Democrats are contemplating rolling over once again

[MadHound]

Time to contact your Senators and give them a quick spinal transfusion.

I was listening to NPR this morning(I know, I know, but still better than other radio news available in my area). They did a piece on the upcoming judicial nomination and possible nuclear option scenario. There was an interview with Senator Ben Nelson, a Dem from Nebraska, who was working on a "compromise".

Now the gist of this "compromise" is this; the Dems would allow a strict up or down vote on a limited number(three was Nelson's tentative figure, though it could be more or less:shrug:) of Bush's nominees and the Republicans won't use the nuclear option. . . at least not right now.

I have huge problems with this. First off, even allowing this limited number of judicial fanatics go through will adversely affect many issues in our country. While those elites in the Senate and House will have enough money and clout that they won't have to worry about the consequences of appointing these judges, you and I, the ordinary folks, will have to live with whatever draconian rulings these judges hand down, from further erosion of our privacy, to our ability to get safe, legal abortions in this country.

Secondly, by rolling over on this issue, the Democrats are neutering any opposition they wish to mount on future issues. If the 'Pugs come up with some other reprehensible piece of legislation, like SS reform, or Neanderthal nomination, like John Bolton, all they would have to do wave the threat of the nuclear option, and the Dems will cave again. You don't get a bully off your back by caving in to them, it simply emboldens the bully to commit even further outrages against you, and weakens your own position and standing. The way you beat a bully is to stand up and take them head on. Even if you get your ass kicked, you will give the bully enough of a pause that he will go elsewhere rather than risk further damage to himself.

Quite frankly, the Senate Dems need to stand up to these Republican bullies. Be defiant, use the power of the bully pulpit, and take these assholes head on. What is the worse that happens? The Republicans push the nuclear button, but even that isn't a guaranteed success. Many of the moderate Republicans are hinting that they won't vote for the nuclear option, for they wisely realize that one day they might need to use the filibuster. Even if it passes, the Dems have a wonderful court case with which to beat the Republicans about the head with, and the perfect scenario to point out to the public how extreme these Neo-Cons are. Point out how 60% of Clinton's judicial nominees were blocked by the Republicans, as opposed to the paltry 4.9% of Bush's nominations that have been blocked. Point to the records of these ten nominations, have extreme their views are, and how unfit for the bench they are. And point out how unconstitutional, and frankly unAmerican and undemocratic the nuclear option is. The nuclear option would hand the Democrats a huuuuge club with which to beat the Republicans with. Yes, the judicial nominations would go through, but hell, apparently at least a few of those nominations would go through under this Nelson "compromise"

It is time, past time, for the Democrats to stand up and fight these 'Pug bullies. Any other option or compromise is unacceptable. So contact your Democratic Senators today, and tell them it is time for them to stand up to these bullies. It is vital for the future of our country.

[PKG]

1. So let's not compromise, have our 'refusal to compromise' in the media,

allowing a moderate Republican afraid of looking "evil" vote for it now that we're the morally 'wrong' side in his state's eyes, giving Bill Frist the 50th vote, unleashing the nuke, and allowing Bush all the nominees he wants evermore--most importantly, allowing whatever Supreme Court justices he likes.

This idea cannot possibly have a downside.

Oh, BTW: the nuclear option isn't unconstitutional. It's reprehensible, but not unconstitutional.

[OneBlueSky]

2. when you compromise with the devil, you end up in hell . . . n/t

.

[deutsey]

7. And look where the country is as a result of all their compromises

As close to hell as I ever want to get.

[erichzann]

32. I agree - you can't compromise on everything

If you never stand up for what's right, you're not actually on the side of right.

[MadHound]

9. A lot of assumptions there friend, and you know what they say

About assumptions

First off, it isn't the 'Pugs offering the "compromise", it is a Dem, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Rather than being the first one to blink in this contest, why not let the 'Pugs offer a compromise? Why do the Dems have to be the first one to blink, and then roll over and piss all over themselves, offering up a "compromise" that is little better than rubber stamping the nominations, and much worse than doing nothing?

