is the senate enough?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thanatoast, Apr 28, 2004.

  1. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #1
    the current split in the senate is 51-48-1, republican. presidents traditionally gain seats in election years, and lose them in midterms. 2002 was unique in that bush gained 6 seats. i was wondering, what if bush remained president, but considering our still out-of-sorts circumstances, senate control went to the democrats? would this provide enough counter-weight to offset bush's pull?

    i ask, because i just read an article on the commie liberal alternet.org that talks of kerry's first term after winning consisting of cleaning up bush's messes. if bush remained in office, would he self-destruct? how much blame could he shift to a democrat controlled senate? would the senate be willing to stand up and be democrat-ruled, rather than republican lite?

    so in essence, would it be better for kerry to lose, to let bush drag the country ever farther down the rabbit hole, and then to let a democrat who's willing to be a democrat return triumphantly in 2008? will the pendulum have swung far enough out for a return trip by then?
     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    regarding blame shifting, we've already seen the GOP continue to blame the dems for, well, everything, even as the WH and congress are GOP-controlled.

    i've got some friends, bush-haters, who do point to the positives of a bush second term. basically, everything will come unglued and, w/ no one to blame but the GOP, a dem president is inevitable in '08. probably a dem-controlled senate, too.

    though i'm not sure we can survive another 4 years of this. and the supreme court makeup (given retirement of ginsburg, o'connor and possibly stevens) will haunt us for years to come.

    predictions in bush 2nd term:
    - military draft
    - use of US nuke
    - major domestic terrorist attack
    - stock market crash / depression (devaluation > 40%)
    - further devaluing of USD (target: $1.50USD = 1 euro)
    - housing market crash (devaluation > 20%)
    - bankruptcies: Ford Motor Co., JP Morgan

    except for the nuke, it'll all probably happen regardless of who's in office. might as well be bush and the GOP in office. maybe the voting public might actually wake up. ah, who am i kidding? the voting public actually flip-flop?!?!
     
  3. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #3
    zim sez, in part,

    "predictions in bush 2nd term:
    - military draft
    - use of US nuke
    - major domestic terrorist attack
    - stock market crash / depression (devaluation > 40%)
    - further devaluing of USD (target: $1.50USD = 1 euro)
    - housing market crash (devaluation > 20%)
    - bankruptcies: Ford Motor Co., JP Morgan"

    I still don't see why the BigWigs think a draft is necessary; anyway, I sure don't. I see any use of a nuke as retaliatory, and I don't see a target for retaliation if terrorism is the involvement. Are you thinking of a first-strike against North Korea?

    The others, but for bankruptcies, seem possible, although your numbers are open to debate. I'm not saying I think you're necessarily wrong, though.

    Where did you pick up on FoMoCo's potential for bankruptcy? JPM, yeah; they're overly exposed to a bunch of potential losses, although I'm a bit out of touch on the specifics.

    "except for the nuke, it'll all probably happen regardless of who's in office. might as well be bush and the GOP in office."

    Lemme leave the nuke out of it for the moment, and remember I doubt a renewal of the Draft: If the rest come about in 2005, that means there are three years for some sort of rebuilding/renaissance/whatever. Couldn't that mean that by 2008 things are looking good--or, at least, better? "It's the economy..." might even be a plus for the next Repube.

    My view here comes from having heard umpteen dire predictions "If so-and-so is elected, we're all gonna suffer The Horribles." Somehow, we keep muddling through. It never gets really better, no matter who's elected, but it's never as bad as the Cassandras would have it.

    'Rat
     
  4. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #4
    Divided government is the way to go. Goddess help us if the GOP gets over the 60 seat hurdle in the Senate.
     
  5. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #5
    i'm thinking of any nuke against any non-testing target. i won't guess at the circumstances. he'll find a way.

    definitely open to debate. i used the 20% and 40% figures to illustrate what i thought the severity might be and to provide a guideline. my 20% housing "crash" figure may conflict w/ someone else's idea (e.g. "i'd call 80% reduction in housing prices a crash").

    for ford, it would be a direct result of a consumer debt problem. ford makes all their money from financing and i'm predicting massive default. jp morgan writes most of (if not all) ford's loans.

    i'm not necessarily predicting a 2005 date for all the above but, yes, things can, and eventually will, always get better. but we'd need a reversal of just about all economy-things-bush for it to happen.
     
  6. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #6
    Yeah they might actually start voting yea or nea on judges instead of fillibustering em all.
     
  7. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #7
    Huh? How is that related to divided government? Oh that's right, the GOP was SO accomodating to Clinton's nominees....
     
  8. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #8
    I wouldn't mind a republican senate and a democrat congress. The government works best when they can't get anything passed but we need judges who believe in the constitution.
     
  9. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #9
    You do realize that the Senate is one half of Congress don't you?
     
  10. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #10
    ok I meant house of representatives. Sorry I'm not perfect.
    Around here we tend to call the Senate the Senate and the House Congress.
     
  11. Rower_CPU Moderator emeritus

    Rower_CPU

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #11
    You do realize that something like 98% of the appointments were OKed without trouble and that Democrats were only filibustering a handful of appointees, don't you? Is Congress supposed to be a rubber stamp for anything the President puts forward?

    It's funny how people jump up and down about the Constitution and then want to override the system of checks and balances when it's convenient for them.
     
  12. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #12
    Right checks and balances let them come up for vote and vote on them. That is the check and balance.
     
