STYLETHREAD -- LET'S TALK SHOP!

blubirde · Chanel

3, 2, 1... Nuclear Option!!!

lsubatgirl · Gucci

From the way I understand it the filibuster is just being eliminated from Judicial Nominations and not from other things. I don't have a problem with it because I think all judicial nominees should get at least one vote whether they are democrats or republicans instead of no vote because some people don't like them.

Mia · Kate Spade

Yeah, I'd probably be freaking out about this if I were American. Strongly against ending the filibuster, and I think I've been reading that a lot of Republicans are against it as well as Dems. The filibuster option is there for a reason, and as far as I can tell, it's pretty fundamental to American democracy. Checks and balances etc. - these are good things!

blubirde · Chanel

quote:
Originally posted by: Mia
"Yeah, I'd probably be freaking out about this if I were American. Strongly against ending the filibuster, and I think I've been reading that a lot of Republicans are against it as well as Dems. The filibuster option is there for a reason, and as far as I can tell, it's pretty fundamental to American democracy. Checks and balances etc. - these are good things!"

I guess I can voice my opinion now. I think it's a horrendous use of power for anyone to try to end the filibuster. I remember growing up learning about about the different branches of government and being taught (in elementary school) how the filibuster was an essential tool in the Senate. I remember my teachers describing it in noble terms - a group of people banding together and speaking for hours on end, to the point of losing one's voice, just to fight a fair fight.

I don't think it's a repub or dem issue. Dems are 80% against it, Indies are 70% against it, and Repubs are 50% against it (ending the filibuster). I think that's a pretty clear majority for this day and age. (I got those numbers from Daily Kos if anyone would like to check them out. I think they may have more recent polls up since I read these but this is the general gist of the numbers.)

And lsubatgirl, I might normally agree with you that a vote is a generally the goal but not when it comes to activist judges. The judiciary is too important to be left to extremes (right or left). Plus, if they took a vote, they'd automatically be confirmed without any other say in the matter because the GOP outnumbers the Dems. So voting isn't really the equality fest people like Frist are making it out to be.

Imo, the filibuster is one area where Senators can still show their passion about issues, and it will be a travesty to democracy to get rid of it, especially in the realm of judicial nominees.

I'd like to point out one other fact. According to C-Span (and more Daily Kos), the Repubs are arguing that filibusters of judicial nominees are unconstitutional. An argument about constitutionality is subject to Senate debate and, guess what? filibuster. The Senate parliamentarian has that not allowing debate on the constitutionality of the rule violates Senate rules. Ironic, no?

asf · Kate Spade

i absolutely think the filibuster should stay. if only because it's such a fun word to say! (kidding)...seriously, though - the republicans weren't complaining about it when clinton was in office and they used it to their advantage. mia's right - there has to be some kind of a check on the president's appointments, and with republicans outnumbering dems they'd never be able to "check" him by voting alone.

i think this goes a lot further than the filibuster - it shows that our current administration is trying to change the rules to best suit their needs, and that's not right. law says you can't do something? rewrite it. who cares - you're in charge now!

it's scary.

lsubatgirl · Gucci

for some reason I still thought you had to have a 2/3 majority vote for judicial nominees or 60 votes or something like that so that a strict vote yes or no didn't count if it was like 51-49. I may be wrong though.

asf · Kate Spade

Nomination Process for Supreme Court Justices: The Senate's Role

1. The Constitution assigns the President and the Senate co-equal roles in the process of selecting federal judges, including Supreme Court justices. The President is responsible for nominating candidates. The Senate, exercising its constitutional "advice and consent" responsibility, then evaluates the nominee: The nominee takes the bench only if the Senate votes to confirm him or her. Once appointed, Supreme Court justices, as well as federal lower court judges, serve for life, unless they resign, retire, or are removed by Congress through the process of impeachment and conviction.

2. When the Senate receives a nomination from the President, it sends the nomination to the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration.

3. Supreme Court nominations are the subject of intense media and national interest, and numerous constituent groups weigh in publicly and with the Senate in support of or opposition to the nomination. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R- UT) has said that he will allow one month for review and investigation of a Supreme Court nominee before the Committee takes action.

4. The Senate Judiciary Committee then holds hearings on the nomination. Unlike hearings on nominations to the lower courts, which usually take less than one day and have no other witnesses besides the nominee, Supreme Court nomination hearings usually take several days and include other witnesses, both supporting and opposing the nomination. The Committee then votes on the nomination, and by tradition and agreement, Supreme Court nominations are sent to the floor regardless of whether a majority of Committee members votes in favor of the nomination.

5. The full Senate then debates the nomination on the floor, and if a majority votes in favor of the nomination, the nominee is confirmed. However, if the nomination is filibustered, 3/5 of the Senate is needed to end debate (known as a "cloture vote") and allow for a full Senate vote on the nominee.

blubirde · Chanel

quote:
Originally posted by: lsubatgirl
"for some reason I still thought you had to have a 2/3 majority vote for judicial nominees or 60 votes or something like that so that a strict vote yes or no didn't count if it was like 51-49. I may be wrong though."

It is a majority to confirm but it takes 60+ to end a filibuster - that's what all the number talk was about at election time.

DC Shopper · Dooney & Bourke

Totally against ending the filibuster. This administration and the repubs are on a total power trip and they are going to far on so many issues. it's an abuse of power imo. as a dem, i can only hope this will blow up in their face and they lose seats at the mid term elections. can you say lame duck presidency? i'm keeping my fingers crossed.

blubirde · Chanel

quote:
Originally posted by: DC Shopper
"can you say lame duck presidency? i'm keeping my fingers crossed."

Here, here!!! One can only hope.

Mia · Kate Spade

Another reason it's monumentally dumb is because it'll come back to bite BOTH parties in the ass. This isn't really a partisan issue (although of course the dumbass media etc. are presenting as one) - ending the filibuster hurts everyone, on both sides, and takes away an important check on power that was put there for a reason.

I despair. Seriously.