February 25, 2005
Vox Blogoli 2.2
Hugh Hewitt has thrown down the gauntlet once again, challenging the blogosphere to comment on Harry Reid's assertion that he will "go Gingrich" if the Senate rules that filibusters are out of order (meaning he would stop Senate business). Why would they do that, you ask? Because Senate Dems are using the filibuster rules to keep the Senate from taking an up and down majority vote on President Bush's fed court nominees. Somehow, the Party of the People believes that keep the People's Representatives from doing their jobs is serving a higher purpose.
Hewitt asks the following: should the Repulicans go "McClellan" or "Grant", meaning plan and stall, or slash and burn?
Intersting question. As my mother is always fond of saying, Republicans are very good at stealing victory from the jaws of defeat. But judge appointments are important not just for now, but for the next generation as well. Blocking a vote on a nominee represents a fundamental seizure of representative rights granted to the people of this nation. In my opinion, there can be no legislative action considered too extreme when the fundamentals of Senate operation are at stake.
I hope they Grant the hell out of 'em. But I doubt they will. Republicans still haven't gotten used to being in the majority.
Posted by Matthew at February 25, 2005 06:28 PMTrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.opaquelucidity.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/75
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Vox Blogoli 2.2:
» Let Slip The Dogs... from My Sandmen
Democrats know what is at stake, and mean to hold their last piece of ground along the Left edge of their flat Earth. By all means, do let's grant the Left the fight they have been picking and finish this struggle with irrational lunacy once and for ... [Read More]
» texas holdem from texas holdem
texas holdem I myself am human and free only to the extent that I acknowledge the humanity and liberty of all my fellows... I am properly [Read More]
OK,
Here we go again with the rose colored glasses!
Filibusters have been around for how long? I don't like them either, but those are the rules everyone has abided by for a long time. I have no statistics on this, but I am sure the Republicans have used the same tactic when it suited them.
But now that the Dems are threatening to do it, it suddenly becomes a "a fundamental seizure of representative rights granted to the people of this nation". That is utter HOGWASH.
The very begining of this entry mentions going "Gingrich" on something, which represented effectively stopping all Govt. business. I am sure Gingrich did that for a Holy and Noble cause. And the citizens of the united states who pay taxes for the civil servants to do their job, weren't disenfranchised in any way, to satiate the massive ego of one Republican politician.
And so now every time a rule or a law doesn't suit the Republicans, they want to change them. The ink was barely dry on the election ballots, and one of the very first acts of the Repubs was to try to change the ethics rules, that mind you, THEY installed a while back, in the name of greater morality to keep the evil and corrupt liberals in check. And when their head honcho and his cronies looked like they could be indicted, well, lets just change the rules so our boss can keep his job. The issue became a political hot potato and THAT's why the Republicans changed course, NOT because of some wonderful noble intentions.
Being biased is one thing. But as I have said many times before, I am sick and tired of everything Republicans being called pure as the driven snow, and everything Democrats do as evil.
You want to talk loss of fundamental rights? Let's just look at the utter CRAP the republicans have passed as Laws in the past few years and how much our rights have been taken away. Anyone seen any repeal of old laws or new laws that give American citizens their rights back? I am sure I will hear the Security, Terrorism, and 9/11 excuse somewhere there.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The sad part is the holier than thou - so called conservative - angry at the liberals - dittohead - Joe six pack, is going to bend over and let these corrupt politicians do whatever the fark they want. Hey, if the evil Liberals oppose it, it's got to be good and wholesome.
So now you have God complexed republican poltiticians going... We are the majority. We won the elections. We represent the Red states. We can do anything we want.... And you are going to let them do it.
Trust me. Keep on this path, and it's going to come back and bite you in the ASS one day!
Posted by: Hash![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.opaquelucidity.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 26, 2005 12:33 PM
The filibuster has been an integral part of parliamentarian politics since the original Robert's Rules, if not well before. It is an often important part of the process. Often it may not change the value of a vote, but it at least insures that proper time and consideration has been given to the question at hand and that everyone's voice has been heard.
Beyond that, the American politician that practically defined filibuster in the Senate, and currently holds the Senate record for longest filibuster is the conservative Strom Thurmond. Kentucky's own Mitch McConnell is also well known for filibusters (and which is why he is current Senate Majority Whip).
All of this, of course, is basic High School Civics, that I would hope more people actually retained.
Posted by: WorldMaker at February 28, 2005 03:13 AMGentlemen,
I do not doubt the legality of the filibuster. However, using it to block up and down votes on judges is, I believe, unprecedented (I can't find a previous instance; I could be wrong).
Why not an up and down vote? They are thwaring normal procedures by abusing the filibuster, plain and simple.
Posted by: Matt_D at February 28, 2005 07:34 PM
Matt,
The Republicans used it to block Clinton judicial appintments and the Democrats called them un-American. Now the Democrats use it to block Bush judicial appointments and the Republicans call them un-American.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...
Kevin, I can think of maybe one time that this happened on Clinton's watch. I'd like some proof of your assertion.
Posted by: Matt_D at March 1, 2005 12:49 PM