pageok
pageok
pageok
Biden Says Filibuster on Alito Unlikely:

The Washington Times reports.

Jon H (mail):

Presumably, Biden (Whore - J.P. Morgan, etc) would say that because Alito is likely to rule for corporations and against citizens.

Dunno whether Alito puts corporations over the state, or vice-versa.
11.7.2005 11:52am
Thorley Winston (mail) (www):
Not surprising since Dewine and Graham's comments have made it virtually certain that any such fillibuster would result in the Byrd Option and the end of judicial fillibusters.
11.7.2005 1:25pm
Sebastianguy99 (mail):
Biden is the epitome of what is wrong with the Democratic Party. Why would anyone in the opposition party take the filibuster off the table this early in the process?

Whether or not one agrees with deploying a filibuster against a nominee, it is a poor tatical move. The so-called "Gang of 14" convened a conference and afterwards, Graham and Dewine moderated their earlier statements.
11.7.2005 2:16pm
Attila (Pillage Idiot) (mail) (www):
I think people are neglecting the most important question: If a filibuster is pulled off the table this early, how is John McCain going to get enough face time before the cameras?
11.7.2005 2:30pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
Biden is the epitome of what is wrong with the Democratic Party. Why would anyone in the opposition party take the filibuster off the table this early in the process?
Because this isn't a parliamentary system, and we don't have an "opposition party." We have a majority and minority. And the minority's job, like that of the majority, is to make decisions based on the merits, not based on opposing the majority.

Biden recognizes that a filibuster of Alito would be unsupportable and ludicrous.
11.7.2005 2:43pm
Thorley Winston (mail) (www):
The so-called "Gang of 14" convened a conference and afterwards, Graham and Dewine moderated their earlier statements.


Cite please.
11.7.2005 3:57pm
NickM (mail) (www):
How about this:

The current state of affairs, including the Roberts confirmation vote, is to the political benefit of many individual Democrat Senators. In theory, the filibuster is preserved. The Democrats from states which tended to vote for the President have had the opportunity to appear in tune with the majority of their constituents and vote to confirm the President's choice. The Democrats from states which tended to vote against the President have had the opportunity to appear in tune with the majority of their constituents and vote against confirming the President's choice. If I were a Democrat Senator or campaign operative, why would I strongly not want this scenario to continue through the Alito nomination?

The swing voters among the public tend to reward people seen as problem-solvers, not as obstructionists. Bipartisanship is seen as a virtue. Because nominations are not a fight of alternatives (unlike budgetary battles), but are a Yes/No question on the President's choice, swing voters are inclined to favor confirmation by the nature of the issue, and therefore to politically reward those legislators who vote for confirmation.

Nick
11.7.2005 6:33pm
Sebastianguy99 (mail):
" Because this isn't a parliamentary system, and we don't have an "opposition party." We have a majority and minority. And the minority's job, like that of the majority, is to make decisions based on the merits, not based on opposing the majority."


The Democratic Party opposes the policies of the Republican Party.The idea that only in a parliamentary system can there be an opposition party defies both common sense and language.

You also might want to give some thought to the fact that in the Senate, the Democratic Party represents a majority of the population.





Thorley Winston,

There were several articles about the Gang of 14 meeting. Here is a link(with a cite to a Rueters article) to a post where I first became aware of what transpired:


http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/3/23188/2817


Further selections are just a google away.
11.8.2005 1:09am
Phil (mail):
It might be much simpler than all of this: Democrats might believe that NLT 2009 they will control the presidency and the Senate. They do not believe, however, that the Republicans will have fewer than 45 senators. Given the ages of the various Justices, they may have concluded that cultivating a "rule" that SCOTUS nominees are not filibustered may be in their mid-term interest. They may even be correct on all counts. (Though the capacity of the Democratic Party for self-destructive behavior always amazed me, even when I still considered myself part of it.)
11.8.2005 9:33am
WHerndon (mail):
I try to be nice and civil on this site, but the last remark by Sebastianguy99 is just incredibly dumb:

"You also might want to give some thought to the fact that in the Senate, the Democratic Party represents a majority of the population."

