Why are the Senators so afraid of the filibuster?

[Craig3410]

It's simple enough:

-Democrats filibuster
-Republicans use the "nuclear option"
-Democrats go far and wide and bring up every instance of filibustering and telling the american public that filibusters have been used for hundreds of years and that the republicans are going waaaay over the line in coming up with this "nuclear option" bull.

Simply put, they use the "nuke", we make it backfire, revealing the repubs for the "huge government" neoconservatives they really are.

[Craig3410]

1. Good jeez, the threads are moving fast today.

[cyberpj]

2. AGREED! But Democrats have now forgotten how to take a stand.

[longship]

3. Oh Dear!!! You choose the reason.

• Oh Dear! The Republicans might hate us.
  
• Oh Dear! The news media may portray us as obstructionists.
  
• Oh Dear! The Republicans might not let us get our new progressive agenda through Congress.
  
• Oh Dear! We have to get along with the Republicans.
  
• Oh Dear! Bill Frist and Dick Cheney are such nice guys. Who'd want to go against what they want?
  
• Oh Dear! Comity is more important that principle, isn't it?
  
• Oh Dear! We don't want to lose the ability to filibuster in the future, if we want to.
  
• Oh Dear! The Republicans are correct. Samuel Alito deserves and up-and-down vote.
  

You pick the one(s) that fit. Or, add your own if you wish.

[Dr. Death]

11. The next to last one should read:

Oh Dear! We don't want to lose the ability to filibuster in the future, not that we'd actually have the guts to do it.

[durablend]

13. You forgot one

Oh dear! Katie Couric might yell at us!!!

[dl5192]

4. It's really not that simple...

The filibuster has, in fact, NOT been used for "hundreds of years" to stop judicial nominees. This is a recent tactic of the Democrats and has become a major election issue in the last two cycles. The "nuclear option" does not eliminate the filibuster, only the filibuster of judicial nominees.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Village Idiot]

7. They also ATTEMPTED to block three of Clinton's appointees...

via filibuster, but were UNSUCCESSFUL.

U.S. district judge H. Lee Sarokin in 1994

Richard A. Paez and Marsha L. Berzon in 2000


http://mediamatters.org/items/200504280003

[Nutmegger]

8. Thanks so much for this info. Good to have proof. n-t

[dl5192]

9. That's open to debate...

There is considerable disagreement whether this was actually a filibuster. But even if you want to call it that, it is not a tactic that the Republicans have used on a regular basis. And Fortas lacked the votes in the Senate to be approved. That is a key difference with wahte the Democrats are doing today which is to block and up/down vote on a nominee that has majority support in the Senate.

You need to settle down, brother.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Village Idiot]

12. Some of your opinions expressed here are not factual.

The Republican Party was the first party to filibuster a judicial nominee. Abe Fortas was nominated by Johnson to the SC in 1968 (to replace Earl Warren) - and was FILIBUSTERED successfully by Republicans.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Filibuster_Derails_Supreme_Court_Appointment.htm

"Abe Fortas became the first sitting associate justice, nominated for chief justice, to testify at his own confirmation hearing...
...Although the committee recommended confirmation, floor consideration sparked the first filibuster in Senate history on a Supreme Court nomination...
...On October 1, 1968, the Senate failed to invoke cloture."

These FACTS are not in dispute. Your comments, however, ARE. They parrot Right Wing talking points made by Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell and Gordon Robertson (son of Pat Robertson) on April 25 and 26, 2005, on FAUXNews' "Hannity and Combes" and Roberson's "700 Club." THEY ARE NOT FACTUAL:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200504280003

"The claim by Robertson, son of 700 Club host and Christian Coalition of America founder Rev. Pat Robertson, that use of the filibuster against judicial nominees is "brand new" and has "never happened before" is false. In 1968, Republicans filibustered the nomination of Associate Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas to be chief justice."

"In addition, cloture votes were necessary to obtain floor votes on Clinton judicial nominees Richard A. Paez and Marsha L. Berzon in 2000, as the Los Angeles Times reported on November 13, 2003. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), who is leading the Republican opposition to Democratic filibusters, voted against cloture for the Paez nomination. And in October 1994, Republicans attempted to filibuster the nomination of U.S. district judge H. Lee Sarokin to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Moreover, the Republican-controlled Senate prevented approximately 60 of former President Clinton's nominees from even reaching the Senate floor for consideration."


I apologize for calling you a liar and a lying troll - Faux RW talking points incorrectly expressed as facts never fail to rile me up. I should not have resorted to ad Hominem attacks in my responses, however and unfortunately the mods deleted the FACTS and links along with my overly directed comments.

[baby_mouse]

5. They don't want to be seen to be following DU lead.

Minutes after they filibuster Bill O'Reilly will go on the air and tell the world that they're being run by that wacko site DU.

[durablend]

14. Nah...he'll say Michael Moore or George Soros

[baby_mouse]

15. I guess... I should have added a wink

or some other smiley. I don't really think O'Reilly cares at all about DU...