And why do you think that the Dems will "look evil". Whatever happened to getting out there and putting the Democratic POV in the press for all to see? Granted, it is a partisan propaganda machine, but the Dem POV can get through if it is pushed hard enough. What, are the Dems afraid of doing the heavy lifting again?

And what happens if this "compromise" is done? Every single time some odious piece of legislation, or a POS nomination is brought up, Frist or some other bully boy is going to haul out the nuclear option in order to ram whatever evil is currently before the Senate, while the Dems once more roll over. It is the way of all bullies everywhere, in any time. You give into them once, and they will keep coming back for more. You think this so called "compromise" will put an end to these evil nominations? Yes, this year only three of them will go through under this "compromise". Next year, the rest will be trotted out again, the nuclear option raised, and the Dems will cave all over. Get real friend, this isn't a compromise, it is a slow motion cave in.

And yes, the nuclear option can easily be argued as unconstitutitonal. For it is clear that the right to filibuster IS constitutional, <http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=744&wit_id=2046> therefore anything done to curb that right must be unconstitutional. Hell, if worse comes to worse, the court arguements could take years, the nominations are put on hold pending a ruling, and by the time the ruling is handed down, Dems could well be back in the saddle.

Sorry, but this compromise is a bad thing, and it will unleash what you fear the most, unlimited Bush nominations rammed through, for everytime the spectre of a filibuster arises, the 'Pugs will continue to drag out the nuclear option, a "compromise" will again be worked out, the nomination will go through, and we'll all be screwed again. The only way to stop this slow motion cave is for the Democrats to stand up and fight now. Otherwise they will simply become a rubber stamp for a bunch of bullies.

[PKG]

12. First of all, you misunderstand what it means by constitutionality.

What he says is The clear authorization for the filibuster derives from the Senate’s express constitutional power under Article I, section 5, to create rules for its proceedings and the Senate’s longstanding, consistent practice to allow the filibuster, or its functional equivalent, to block final action of the Senate on legislation and pending nominations. This does not mean the Constitution guarantees a filibuster, only that it does not disallow it.

Next, it's true a Dem offered the compromise. But if we then pack up and declare no compromise, then we'd also be the ones rejecting the idea of compromise. And, since we're the minority, we're the ones who *have* to compromise if we want anything done.

Next, you challenge my assumption that we'll lose the PR war--despite our batting about 1.000 in that regard--but then make the equally difficult assumptions that the Republicans will threaten filibuster each year and thus get everything they want, but that if they unleash nuclear that won't happen.

If they go with the nuclear option, they *will* get *everyone* they want. They'd get every judge we would have let through in compromise, plus worse ones. They'd get the Supreme Court slots filled without debate. You're arguing that if we compromise, they *may* get *many* people the want. That's true, but failure to compromise is an even worse situation. We can stand up and fight all we want, but when we're 45-55 and they only need 50 votes to win, continuously fighting isn't going to work--if they *ever* get 50 Republicans so fed up with us that they're willing to nuke, we lose big time.

[MadHound]

13. Read down further

"I further find no credible support for a constitutional prerogative that a majority within the Senate must be free of procedures that would impede its final vote on judicial nominations, even one approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Constitutional text, structure, and history all cut against any such prerogative. Constitutional sources also point overwhelmingly to the legitimacy of many longstanding, counter-majoritarian features of the Senate, including but not limited to Senate rules allowing committees to determine the content of legislation and to decide whether legislation or a nomination reaches the floor of the Senate. The filibuster has the same claim to legitimacy as do each of these other features of the Senate. While a filibuster undoubtedly allows a minority to frustrate the will of the majority, it may counteract the counter-majoritarian aspects of the committee system (and perhaps the discretion of the Majority Leader to schedule floor business) by enabling individual senators to block legislation or nominations favored by a committee or to force different nominations or changes in legislation rejected by a committee. The filibuster has the additional salutary effect of applying pressure on the President and the Senate to find common ground to resolve their differences. Hence, I believe the filibuster is not only constitutional but can facilitate compromise in an era in which many complain about its absence."

