Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What Ever Happened To Saving The Filibuster For The SCOTUS?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
DistressedAmerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:20 PM
Original message
What Ever Happened To Saving The Filibuster For The SCOTUS?
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 06:25 PM by DistressedAmerican
When Rice and Gonzalez came up for confirmation I was calling for opposition. Everyone told me we had to save the filibuster for the SCOTUS nomination.

When they threatened us with the so called "Nuclear option" over Federal court nominees I called for opposition. Again I was met with cries of we have to save the filibuster.

Well, here is the SCOTUS and I hear the cries ringing in my ears again. "We have to save our ammo." "We can't win this so we shouldn't fight it."

Do you all realize we have held fire through all of this so we'd have an intact filibuster to stop the SCOTUS nomination? Now, I am actually reading posts saying we need to save the filibuster for the NEXT SCOTUS nominee! WTF???

Has everyone around here already been beaten?

More importantly when are you going to demand that this party take a principled stand even if we do not win the vote in question?

All of you that advocate not acting unless we have a lock on the votes are selling this entire country down the river. Just like we saw with Ashcroft, Rice, Gonzalez, The Iraq War Resolution and The Patriot Act.

What does Bushco have to do before our leadership gets a spine? How many times do we have to get screwed by not fighting them before you realize we will never win this war by rolling over and hoping the repugs scratch your belly rather than boot you in the head?

The freeps are loving it though. They always love when we act like the spineless losers they paint us as.

Don't you understand this is the big one? My baby daughter will have kids of her own before this guy is off the court. I have a reason to fight.

NOW IS THE TIME!

No more holding the fire for some theoretical future fight. I have heard that over and over. Get ready to fight or get out of the way of those of us that will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
1. your entire argument does not mention what's wrong with Roberts
It doesn't even mention him except once in passing.

The dems are expressing caution right now, and reserving judgement until the hearings. They know very little about Roberts, and so this is the right position to take now.

We know even less, so we should wait too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DistressedAmerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I Have Spent All Day On That. That Not What This Arguement
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 06:38 PM by DistressedAmerican
is predicated on.

If you want to know my specific objections, feel free to look for my other threads. The specifics of my rejection of the guy are elsewhere. I feel no need to relist it all on this thread.

On Edit: And they are not expressing caution. They are lining up to praise him. Read Harry Reid And Feinstein's comments today. They are fully on board before hearings start.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. I'm going to tell you why I'm not going to bother with your other threads
and the reason ties in with exactly what I'm saying.

Based on what I read in your post, I don't believe your objections would be serious, I would think you're just knee-jerk against him, and that any arguments you come up with are just to fit in with your pre-judgements.

The American people would react in a similar way as I did, if their initial reaction was as you are suggesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DistressedAmerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. "We Continue To Believe Roe v. Wade Was Decided Incorrectly..."
Do you need a letter of intend from the guy?

You have no knowledge of me or my understanding of the situation. I have detailed it at length elsewhere. You can reject me out of hand if you want. That is up to you. But, it is intellectually lazy of you.

Done with ya. If you can't be bothered, neither can I.

Have a good one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. that will be central in the hearings
no doubt about it, his stand on Roe v. Wade will be examined at length.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cloister Donating Member (25 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. "Know Little?"
If they know little about him, that speaks extroidinarily poorly of them. Just 2 years ago he was unaminously approved for his current position on the appeals court. Of course, they could claim they didn't bother to review his record at the time of his appeals court appointment, but then they'll have to admit they weren't doing their job.

Overall, it seems to me that this will make it rather difficult to reasonably claim his SC appointment is an "extroidinary circumstance".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. Yep. That's exactly the argument that the repubs will be making.
BTW. That's extraordinary.

And you're welcome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #3
18. Hi Cloister!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johonny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. I imagine they know a lot
But the American people don't. They need to do some digging in the hearings to get at him before America is going to accept an extreme action against him. There is nothing on the surface that says this man must not at all cost get into the court. Given all that's been written today it would seem more than enough info on him to be a very lively hearing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. yes, we're at the starting point
if the dems were to declare him unacceptable before the hearings, they would, and SHOULD, lose all credibility when it comes time for any vote.

The RW weeks ago launched an ad campaign saying, falsely, that the dems would reflexively reject any Bush nominee, just because he's a Bush nominee. I'm glad they're not proving that smear right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:40 PM
Response to Original message
4. We need to use it
and have to at least once, either this vacancy or the next.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
9. You might find this pertinent if you have the time.
He specifically comments on the filibuster/nuclear option "win".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DistressedAmerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. A Little More Please. I'm Not Sure What You Are Telling Me.
I want to understand. Fill me in a bit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. They had a real interesting interview on Fresh Air today, for once.
"Cass Sunstein, the Karl N. Llewellyn Distinguished Service Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Chicago Law School, comments on Tuesday night's Supreme Court nomination of John G. Roberts. Early in his career, Sunstein clerked for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall.

He has also been a visiting professor of law at Columbia and Harvard universities."

I believe they said he's written a book "Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts are Wrong for America".

Among other things, he stated the filibuster deal was like a husband telling a wife that they should split something 50/50 and the wife telling him that she has a better idea that she thought she should have 3/4 of it. He followed that up with the statement that he thought the repubs had actually walked away with more like 80% of the deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DistressedAmerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. That Is What So Called " Compromise" Buys Us. I'll Have To See
If I can get that interview online. Thanks for the info!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 04:42 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. It was a really good interview,
the man knew what he was talking about. Unfortunately, I was driving home and had to split my attention between him and fighting traffic which led to some real gaps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DistressedAmerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
15. Kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
16. I think..
.... that we cannot stop this confirmation.

That does not mean I don't think we should filibuster, I think we should. I think we should force them to take the nuclear option, and then tell the country "this administration is so bent on taking away the rights of women and others that they are willing to abandon a century old tradition to get their way".

Or course, we'll be touting that against their message of "obstructionist Dems don't do anything but block".

I don't know which message is more effective, but I believe ours could be if done correctly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Sep 21st 2014, 01:10 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC