. The use of parliamentary maneuvers aiming to modify Rule XXII by a majority vote, for at least some class(es) of matters, were undertaken in 1959, 1975 and 1979.
The article also cites the significant filibusters in Senate history, but in the context of the parliamentary rules that permit a minority of Senators to stifle moving to the vote. Good article, in places tough slogging. I recommend it HIGHLY. The media and politician presentations do NOT illuminate that the nature of the battlefield is parliamentary procedure. The fact that the Senate is stepping on the president's toes, and in effect thrwarting the Constitution, is (unfortunately) merely a point of debate.
Concerning his comments on the Republicans winning, from his lips to God's ears. BUMP for the article!
The writer had better think this part over. Once you give the judicial branch of government the power to "interpret" the meaning of any constitution that constitution becomes meaningless, and we get law by judges. We're seeing that happen now. That's what all the judicial fuss is about.
Yet as the Democrats' power in legislatures all over the land has slipped into minority status they have increasingly favored the courts to make law.
Yup. And, courts can only do that if they becomes the interpreters of constitutional law. Once the Constitution becomes what judges say it is why do we need a Congress?
After the filibustering of judges is over does anyone really think that the new judges appointed by Bush to a lifetime job, and accountable to no one, will be any better ten years from now than the bunch we currently have on the bench? Is there any guarantee?
"Get ir done"
Larry, the cable guy
He's right, friend.
Republicans know that a loss is not acceptible. The judiciary, along with the War on Terror, is the reason the electorate gave them the majority.
There will be well over 50 votes to end the filibuster. Warner will vote with the republicans. As will several of the 'moderate' GOP. I expect at least two democrats (Nelson of Nebraska, Salazar and possibly Landrieu) to vote with the GOP or abstain.
Hey there, Cboldt.
I say there will be 55 votes to end the filibuster. I say Warner and at least a couple of the 'mod-squad' (Chaffee, Collins, Snowe) will vote to end. We can expect a couple dems to vote to end as well. What say you?
Actually it only takes 50 votes in this instance because V.P. Cheney is the tie breaker.
Thanks! That was fascinating to hear yesterday.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.