So as you can see, the filibuster IS constituttional, and any attempt to thwart to CAN be challenged. Yes, whether or not we win in the stacked courts we have today is a question that depends on which court we get. But even so, we can keep the case in court for years, and thus the nominations on hold for years, and by the time it is all resolved, the Dems could very well be back in power!

And yes, you don't seem to understand how bullies work do you. The 'Pugs threaten the nuke option this year, we cave and give them three of their nominees this year. Next year, they bring back the other seven, threaten the nuke option, and again, we'll cave. What the fuck good is a filibuster if you're not going to use it? What happens when they bring up a particularly odius Supreme Court nominee, like Ashcroft? The Dems threaten a filibuster, the 'Pugs wave the nuke option, and the Dems will gave. Either way, the nominations go through! We might as well fight in that case. And yes, an effective PR campaign CAN be mounted. The major reasons why the Dems haven't done effective PR for awhile now is that they really haven't wanted to, and thus they really haven't pushed on the media. A show down like this would force the media to pay attention, and the Dems, if they pushed hard and fought, could win the PR war.

Geez, no wonder the Dems are caving right and left, nobody is wanting to light a serious fire under their ass. Stop with all of the doom and gloom talk of what can't be done, and what our options aren't. Chin up, head up, and come out swinging!

[PKG]

14. Your quote does not actually help your position.

He's claiming the filibuster is constitutional, which does not mean it is required by the constitution--it merely means it is not forbidden by the constitution. He's saying, over and over again, that there is no support to the theory that the filibuster is unconstitutional. However, that does not mean the constitution guarantees the existance of a filibuster. A court challenge wouldn't last a day--unless you can actually find anywhere in the Constitution a clause mandating filibusters.

I do understand bullies. I also understand that politics is not as simple as a playground.

Next, I find it difficult to believe that the only reason we've lost every PR war against the Republicans--save Social Security--is that we "didn't want to."

[MadHound]

16. Trying to argue for a negative, eh?

If something, by long standing tradition or otherwise, is deemed to be constitutional, its opposite must be deemed unconstitutional. Clear? And I notice that you are staying away from the arguement about tying these matters up in the court system for years, why's that?

And I also find it interesting that the Republicans, when they were out of power, managed to get things done, and use the bully pulpit. Why was this, because they did indeed want to. They went out and stumped around the country, they got their faces in front of cameras, they worked at it, and gee, managed to block sixty percent of Clinton's nominees. Yet somehow, the Dems can't do this, eh friend? Sorry, but it is more like the Dems WON'T do this, they're apparently too afraid of upsetting their corporate masters, or they simply lack the will and spine.

If you wish to wallow in pessimissim fine, that's your right. But try not to bring everybody else down with your can't do attitude, there's too much of that going around already.

[PKG]

21. *sigh*

Your idea that "Constitutionality of X implies absence of X is unconstitutional" is simply wrong. For example, right now it is fully constitutional to have an income tax or a draft. But that does not mean that repealing the income tax or disbanding the Selective Service agency would be unconstitutional. Suppose the Congressional snack bar serves Coke. It wouldn't be unconstitutional for it to serve Pepsi instead--or even for the snack bar to be shut down. It's fully permitted by the Constitution to use Times New Roman as the font the Congressional Record is printed in. It would not be unconstitutional to declare that the Congressional Record is not to be printed in TNR, but instead to be printed in Courier.

Similarly, filibusters are not disallowed by the constitution, as the senate is allowed to set its own procedures, but that doesn't mean that a procedural change to disallow filibusters would be illegal. The Constitution does not say anything about filibusters. It lets the Senate make its own rules of operation. In the past, that has meant filibusters. If the Senate were to decide it doesn't want filibusters any more, then that would be perfectly constitutional--just as constitutional as if it were to decide it does want filibusters allowed.

