Someone please give me a coherent argument WHY filibuster was

[saracat]

not attainable? That keeps being said yet we needed 41 votes and have 45 Senators. WHY was filibuster unattaiable? And what possible reasion could a Democratic Senator have for voting to end debate?

[mmonk]

1. Haven't heard a feasible argument yet from

those that claim it.

[saracat]

4. All I hear is that they would "lose their seats", and I say why? The polls

indicate the public has no love for either Bush or Alito! And as for the average Repug voter, if that is who concerns them, they won't even remember Alito by November!

[lastliberalintexas]

28. And I say who cares?

Court appointments will affect us much longer than some silly re-election campaign. Egos should have been brushed aside and the bitter pill swallowed if that was what it took to protect the Court and the next 2 generations the Court will be able to screw.

[oldtime dfl_er]

2. I'll let ya know what Cant - do -well says

if she ever replies to me. Not that it will be a coherent argument, but that's the point -- there isn't one.

http://www.cafepress.com/scarebaby/1128968

[GRLMGC]

3. Well, three said they were voting for the douche

so that leaves 42. There were several who were against a filibuster even though that's what a damn filibuster is for. There is no excuse.

[FormerRepublican]

5. Because 19 Dem Senators sold out to the Republicans.

Maybe they got bribes from Frist, routed from Abramoff or DeLay. :puke:

[Taoschick]

6. His/Her constituents

I think some people tend to forget that individual senators represent the voters in their states. Why would a senator from (for example) Washington care what someone from New Jersey wants? They're going to vote in accordance with what their constituents want and that is the way it's supposed to be. Why fall on your sword to please someone who can't even vote for you? We look at these issues on a national level but it still all comes down to the voters in each state. What do they want? What do they expect? That's where issues are determined.

[saracat]

7. Whaat? Whose constituants wanted this?

These seats are NOT in danger. The repukes are in trouble . Bushco is in the toilet. All the polls indicate the vast majority of Americans think the country is in the wrong direction. What constituants?

[ProSense]

9. Wrong. Except for four Democrats, the others are voting against Alito. n/t

[gumby]

10. Civil rights, environmental law, labor law,

a president with unlimited power, are not "state issues." These issues deeply affect every citizen in this country.

Alito's record is so bad, that any Senator should easily be able to explain a vote against him. Unless that Senator is a traitorous disgrace to our country.

[lyonn]

11. How do you know they voted for their constituents

If they were elected as a Dem. then you would think they would vote like a Dem. Was their promise to the voters that they would follow the Repub. line of thinking and voting?

[leftstreet]

15. Whose constituents would not have wanted to continue the debate?

Kennedy was PLEADING on the floor today for the opportunity to further educate Americans on Alito. It's all happening too fast for mainstream Americans to fully understand what's at stake. Mainstream America doesn't even know who Alito is!

[Taoschick]

25. and whose fault is that?

How about the SENATORS. Like it or not, my senator doesn't care what you want. He wants my vote and the votes of my neighbors. If he expects to keep them, he is going to vote for his constituents and not treat them like mentally challenged children who can't be expected to understand what's going on in the big bad world. Senators have to stop pandering to people that can't reelect them and WORK their asses off to educate their own constituents. Our Senators have a duty to represent the wants and needs of our states. If he/she feels that Alito must be filibustered, he should have brought his ass back home and made his case instead of putting up a damned toll free number soliciting calls nationwide. The failure to reach a consensus on a filibuster is the fault of OUR Senators who sat on their asses in Washington rubbing elbows and congratulating themselves instead of coming home and working their states.

[leftstreet]

42. Now that's a damn fine point!

:toast:

Our very own House of Lords

[mmonk]

20. The constitution and people's rights

are not to be cast aside to radicals for fear of misinformed constituents. They gave the republicans what they have sought for many years. We're in for a lot different America now.

[lastliberalintexas]

26. Except that there are some things which are national issues

Supreme Court appointments and the decision to go to war, for example, impact us all whether we live in Arizona or Maine.

And there are some things more important than simply winning re-election. The Roberts Court will still be affecting my life long after Maria Cantwell is a footnote in a history book, and her re-election means nothing if the health of the country is at stake.

That's not falling on your sword- it's being a patriot and putting your country ahead of your political ego.

[RazzleDazzle]

8. Whew. I'm with ya

Makes no sense to me.

I'm all for letting Dems be Dems, but SOMETIMES there needs to be absolutely unity and party discipline, no matter what. And if they don't like it, tough.

I'm sick of the people in Washington not getting it. REAL sick of it.

[seabeyond]

12. no ONE would be able to give you a coherent reason

because it does not matter what a person said, you would be opposed to the reasoning ergo, wouldnt meet you standard of coherant. i stopped trying to answer this question last wednesday

[Wheezy]

13. On my C-Span TV screen...

There are, right now, 40 declarations of a NO vote on Alito for tomorrow.

With Senator Ensign missing due to his car accident today, 40 was exactly what was needed to keep cloture from happening. Actually, with Hagel gone, we only needed 39. Either nos or abstains. We're not picky.
It was attainable.
Should have happened.
Didn't.

There is no excuse.

[Orangepeel]

14. because they thought that public support for a filibuster was not there

because they thought that public support for a filibuster, particularly in their states, was not there.

Filibusters are tricky. To most of the public, they seem unfair, like taking your ball and going home or kicking over the checkers board because you are losing.

Even though most people in the country disapprove of bush, most people DON'T think that he is a fascist lying sociopath. Most people don't think that republicans are actively destroying the country and that bush appointees will undermine the constitution.

Do most people YOU know think that? Maybe. You are informed, your friends are probably much more informed than average.

