Judicial fillibuster threat -- where's my up or down vote?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by pooky, Mar 18, 2009.

  1. pooky macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2003
    #1
    This is just astounding. I'm not sure if I'm more shocked by the interpretation that because judicial appointees are a "shared constitutional responsibility," somehow the minority party should inherit some magical power to control the process, or by the sheer cajones these idiots have on display for the blatant change of position once their guy is no longer in charge. Shameful...

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-judge-fightmar18,0,347584.story

     
  2. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #2
    Why should Obama have to renominate 3 failed Bush appointments? That's absurd.

    Beyond that, I agreed with the Democrats when they did this, and I agree with the Republicans now.

    Judges should be acceptable to large majorities in both parties. They have lifetime tenure and it's important that radicals from either side are not chosen.

    We already got some radicals in Bush's appointments; the best way to balance that is not with radicals from the opposite side of the spectrum.
     
  3. pooky thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2003
    #3
    Absolutely, but that's not what it looks like is happening here. It looks like they're threatening a filibuster unless Obama nominates the Republicans' choices. The Dems used the filibuster to block extremely radical nominees. They welcomed reasonable, well thought-out people. It appears that the republicans here are threatening to block anyone who doesn't suit their ideology, regardless of their qualifications.

    Seriously, how can you filibuster someone who hasn't even been nominated? They're basically saying anyone Obama picks will be unacceptable to them.
     
  4. jonbravo77 macrumors 6502a

    jonbravo77

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #4
    I think the biggest thing here is how the Republicans wanted to do away with Filibusters but now want to do it to suit there own agenda. The notion of threatening a filibuster without even knowing the nominee is ridiculous and pandering at best, trying to gain strength in a party that has lost all sense of who they are...
     
  5. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #5
    Yes, it does appear that way.

    However, I am fairly certain that Collins, Snowe, and Spector will not vote with the rest of the Republican Senators on those nominations.

    Spector is pro-choice and was actually one of the thorns in Bush's side when Roberts and Alito were up for nomination. He's not going to suddenly about-face, especially because his constituents would not stand for it.

    The same goes for Collins and Snowe.

    I think the real story here is how out of touch the Republicans are. Why on earth are they expecting Obama to nominate failed Bush appointees, especially when they have no leverage?
     
  6. pooky thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2003
    #6
    Agreed. Sort of reminds me of a hostage scene in a bad movie.

    The desperate party, with no options left, is barricaded in the bank with Obama's judicial nominees. They get out on the megaphone and demand they nominate the old judges, or they'll filibuster one nominee every hour.
     
  7. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #7
    This is a self-correcting problem.

    The GOP keeps up this obstructionism/extremism, and the Dems will increase their majorities in the 2010 election.

    Filibustering will then be impossible; problem solved.

    Not that it helps the current situation. I'm just sayin' the Republicans never heard that old adage: when you're already deep in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.
     
  8. Shivetya macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    #8
    I look at it this way, Democrats successfully blocked Bush nominees and should expect Republicans to do the same. To claim it is okay for one side to set conditions and the other is not permitted to do so is just ignorant.

    Look, if they didn't want this to happen they should have acted as such when they were in this position. What did they expect? That it is only okay when they do it?

    Really? I hope the Republicans can force their hands at times. It would be sad to think only one party controls it all. Hell it is sad we only have two parties and people actively cheer them on.
     
  9. benthewraith macrumors 68040

    benthewraith

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Location:
    Miami, FL
    #9
    The Congressional Ballot is actually showing the opposite trend. That the Republicans are polling better than Democrats right now. As for the hole the Republicans are digging, it has everything to do with the base not being unified more than anything else. With Rush Limbaugh, Michael Steele, Jim Boehner, John McCain and the Senate Minority Leader (who I can't remember his name) all vying for that position "top Republican leader".

    Whats sad is that American politics has boiled down to either Democrat or Republican. But, if both parties were to take each other down at this time, it would probably be better for the country in the long run.

    As for the Senate, you might be right. Martinez and Judd's seat, and Specter being disowned practically by his own party will probably tip the scales substantially. Not that I think any Republicans would care if Specter goes about right now.
     
  10. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #10
    Democrats blocked (unsuccessfully in the case of the Supreme Court) nominees who were unqualified or nuts. Republicans are seemingly blocking everyone who's *not* unqualified or nuts.

    Obama has gone out of his way to pick middle-of-the-road nominees for every position he's filled in order to placate the Republicans, but it's all for naught. If Obama nominated Hitler for the judiciary the Republicans would claim he's a liberal vegitarian art teacher who's pro-abortion.
     
  11. freeny macrumors 68020

    freeny

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Location:
    Location: Location:
    #11
    Politics as usual. nothing new.
    Although the Republicans are acting as if this is revenge :rolleyes:

    may I hand you a larger shovel senator? ...
     
  12. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #12
    Before they even knew who they were?? No.

    Moreover, the Dems never claimed that choosing judges was a "shared constitutional responsibility."
     
  13. FX120 macrumors 65816

    FX120

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    #13
    This is just a threat, and a show of force at the fact that the Republican party is not powerless.

    No one is saying that they *will* filibuster.
     
  14. Beric macrumors 68020

    Beric

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #14
    Agreed. It's a threat in case the Democrats consider appointing extremist nominees.
     

Share This Page