[MadHound]

22. Gee, look at that, a couple of ordinary citzens,

Arguing whether or not something is Constitutional. You think it isn't, I say it is. I've shown presidence, you've got metaphors. How about that.

Now then friend, since we've seen two ordinary folks doing this kind of arguing, no matter which side is right, think about how much bigger, and longer, the arguement in a court of law would be. Years, friend, years to run it through the entire court system. And quite frankly friend, no matter which side one the court arguement, you and I and the rest of the citizens of the US would win, for during these years of court procedings, power would change hands, these nominations would be put on hold, etc. etc.

How about that now, you and I just demonstrated my point to a tee, it is better that the Dems fight this, in the press and in the court, rather than simply cave.

Thanks for playing!

[PKG]

24. "Presidence?" What precedence have you shown?

You've got no precedence at all. You have the word of one law professor, who actually is arguing a different point than you are--he's arguing against the claim that the filibuster is not allowed by the constitution. Through him, you've shown that the filibuster is allowed by the constitution. That's obvious. The Senate is allowed to set its own rules. His entire Constitutional argument is on the following clause: Article 1 Section 8 Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

He then argues that this has always been interpreted to allow the Senate to set its own precedings, the filibuster is by precedent used to help forge and ban laws, and therefore the filibuster is valid.

However, this by no means stops the Senate from using the same rule to alter its rules to disallow the filibuster. The Senate is allowed to set its own rules. If it wants to set its own rules so it doesn't have a filibuster, it may.

I haven't seen you argue against that point once--well, you did try, but the quote you posted was actually in my favor.

[MadHound]

27. ROFL friend

:rofl:

Like I said in the previous post, if we're arguing this long on a chat board, think about how long it will take the court system to sort out this mess! Either way, these nominations will go bye-bye.

Again, thanks for helping me prove my point!

[PKG]

28. But if you don't actually have an argument, it worn't last a day in court.

You see, if one person has a legal argument and the other one doesn't, it doesn't last very long in court, no matter how tenaciously they repeat themselves on the internet. What is your counterargument?

[MadHound]

29. I'm done arguing with you here, you've proven my point

Thanks for playing!

Do you understand what I'm saying, what you and I have done, what the point of this was? Do you get it, or are you just being obtuse because you like to argue and don't like losing(neither of which is neccesarily a bad thing)?

[PKG]

30. You have not proven what you've thought you've proven.

You think that just because we can argue this all day on the internet, you can argue this for years up and down the court system. But if there's no actual argument, you won't even get a trial. The court will listen to you for a few hours, and then vote on whether or not there will be a hearing. And it will vote no. And you'll have delayed the filibuster ban for about a day, maybe two days. You know, there are more options than just 1) You're right and I agree with you and 2) You're right and I'm arguing for the sake of arguing. Try 3) You're wrong and I'm disagreeing with you because you're wrong.

[MadHound]

34. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

This IS a constitutional issue friend, whether you like it or not, and I guarantee you that it would take it a number of years to go through the court system, because it is a serious constitutional issue.

Many many better constitutional scholars than you and I are debating on the constitutionality of filibusters. That this debate is taking place among such noted scholars is certainly indicative that a similar heated and drawn out debate would occur in the court system if the case was put in. So again, years would be spent resovling this.

Just as a point of how heated the constitutionality of filibuster is, here are a few references:

<http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR01674.pf.html>
<http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=744&wit_id=2046>
<http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=744&wit_id=2043>
<http://www.earthjustice.org/policy/judicial/pdf/Law_Profs_Filibuster_Letter.pdf>
http://www.earthjustice.org/policy/judicial/pdf/Mikva_filibuster_comment.pdf]

Note that these are all legal scholars, arguing for the constitutionality of filibusters, prominent people, citing legal precedence. And I'm sure that there are people out there doing the same for the opposing point of view. When those two viewpoints clash in court, it would be a constitutional crisis, and as I've said before, a ruling would take years, and the nominations would wither on the vine.

