Of course at the time the Dems were crying abuse over exactly these tactics when employed by Republicans.
No, they weren't. That's a very important distinction to make. And the Dems CERTAINLY weren't trying to have the rules changed. Only the Republicans pull shit like this. Just as only Helms has refused to have judicial nominees even have a hearing.
It's easy to say "It's politics, everyone does it, both sides," but actually in this case - not true. At all. The assault on the judiciary by Frist and DeLay and co in the wake of Schiavo, these attempts at filibuster rules changes, DeLay's changes to the ETHICS rules while he's in the middle of an ethics battle -- all unprecedented.
Keebler is right, both sides are abusing the process in DIFFERENT ways- not the same way. Not really a difference in kind mind you, they just have different styles. That said, I have no idea how that puts the Democrats on better moral ground. Also, I think it is silly to suggest that somehow a fillibuster is able to protect the minority from "the tyranny of the majority". Nor does it force compromise (e.g., nuclear option). The majority still gets its way in the end, especially considering that the President can actually force Congress' hand through an executive order.
Similarly, I think it is a mistake to suggest that the fillibuster is somehow needed to protect the minority. Take for instance Britain. They don't have a fillibuster, and yet the minority seems to get all the say it needs.
Vaulos Grandmaster of Brell / Shadowblade of Kay Minister of Propaganda for the Ethereal Knighthood
I recall Dems whining about fillibusters and fillbuster threats many times when they were in power. I agree that they never threatened to have the rules changed but, of course, I never stated that they had. I assume you are addding that for effect since I never wrote it (or even implied it). Not being an extreme partisan it is fairly easy for me to remember fillibuster complaints from both sides of the aisle over the years.
vaulos wrote:The majority still gets its way in the end, especially considering that the President can actually force Congress' hand through an executive order.
That explains why all those Bush appointments have soared through the Senate.
Most of them are already working as whatever position they are being nominated for even before they go before the senate. They don't get the official title until confirmation, but that's mostly a formality (unless of course the senate rejects the applicant,which rarely happens).
Vaulos Grandmaster of Brell / Shadowblade of Kay Minister of Propaganda for the Ethereal Knighthood
vaulos wrote:Most of them are already working as whatever position they are being nominated for even before they go before the senate. They don't get the official title until confirmation, but that's mostly a formality (unless of course the senate rejects the applicant,which rarely happens).
I guess I should have been more specific although I thought it was clear. I was only talking about judges in my response, not political appointees.
Ddrak is just pointing out that the minority doesn't have positive control of anything- the minority can't enact law or policy. It would be like saying that the US is under the tyranny of the majority of Americans who don't vote.
Vaulos Grandmaster of Brell / Shadowblade of Kay Minister of Propaganda for the Ethereal Knighthood
That explains why all those Bush appointments have soared through the Senate.
The vast majority of Bush's judicial appointments sailed through, Akhbar - a vast difference from the Clinton era.
Also, I'd be happy to hear you cite Democratic claims that employment of the filibuster was an abuse of the system. I'd find such a thing most informative. Forgive me if I don't rely on your "memory" and vague claims of partisanship.
vaulos: I'd also like to hear you talk about abuses of the system that are unique to Democrats.
Embar Angylwrath wrote:Resist... the urge... to.. kick the... shitbag....
/hopes Embar fails his resist check.
I would be absolutely certain this was trolling and not stupidity if he wasn't so persistent. I just cannot imagine someone trolling over a period of months/years and on almost every topic. Regardless, I have found the informal ignore button to be the best way to deal with him. It is wishful thinking but I have always felt that if everyone ignored him he would eventually go away.
How Ddrak and Relbeek can attempt to explain things rationally to that brick wall of ignorance is beyond me.
I find it less frustrating than trying to explain things to brick walls of smarm such as yourself, Akhbar. Though I'll give you credit, you've only had minimal episodes of smarm thus far in this thread.
That explains why all those Bush appointments have soared through the Senate.
The vast majority of Bush's judicial appointments sailed through, Akhbar - a vast difference from the Clinton era.
Also, I'd be happy to hear you cite Democratic claims that employment of the filibuster was an abuse of the system. I'd find such a thing most informative. Forgive me if I don't rely on your "memory" and vague claims of partisanship.
I agree with you on the first point that Repubs were "worse" about this in the Clinotn years than Dems are currently. That said, both sides are employing the same tactics so frequency of use is not really much of an issue when arguing the ethics of the matter.
For the record my comment about Dems was;
"I recall Dems whining about fillibusters and fillbuster threats many times when they were in power."
I did not limit it to judicial appointments as I meant to with my comments to Valous (because he was talking about a different issue, the fact that politico's can fill their positions prior to confirmation). I also didn't limit it to the Clinton era since my political awareness didn't begin in 1992. Bottom line, the party in control has *always* whined about fillibusters at least as long as I have been politically aware and when that situation changes, so do the people doing the whining. I do give the Democrats credit for not having tried to change the rules when they were in control (or more accurately I have been critical of the Repubs for trying to do so) but the idea that only Republicans use these tactics when in the minority or complain about them when in the majority is absurd.
Embar Angylwrath wrote:Dude.. that is so kettle/pot. The response to Ahkbar is smarm in itself.
Fucking hypocrite.
Honestly I usually have him on ignore for the same reason. I have found him to be thin skinned and defensive on a level that is only exceeded by his good buddy Jecks.
Heh you really are nuts. I would ask how I could possibly be two faced to someone that I effectively have no relationship with but God forbid you might actually answer. Please go back to nursing your raging inferiority complex and I will go back to ignoring you except to take the occasional shot when you are being a complete twit.
And that's why you're two-faced. Playing respect and courtesy sometimes, being complimentary even, but all too ready to pile on when there's an opportunity to make yourself feel like a big man and your target is vulnerable, even disavowing your previous, kinder words to do so. It never has anything to do with what you believe; it's just about who you can knife and when. At least the Rsaks around here don't try to hide behind a false front of respectability.
