Posted: 4/20/2005 6:44:27 PM EDT
|
I have seen some mention of this topic on here, but not a full blown discussion. After alot of careful consideration, I have decided that I do not support the Senate using the Nuclear Option to get a vote on President Bush's nominees. In case you are wondering WTF I'm talking about: Basically, in the Senate the minority party can call a filibuster on a bill or nomination, thereby blocking the required vote by the full Senate. Unless the majority party has 60 votes to break the filibuster and pass the bill or confirmation. Currently a Senate vote on all of President Bush's judicial nominees is being held up by the Democrats who have filibustered their nominations. In order to get around this, the Republicans are considering changing the Senate rules to allow them to break a filibuster without the 60 required votes, on nominations. While I think that it is important to get some conservative judges on the Federal benches, I don't think that this is the way to do it. First off, if they change the rules on nominees, it will be just as easy (and far more tempting) for them to change the rules on legislative filibusters down the road. The day may come again when conservatives are the minority party in congress, and I would hate to see them completely defenseless against the Demonrats. Second, I think that it will hurt the Republican party at the polls next year. The left will play this up as cheating and changing the rules to consolidate power within the government in order to push a radical conservative agenda. The momentum in the last few elections has been in favor of the Republicans, but if they push too far too fast then we could see a very quick swing back in the other direction. I hate to be 10 years from now with 7 conservative judges on the bench, but the Democrats in controll of both houses of congress and doing to the Republicans what the Republicans want to do to them. ETA - Just imagine the horrible things that would come out of a conress where 55 Democrats controlled the Senate, and the Republicans did not have a filibuster option. This country would go down the tubes FAST! |
| I think you're giving them dems too much credit. They have been shocked by the re-emergence of the Republican party since the '94 mid-terms. I think that the first thing they would do if they regained power would be to implement the nuclear option themselves and pass whatever they want. In short, the gloves are off now and we should strike first. |
Just like that? No consideration of the possible rammifications? How about backing off of the ultra conservative agenda for a while and winning 5 more seats in the Senate instead? 2006 is next year ya know. That'll leave Bush with 2 more years to stock the bench. |
Those who claim there will be payback if the Dems ever get power again must have forgotten what happen the last time the dems were in power. Many, many cases of committee meetings that the repubs weren't even allow into, everything got ramrodded down their throats. Sorry there will be payback one way or another, and the filibuster will still be there. The so called "nuclear option" means that they will actually have to filibuster not just threaten to. |
Definately yes. What, you think this topic hasn't been discussed to death across both this board, the airwaves and elsewhere for quite some time? Plenty for an intelligent person to make an informed decision on where they stand. Or, as artists are so apt to put sentiments so...artfully; 
So what if they do? (which they surely will) If they want then they can just vote to allow fillibusters on judicial nominees again if they love it so much. |
Oh, they will one day things go in cycles, but to say that if we play nice they will shows people don't know history, or for that matter what the so called nuclear option actually means. The doesn't take away the filibuster, it just says it has to be a real filibuster, not the ersatz one that is in use now. |
www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=343778
Wrong. This case has constitutional ramifications. The Senate is not obligated to "advise and consent" on legislation. Furthermore, legislation is subject to the bicameral process, whereas judical nominees are only confirmed by the Senate. The sky is not falling. We are not doomed. The democrats are about to get their bluff called. This is a "good thing(tm)" |
I'm not arguing that point, I agree completely and I know full well that the Democrats are only doing this so that they can appoint more liberal activist judges to those benches when they get a Democrat President. Also, I really can't disagree that the Democrats are probably going to cheat us when they get into power again. However, it is an absolute certainty that the Democrats WILL use this move to make the Republicans look like cheats who are changing the rules to get their guys in and continue pushing the agenda of the religous right. That could be very bad for the Republicans in 2006. |
IMHO, No, I think it will play right into our hand. It may have taken a decade, but the sheep are starting to see thru all of the posturing that the dems use for what it really is, now is not the time to play their game. Back off now, and it just gives them more time to herd the flock in their direction. America is changing for the better, giving into their antics will only stunt that growth. |
Yeah well half the guys on this site were ready to oust the current Congress after the Terri Schiavo debacle, and Bush's approval ratings still haven't recovered. Now we want to give the Dems an excuse to say that Republicans are changing the rules to stock the bench with ultra conservative judges and we could be in trouble during the next election. |
You're giving in to Dem propoganda. Bush's appointees are not "ultra conservative". If anything they're moderates who just aren't likely to toe the line of the 9th Curcuit. That's what the liberals are afraid of. As to 2006, I think we'll lose more seats from infighting in primaries (as in NOT supporting republican incumbents but republican opponents because the encumbents showed themselves to be pussies) putting up weak candidates unless we spend the political capital while we have the chance. Think Perot. Think third party candidates can't lose us congress and the presidency at the same time? Think again. Lead with strength or move out of the way. |
No, I'm telling you what the Dems are going to be saying from the minute the Republicans change the filibuster rule until they take back control of the Senate. You think you heard alot about Kerry's purple hearts? HA! ETA- I want these judges to get confirmed. I want to have solid conservatives with strict constructionist views on the bench. The more conservative the better as far as I'm concerned. I'm just worried that the method is going to backfire. |
I say let them. I guess I just respect strength and integrity more than the ability to play games. |
What you fail so miserably to realize is that 7 conservative supreme court justices are much more powerful than a liberal president and 100 liberal senators COMBINED!I'll worry about the ramifications later. I say use the nuke, or let it all come crashing down. After watching that NRA video, I'm just itching for a showdown. HOOAH!   