Sorry, just because you think that the issue isn't suited for the courts doesn't make it so. Quite frankly, judging from the way you and I and thousands of others in this country are going back and forth on this issue, the only way this will be resolved is through the court system, which is a win-win for us anyway. Is that clear enough? Can you hear me now?

[mmonk]

18. Allowing these judicial nominees

to take the bench and then allowing the republicans later to go nuclear on supreme court justice nominations is TOTAL SURRENDER. From the bench, these justices can strike down any progressive legislation that comes their way for their lifetime appointment as well as eliminate previous legislation and legal precedents on those pieces of legislation. You are talking a dictatorship in that they WILL CONTROL THE LAWS of the U.S..

[PKG]

25. And casting 45 useless protest votes as the filibuster is banned

allows far, far more nominees than these ones through.

[mmonk]

37. In such a fight

history needs to know who stood up (if you're going to lose anyway). The new court system will be filled with judges who are against the 1st amendment and the establishment clause of the constitution of the US. You won't sway any republicans to be true patriots unless you stand up. You're not a patriot if you surrender.

[KoKo]

3. Well, I agree with you. I thought they should have walked out in "mass"

a long time ago...but it's really a "club" and for some reason our Dems think that if they go the way of the Repugs it will create too much disorder.

Or they are afraid...or spineless...or their strategy is to let the Repugs hang themselves with their own rope.

I've heard all the theories but this is taking a devastating toll on those of us Dems out there who keep getting the message that we don't matter no matter how many faxes, phonecalls or e-mails we send, or petitions we sign.

At some point our Democrats must do more than talk the talk...they have to walk.

[MadHound]

10. My thought on this is that it is one more example of

The two party/same corporate master system of government at work. Dems are the good cop playing to the 'Pugs bad cop, and while they do this little mummer's play, we all are losing.

And these Dems I think really don't give a damn about the devastation they're causing. It doesn't effect them. They have enough corporate money to buy their seats, they have enough personal wealth and clout that atrocious issues like outlawing abortions won't effect them(they're precious little daughter can fly overseas first class for her "oops" corrective procedure), and the rest of can apparently go to hell.

It is this very mindset that has convinced me to no longer vote for any candidate who recieved corporate cash. Granted, this leaves very few Democrats elegible, but there is always the Greens. If enough people started doing this, perhaps it would put enough of a scare into the Dems for them to start doing they're job again, representing the interests of their constituents.

[The Stranger]

4. If they go Nuclear, Shut it All Down.

If they go Nuclear, Shut it All Down.

[MadHound]

11. Hell yeah!

What the fuck is there to lose at this point. The nuclear option would be a great court case to show how fascist these NeoCon bastards are, and meanwhile they could use the power of the bully pulpit to tell the public how evil, undemocratic and UnAmerican they are.

Sad to say though, once again the Dems are going to cave, leaving you and I, the regular folks out in the cold with no protection.

[PKG]

15. Well, there's 44 Senate seats to lose.

[MadHound]

17. Gee, forty four seats that are being occupied by people

Who aren't looking out for the interests of their constituents. Big whoop, and quite frankly, good riddance. I would rather at this point have no opposition at all than this faux opposition that is merely keeping up the appearances of true bipartisan government, while in truth we're all getting bipartisanly screwed. At least then there will be some truth in advertising:eyes:

[PKG]

19. Of course. Another Democrat who would rather lose than

compromise. No wonder the Republicans are winning.

[MadHound]

20. Apparently you don't get it friend,

If the Senate Dems compromise on this, we ALL lose. Those few radical judicial zealots will have lifetime appointments, and they will be able to wipe out all traces of progressive thought in this country.

In addition, if we give in to the 'Pugs on this one, it will only encourage them to pull out the nuclear option when a radical right winger is nominated to the Supreme Court. It will be much harder, after caving in this time, to fight such a nomination in the future.