Um, no, I might not want to give any thought at all to that "fact" -- even if it actually were true.

Since 100% of eligible voters don't vote -- and since the quality of candidates varies from state to state -- we simply don't know which party truly represented more voters nationwide in the last election. I, for one, am not going to concede that designation to Democrats when they control a mere 45 Senate seats.

Every since, oh, around 1789, two senators have been chosen by every state. This is how we hold elections. Power in the Senate resides with the party that captures the most seats. Period. Ever has it been so.

And yet recently, Democrats and liberals have created this charade of arguing that they actully represent more Americans than Republicans, at least based on Senate voting patterns. (It's interesting that they exclude House votes, which show the opposite. Hmm.)

As such, Republicans and conservatives are supposed to give Democrats special deference. Just look it up. It's written right into our Constitution.

Well, no. Did I already say what a silly, stupid, mindless, harebrained idea this is? Well, that's what it is.

Here's a simple question, Sebastianguy. If the Democrats controlled 55 Senate seats, but statistics showed GOP senators might represent a greater share of the overall population, would you be urging the Democratic majority to pay more heed to the likes of Orin Hatch, Rick Santorum or Sam Brownback on Supreme Court appointments?
11.8.2005 10:45am
Sebastianguy99 (mail):
WHerndon,

Well don't put yourself out my friend. But before you pat yourself on the back for your civility and intelligence, you might want to read my post again:

"....in the Senate, the Democratic Party represents a majority of the population."

Got that, pay attention now...."represent a majority of the population"


Not seats,not control, not eligible voters, but population.Thank you for the history lesson. I invite you to visit the U.S. census state-by-state population figures. I'm confident that you can do the relevant math.

The point of my response to the comments of David M. Nieporent concerning "majority/minority" was that he should consider that a majority of the population is represented by Democratic senators. This is also relevant because it is the Senate, not the House, that votes to confirm SCOTUS nominees. Voting patterns do not matter, if they did Bush would be president of only those that voted for him.


"Since 100% of eligible voters don't vote -- and since the quality of candidates varies from state to state -- we simply don't know which party truly represented more voters nationwide in the last election."

Again, this further calls into question the majority/minority party designation. Thank you for enhancing my point.



"Here's a simple question...If the Democrats controlled 55 Senate seats, but statistics showed GOP senators might represent a greater share of the overall population, would you be urging the Democratic majority to pay more heed to the likes of Orin Hatch, Rick Santorum or Sam Brownback on Supreme Court appointments?"

Again, that wasn't the question, but since you asked, the answer is "yes", but then again I'm not a Democrat.



"Republicans and conservatives are supposed to give Democrats special deference. Just look it up. It's written right into our Constitution."

Well, I think your own words speak best to this comment,"what a silly, stupid, mindless, harebrained idea this is? Well, that's what it is."


Again, thank you for your indulgence, your insight, and your grace. You are a fine example of your side of the political spectrum.
11.8.2005 1:37pm
WHerndon (mail):
Got your goat, didn't I, Sebastian? Forgive me for not noticing your indulgence, insight or grace in any of your posts on this board. Had I noticed, I might have responded in kind.

In any case, it's quite simple. The party that has the votes controls the agenda. When Democrats have the votes, they should do what furthers their aims, but within the rules. Republicans should do likewise.

It would be great if we could all agree on everything, but tough issues are by nature divisive.
11.8.2005 4:48pm
Sebastianguy99 (mail):
WHerndon,

"Got your goat, didn't I, Sebastian? Forgive me for not noticing your indulgence, insight or grace in any of your posts on this board. Had I noticed, I might have responded in kind."


Is it possible for someone to miss the point anymore than you?


"In any case, it's quite simple. The party that has the votes controls the agenda."


Please reread my post explaining why this comment, and your initial reaction to my post was tangential to the conversation.


"It would be great if we could all agree on everything, but tough issues are by nature divisive."


It would be even better if everyone got on the same page as to what the issue in question was before we begin to argue.
11.12.2005 4:22pm