|
Go back to last Nov. and look at those numbers too... People SAY a lot of things, but when it comes down to brass tax, they know what side of the line their on. Instead of squabbling bout what IS to come, we should be writing history. Tell me I am wrong, Tell me the opportunity isn't there! Carpe Diem! Sieze it brother, Sieze it. |
The fatal flaw in your logic is that you think that if the R's dont do it then the D's wont either. The Demonrats will not hesitate for one second to do it if they get power again. This isnt a tennis match to them, it is kill or be killed. We have the opp to break their backs for good if the R's have the balls to go for it. 
|
|
The only fillibuster this will change are the fillibusters that are occurring OUTSIDE OF SENATE RULES to block judicial nominee vote by the Senate. That's it. The fillibuster will still exist for what it is for, legislation. Roberty Byrd can still read the phonebook whenever tort reform is proposed by Frist. Santorum can read into the wee hours of the morning whenever Hillary brings up a bill on universal health care. The fillibuster will still exist. What will change is that whenever the Senate must vote on a judicial nominee the Senate will vote, and there will be a yes, or no on the nominee. Notice that other Pres. Bush appointees to other areas have gone through the Senate and been appointed. Why is it that only judges are being blocked? Could it be that the D's know that their last area of government control, the court systems, will become more BALANCED? Could it be that they fear that a balanced court system may actually follow the Constitution not international law or some progressive's agenda? Could it mean that the D's will truely be in the minority in all three branches of federal government? This may be why they have been fighting so hard to stop these nominations. Sure the press will say that the "Republicans have chosen the nuclear option which will have significant ramifications on history and the future of the Senate." Do you think the press is going to be honest and actually say that the nuclear option will force the D's to do their job and quite breaking the rules? I think not. It will be spun as evil meanspiritedness by the R folks who want nothing but control, control, control, and surely abortion will be banned within the next five minutes. Go nuclear, do it now! |
I'm with you 100% on that point. The left wants to stock the benchs with liberal activist judges who will twist the constitution like a pretzel to make it fit the radical liberal agenda. And I also understand that we MUST get conservative judges on the bench to start reversing the leftg wing strangle hold on the courts. Maybe I was misguided in thinking that the Dems will not do this to us when they eventually regain control of the Senate. I know full well the the Democrats are more than willing to lie, cheat and steal to obtain and retain power. I have not forgotten the Clinton years yet. But my concern is what effect this will have on moderate conservatives and independants during the midterm elections and beyond. I want conservative Republicans to not only maintain but also expand their power in congress. I think that if Republicans can play their cards right, then we can very realisticly win enough seats in 2006 the Senate to break a filibuster without using the nuclear option. I just read the other day that in 2006 there will be 6 Democratic Senators up for re-election in states that President Bush carried last time. If Republicans ease off a bit (especially in the wake of Terri Schiavo) then I think we stand a damn good chance of putting the Dems completely out of business. But if the Republicans push too far, too fast then I think that they will scare off moderate conservatives and have the conservative trend in congress reversed by the voters. Make the Democrats look like the obstructionists that they are. Sell the American people on conservative reform. I am looking beyond these 7 judges. I'm looking past 2008. I want to see a Republican controlled Congress in 2008, 2010, 2012 and as long as we can go. I also have not forgotten how in 4 years the Republicans were able to completely reverse just about everything that took place under Bill Clinton. We need more time to solidify more conservative reforms that cannot be reversed by a Clinton or Obama administration some day. |
This is the only worthwhile argument I have heard on the issue. Yes, ideally this does make sense. Unfortunately I think it makes republican senators look weak to the base. My concern is that if we do not use the constitutional option then we may actually LOSE seats to dems because we had people voting for MORE conservative 3rd party candidates for the Senate in 2006 as punishment to republican senators for now showing that they had a pair. |
I support the nuclear option... conservative judges are vital in getting the 2nd Amendment restored legally. I see it as nothing more than naturaly progression of the conservative momentum. Let the Democrats say whatever they want. It would really suck for the Repubs to have had the chance to excercise it when they could and then be sitting there powerless when the Dems do use it. And they WILL regardless - given the choice of morals or power they'll pick power every time.
As long as neocon Republicans don't do something stupid like try to overturn Roe VS Wade I don't see them losing any Senate seats in '06. I don't think the "nuclear option" will have anywhere near a negative electoral impact as something like that. |