The reason that the Republicans are winning is because our so called leaders aren't putting up a fight. Don't you think that it is high time that they did? Or would you simply rather see them continue to roll over and piss on themselves trying to please their corporate and RW masters?

[PKG]

23. Apparently you don't quite understand the numbers on this one.

If we stand as solid obstructionists with no actual platform other than "please DU by opposing whatever Bush wants," we quickly lose whatever shreds of bipartisanship exist. Republicans get even more fed up with us, and moderates/idealists like Snowe, Voinovich, Chafee, and McCain don't even consider voting with us. Everything passes 55-45, or 56-44, depending on how Jeffords is feeling. Wow. I can certainly see how we win here. Or do you think that a never-ending series of 45 protest votes would actually do something? And the Nuke passes 55-45, because there's not much point in saving Senate relations when the Democrats have no interest in compromise or bipartisanship.


The problem isn't that we're not putting up a fight. The problem is that we don't have a message. People don't understand what we stand for. Nobody ever says in opinion polls, "I vote for Republicans because Democrats cooperate with Republicans."

[MadHound]

26. Well, judging by their actions, the Dems aren't listening to us anyway

What was the vote on the military spending/Real ID? 100-0. The Patriot Act? 99-0. The IWR? 87-13. And the numbers roll on and on. I think that our so called leaders have indulged in enough of this "bipartisanship" friend, when are they going finally stand up and be counted as the opposition? Now would be a great time.

And it isn't that people don't understand what the Dems stand for, it is more that we're increasingly standing for the same things the 'Pugs are standing for. We're increasingly the party of 'Pug lite, and who's going to vote for the lite option when they can have the real thing? People are dropping out of voting and politics in droves for this very reason. The vast majority of people in this country are non-voters, not because they're apathetic, but because they don't see a dime's worth of difference between the two parties, and that lack of difference is increasingly obvious.

And being solid obstructionists isn't such a bad idea. After all, the 'Pugs were pretty much solid obstructionists throughout the Clinton years, and look where it got them, all three branches of government.

Sorry friend, but if the Democrats are going to continue down this path of theirs, rolling over each and every time in a show of "bipartisanship" to hell with them, I'd rather they all go the way of the Whigs. That way a real opposition party can rise up and beat back this tide of radical conservatism. As it stands now, the Dems are simply aiding and abetting the crimes committed by the 'Pugs, and it is high time they stopped.

[The Stranger]

35. Reid already floated a God damned good compromise, but

Herr Frist would hear none of it. Now it is time to call, not fold.

The opinion polls have shown that filibuster should be preserved, and the Republicans -- for the first time in recent memory -- have been divided and some have broken ranks. It is time to stand.

If they go Nuclear, Shut it All Down.

[lonestarnot]

5. Give the repukes what they cheated for!

[bdot]

6. I wish the people would get organized.

People need to get organized and just shut down the cities. An all out protest. The politicians sure aren't doing anything. They just back down to everything.

[deutsey]

8. But we might miss American Idol

:eyes:

[hecate77]

31. It is a safe compromise, because Reid knows Frist won't take it.

In fact, I just watched Frist refuse the compromise. So, Reid makes reasonable talk, which makes Democrats look reasonable, and Frist refuses it, which makes Republicans look bad. How is this a betrayal or a roll-over?

Reid is playing this very, very smart, and forcing the Republicans into a corner. He knows Frist has to try this, so he can safely make almost any offer he wants, sound reasonable, and not give an inch.

That's how it came across as I watched it, anyway.

[John_H]

33. So much for "Rapid Response." We've lost the PR war.

Once again, the rethugs stuck to their one line: "The president's nominees deserve an up or down vote" Once again the Dems were all over the place. As I predicted more than a month ago, there will be a "compromise" that lets the Reid barely save face--I say chimp ends up withdrawing no more than one or two of those nominations.

[leftofthedial]

36. they're so used to it now all the repukes do is whisper "vaseline"

and the dems roll over and say please be gentle.