  13. Rower_CPU Moderator emeritus

    Rower_CPU

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #13
    Filibuster is also a key part of the checks and balances in that the houses of Congress can set their own rules - and the filibuster is a long standing tradition. You can't pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you want to adhere to.

    No comment on the number confirmed vs those being filibustered?

    Edit: Not to mention the fact that Republicans pulled this same kind of maneuver with Clinton appointees - kinda hypocritical to cry foul, dontcha think?
    Leahy summarizes the situation nicely.
     
  14. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #14
    from the lie database

     
  15. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #15
    The rules say that the guy becomes a judge based on a simple majority not a super majority. By slipping in filibuster where it wasn't originally intended to be they, the democrats, changed the rules so that now you need a super majority. Yes technically there was a loophole and the democrats found it. There is even couple of defenses to it but the Republicans are wimping out and not doing their job. Like for example forcing these filibusters into being real filibuster and not allowing anyone to go home until there is a vote. I'm thinking they are counting on winning the election.

    I also heard that some republican could sue on constitutionality point of the filibuster or something like that and then the speaker would immediately state no and deny the motion but then some other republican could secound it and demand that the measure be put to a vote and in doing so they can bypass the filibuster. I'm sure I skipped an important step. I heard they didn't want to set precedent which is why they didn't try this strategy. Course then couldn't they filibuster that vote?

    I don't know how many confirmed vs how many filibustered. The ones they are filibustering they are doing so simply because they are pro lifers or some such as that. Something like that should be voted on. I remember in one case they demanded the entire case history of a judge and his reasoning on issues that might come before the bench. Had he answered it he would no longer have been qualified to sit on the bench because he isn't allowed to talk about things that may come before him. An abortion case I think. So they filibustered him for not answering a question had he answered would've immediately disqualified him from sitting on that bench.

    Whatever this is the main reason why I won't vote libertarian this year. I want the Republicans to get the 60 votes necessary to place memberships on all the benches of those who will abide by the constitution instead of trying to legislate from the bench.
     
  16. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #16
    Oh and Republicans to my knowledge have never filibustered a potential jurist in open senate.
     
  17. Rower_CPU Moderator emeritus

    Rower_CPU

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #17
    It was in the links zimv20 and I posted - over 170 confirmed versus less than 10 filibustered.

    Guess a "the rules" say the President gets his way 100% of the time...
     
  18. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #18
    Nope only if the senate votes 51% in his favor a simple majority like the rules say for validating appointed judges to the bench.

    On a side note another thing thats bothers me is if the Republicans had done a fillibuster of an appointee for any office for Clinton or anyone else every news station in the country would be repeating each other about how rotten they are etc etc etc. But I havn't heard a peep about the Democrats doing it except for Fox and even they don't talk about it much. Prior to 9/11 that should've been the number one news story of the day.
     
  19. Rower_CPU Moderator emeritus

    Rower_CPU

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #19
    Do me a favor and read Leahy's statement and then we'll continue this.

    If you won't even bother to read the facts of this issue, why should we bother to put up with your "I heard a guy" and "I think I remember" justifications for your positions?
     
  20. Thanatoast thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #20
    fillibustering is a perfectly acceptable technique used to keep the majority from walking all over the minority in the senate. it has been used to great effect (though not always for the best causes) over the last 200 years. if the republicans have found a way around it and have declined to use it, then don't you think the consequences to the power structure of the senate would be pretty severe? all they'd have to do is lose two seats and the democrats could pass any bill they wanted without fear of reprisal. sounds like even they have figured out that this would be shooting themselves in the foot.

    as for clinton nominees, the republicans blocked an unprecedented number of them, and now have the gall to claim the democrats aren't playing by the rules. Here's a link with actual numbers quoted. Quite frankly, the Democrats have played the nice guys for far too long, and I'm glad they're sticking to Bush. Let him and his radical right wing nominees rot.
     
  21. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #21
    Would that be Gaia? ;)

    Actually, we already have a divided government, as in separation of powers and checks and balances. There were rumblings from Congress, when it came to GWBush's budget recently, and they were already GOP dominated.

    Here's to hoping for a Rice/Barbour 2008. :p
    Some women just look sexy, even if they have a gap in their front teeth. :D :eek: :D
     
  22. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #22
    Ahh the male counterpart to the women who vote for a candidate because he looks good. Glad to hear you'll be voting with your little head Frohickey. :eek: :D :rolleyes:
     
  23. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #23
    Article II, Section 2, Clause 2

    Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law[/b]: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

    No where in the US Constititution does it say that a super-majority would be required of the Senate in order to seat a judge.

    Actually, I would like for a real, honest to goodness filibuster, where the Senator would not yield the floor, and ramble on and on, as a delaying tactic. Maybe we can have Senator Robert Byrd haul out the Washington DC yellow pages and start reading from it until he drops from exhaustion, or he manages to pass the floor to someone else. ;)

    Allow an up-or-down vote in the full Senate, instead of a 2-step or 3-step process of passing the Judicial Committee, then maybe a filibuster, then on to a full up-or-down vote. Heck, I would go as far as saying, if a judicial position is not filled within 9 months of a vacancy, that judicial position is permanently removed, until another 9 months have passed. Thats one way of shrinking government. :D
     
  24. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #24
    Condi is sexy. Conservatives are usually sexy. Case in point... Ann Coulter. :p
     
  25. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #25
    Now where was this kind of outrage when the GOP was bottling up Clinton nominees in the committees that they held the majority on? If you guys want the filibustering to stop just give the Dems back the committee chair positions so they can go back to blocking judicial nominees the old fashioned way!
     

Share This Page