[stillrockin]

16. There IS no coherent argument!

They are all a bunch of scumbag sellouts who were probably promised something in return for their souls.

[Daftly]

17. Not so much unattainable, but unmaintainable.

The Dems did not vote for the filibuster because most thought the GOP had enough votes to nuke it. Politicians often do not want to be seen on the losing side. For those who voted to end cloture the vote tomorrow will be seen as symbolic. If they had voted for the filibuster, they would have been forced to stand up for something when they were outnumbered. They think the vote will be forgotten by the public within a week. They are probably right. We won't forget, but the public will. Shoot, most of the public will never bother to learn how their senator voted on Alito, ANWAR, or anything else. And that is the way politicians like it.

[lyonn]

23. The nuclear option was not popular with people either

The Repubs have been much to handy changing the law to suit their politics. As far as being seen as a loser, we are losers. This was a chance to stand for something very important.

[leftofthedial]

18. error in your assumption

we have 20 Senators, tops.

corporations and other fascists have those other 25.

[yurbud]

19. corporate interests like Alito and they count more than us

[Armstead]

21. Can't give you one -- I see no logic in it

This didn't placate the GOP. They'll keep on attacking, even if all Democratic Senators were to vote for Alito tomorrow.

It didn't make the Democrats look strong and principled. It make them look weak and irrelevant.

It didn't remove the "nuclear option." The GOP can still pull that one out any time they choose in the future.

It didn;t increase the chances of anyne in the 06 election. No one's stock rose among voters by being GOP lite.

Sorry I see no coherent logic.

[wisteria]

22. Reid didn't want it and didn't push it. n/t

[tritsofme]

24. Its my belief that elections have consequences.

And we are living through the worst of them right now.

I don't think the filibuster of executive nominees is ever justified.

I think it runs contrary to the intent of Framer's of our Constitution, and I would support a formal rule change that guaranteed every executive nominee a fair hearing, and a vote in the Senate.

The Senate should ratify or reject nominees, not keep them in permanent limbo.

If a nominee has the support of a majority of senators, then he should be confirmed.

I understand the choice some Democrats made by voting for cloture, although they might not support his nomination, they believe that the Senate deserves to decide one way or the other.

And if DU is any indication of the Democratic base at large, it was a principled stand to take in the face of such stiff opposition.

[mmonk]

27. If you don't think a filibuster is justified,

let's go back in time to unanimous consent.

[saracat]

29. Wow! This is what you think?????

"I don't think the filibuster of executive nominees is ever justified."


Then you agree that the filibuster should be abolished rendering any minority party powerless? Are you a Repuke????

[tritsofme]

32. This is what I have always thought.

I opposed all the dirty tricks Republicans played with Clinton's nominees in the Judiciary Committee, denying them any hearings, and refusing to fufill their constitutional duty to give advice and consent.

I opposed the four year long filibuster that Republicans don't like to talk about, chief among them Bill Frist, played with Judge Paez.

I don't like "blue slips"

I have oppposed Democrats when they filibuster or attempt to filibuster Bush nominees.

I don't care who the president is, I don't like it.

The legislative filibuster is completely different in my view.

[saracat]

36. And for the record Bush got way more nominees appointed than did Clinton.

But we should be noble and allow the judiciary to be effected for generations to come?

[tritsofme]

40. They also had the luxury of being the majority

for six of the eight years Clinton was in office.

If we can take back the Senate next year, I would expect the pace to slow down dramaticaly in the final two years of the Bush administration.

[Tatiana]

43. I suspect Senator Byrd voted the way did because of similar reasoning.

I disagree, but I do understand why you would feel the way you do.

[sandnsea]

33. That's not fair

Filibusters are tradition, not mandated by the Constitution. I disagree with the other poster because I'm not sure Abe Fortas was a good nominee, for starters. Also, the guy that Bush just promoted off of the Abramoff case should be filibustered, it's clearly a political nomination. However, my view of the Constitution and rules of the Senate aren't necessarily the right views and that's why we should have objective judges, if such a thing exists in this country anymore.

[Dagaz]

30. I agree

History is laden with bad decisions but for the most part the respect for separation of powers has been upheld. I agree 100% with Obama that the way to win these should be at the polls not with procedural moves. If the people are against Alito type nominations then make it an issue in the fall.

on edit....it looks like most who were up for election voted aye so that must be what the polls are telling them. We'll see in Nov what the impact is.

[WildEyedLiberal]

31. Wow - you just repeated the GOP's line word for word

"Elections have consequences." No fewer than 3 Repukes used that tired canard to justify their vote for fascist Alito. It's certainly... remarkable... that you would say the exact same thing.

[tritsofme]

34. Its the truth.

If Democrats held a majority in the Senate, its very doubtful a nominee like Alito would be confirmed.

The consequence of Bush winning in 2004 and the GOP expanding their majority in the Senate is Samuel Alito.

[saracat]

35. So if an election is stolen you have no problem with the illegal selection

of a justice provided the other party has gotten away with it? Wow!

[tritsofme]

37. I dont ascribe to the theory

that the 2004 election was stolen.

[saracat]

38. Of you don't but what if any election were?

Say 2000? Hypothetically?

[tritsofme]

41. I think that Gore would have been president after 2000.

If all the votes were allowed to be counted in Florida.

And I definitely think the SCOTUS decision was wrongly decided and out of their jurisdiction.

[zann725]

39. I got a "classic" response from Hilary, telling me to address my future

correspondence to MY rep. That she was too busy.

I wrote her right back, and reminded her she represents ALL U.S. citizens, and that her response was PRECISELY why I'd NOT be voting for her any time she chose to run for Prez.