GW Bush = Emperor Palpatine? Who knew?

[wolf]

I know that I sometimes see the world in overly simplistic ways, aided by my rose colored glasses (which when worn in SE PA which is the blue corner of an otherwise red state makes things look kind of purplish), but ...

If the issue is the qualifications of the various nominees, shouldn't those qualifications be the matter under discussion rather than just filibustering to avoid voting on the nominee? I know I get a lot of this complex government stuff wrong, and I haven't been listening to Rush Limbaugh the way I should to get my opinion handed to me on this, but hey, I'm on vacation, and so I'm letting myself go wild here ...

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by wolf

If the issue is the qualifications of the various nominees, shouldn't those qualifications be the matter under discussion rather than just filibustering to avoid voting on the nominee?

The qualifications have been discussed for quite a while, and will continue to be. The qualifications are the reason the filibuster is being invoked. I'm sure that any filibuster that occurs will include more discussion of the qualifications. But at this point, the qualifications arent the biggest issue. Right now, the issue is the Republican attempt to destroy the filibuster, and with it the two party system, by getting Cheney to rule the cloture rule unconstitutional, which everyone knows to be a lie.

1) The rules allow filibuster, and filibuster has been used before.
2) The Republicans want to change the rules to ensure 100% of Bush's nominations are approved.
3) A rule change requires 2/3 vote.
4) Declaring a rule unconstitutional requires only a ruling by Cheney, and then 50 senators.
5) So, even though they know it is constitutional, for political purposes they will declare the cloture rule unconstitutional because it's easier than changing the rule.

[lookout123]

whether or not i agree with the blocking of certain nominees doesn't really matter. what really pisses me off is that support the Cheney endrun on this issue really do not pay attention to the big picture. if they change the rules, then they will be subject to the same rules when the pendulum swings the other direction, which it will.

i said the same thing in the '90's. the R's were enjoying sicking their attack dogs on Clinton (who was an easy target), breaking all the conventions of public respect for the office of the president. did they never stop to think that eventually a republican would be back in the white house? the republicans took the leashes off in the '90's but were surprised when the dogs turned around and bit them in 2001. the nastiness that has surrounded the dem's attacks on bush are only possible because of their own attacks on clinton.

i'm afraid that if they do change the filibuster rules they will taste the same bitter pill in a few years.

[vsp]

Originally Posted by wolf

If the issue is the qualifications of the various nominees, shouldn't those qualifications be the matter under discussion rather than just filibustering to avoid voting on the nominee?

At the moment, the Democrats have no significant way to say "Hello, we have concerns about the qualifications of your nominees, and wish to have them taken seriously" without filibustering. The few moderate Republicans will not break ranks without serious provocation, and with their support, any nominee can be whisked through on a party-line vote.

As noted above, this is why the Dems have given ground on the vast majority of nominees and not raised significant opposition to the qualifications, choosing to filibuster only a small minority of objectionable nominees as their sole means of meaningful dissent. Choosing to renominate blocked judges and hammer them through is strictly a power play, and one that makes the Pubs' "Stop objecting so we can get back to the normal business of the Senate" arguments hypocritical. THEY picked the fight by deliberately renominating judges that they knew would cause this showdown, rather than sending up floods of "compromise" candidates who would be, in reality, probably no better than the likes of Owen or Brown.

[lookout123]

VSP, your view on things may indeed be accurate, but is it possible that maybe just maybe - they renominated these people not jab someone with a stick, but rather they truly believe these are the best people for the job.

whether they really are the best people for the job is impossible to say, because personal beliefs are what lead one to make a judgement like that. but if a nominee fits the profile that the white house believes is the best person for the job - wouldn't they be mistaken in NOT putting them back before the committee?

i'm not saying that is the reality of it, but it is a possibility. it seems like you get to wrapped up in your idea of D= flawed protector of our freedom, R= evil, nefarious schemer. if that is how you filter every piece of info out of washington, you will be missing 50% of the picture every single time. there are a few people on each side of the aisle that truly do have the people and the future of the country as their prime consideration, the vast majority are only there for their personal benefit, a few on each side really do want to reshape the country for less than honorable intentions.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by lookout123

but if a nominee fits the profile that the white house believes is the best person for the job - wouldn't they be mistaken in NOT putting them back before the committee?

No, because the nominations already lost. There is no reason to expect the results to be different this time unless you use the nuclear option to destroy the rules. As a hypothetical, let's assume that the nuclear option vote fails and the judges are again rejected. Whould Bush be mistaken if he didn't put them up for a vote for a third round? Should Clinton have renominated all of his rejected nominations?

[vsp]

Originally Posted by lookout123

VSP, your view on things may indeed be accurate, but is it possible that maybe just maybe - they renominated these people not jab someone with a stick, but rather they truly believe these are the best people for the job.

Which is all the more reason for those who _oppose_ what the Bush administration believes is the "best thing for America" to stand up and fight this.

Originally Posted by lookout123

it seems like you get to wrapped up in your idea of D= flawed protector of our freedom, R= evil, nefarious schemer.

Oh, eat me. You have no idea what I think.

if that is how you filter every piece of info out of washington, you will be missing 50% of the picture every single time. there are a few people on each side of the aisle that truly do have the people and the future of the country as their prime consideration, the vast majority are only there for their personal benefit, a few on each side really do want to reshape the country for less than honorable intentions.

Yep. And some of those presumably were among the 95% of Bush's nominees that were cleared without opposition, no? Looking at the track records of Owen and Brown, on the other hand, it's obvious to me why the Democrats and their constituents find them offensive, and if they WEREN'T fighting to keep them off the bench I'd be outraged. I expect Bush to nominate his share of knuckledraggers; that's the constituency to which he frequently plays. I DO NOT expect the Democrats to smile and wave the most troglodytic of them through without a brawl.

If they try to ward them off and fail because they can't sway the likes of Specter, I can live with it; they gave it the old college try. But the Democrats represent a hell of a lot of people in this country, myself included for the most part; they may be in the minority, but they are not irrelevant, as the DeLays and Frists and Santorums and Cornyns and Hatches of the world would like to believe. Are there more moderate Republicans? Sure, but they're not the ones setting or driving the agenda. If they need to take drastic measures to remind Frist and DeLay and Bush that their (and their constituents') opinions matter, so be it.