Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About

[LowerCaseRepublican]

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/05/..._option_primer/

 

Shouldn't we call it the 'nucular option'?

 

After a brief ad to get in, this article is a pretty good piece on every detail one would want to know related to the current fight about the filibuster (and it tries not to take a stance one way or the other too often -- just gives details of what's happened in the past related to the filibuster and what the current plans are)

[whitesoxmurph]

Looks like nobody is going to try and tackle this one LCR. I will say though that the whole confirmation process has been abused by both sides of the aisle for quite some time. I think that the senators on both sides have lost, what the framers of the Constitution meant by advise and consent. If anyone really wants to know what the thought process was behind this read the following from "The Federalist Papers" no. 76 "The Appointing Power of the Executive" by Alexander Hamilton here are a few choice quotes... "The sole and undivided responsibility of one man (The President)will naturally beget a livlier sense of duty and a more exact regard to reputation." " He (The President) will have fewer personal attachments to gratify than a body of men (The Senate) who may each be supposed to have an equal number..."

"...in every excercise of the power of appointing to offices by an assembly of men we must expect to see a full display of all the private and party likings and dislikes, partialities and antipathies, attachments and animosities, which are felt by those that compose the assembly." ...the intrinsic merit of the candidate will be to often out of sight." "...it will rarely happen that the advancement of public service will be the primary object either of party victories or of party negotiations." "It is also not very probable that his (The Presidents) nomination would be overruled." It scary how Hamilton 200 some odd years ago could be so right about both the right and left in the Senate in 2005. I for one am of the belief that the President wether his name is Clinton or Bush or whomever should have the right to put his people into these positions and only in the case of an extremely unqualified candidate should the nominee be rejected by the Senate. Unqualifed does not mean that they are pro-life, anti-gun, gay, staright, conservative, liberal or what ever. It means that they are qualified to hold the position for which they have been nominated. Any person for the most part that has sat on a state bench or something similar for 10 yrs or so and has not been involved in anything unethical or illegal is more than likely qualified. If that means we get a more conservative court or a more liberal court, than so be it, that's it, that's how the framers set up this government. Just as a side bar I think that the Republicans can change the Fillibuster rules if they really want, see Article I, Section 5, Paragraph 2 of The Constitution "Each House may determine the rules of it's proceedings..."

[Texsox]

I am not an originalist with the constitution. Errors, bias, and politics were there today just like today. The framers could not have imagined technology and everything else of modern life. Just look at how blacks were written into the constitution as an example of something that needed to be changed.

 

Our system of self government has proven to be flexible as well as strong. The checks and balances between the branches was and remains pure genius in my book. They same principle of check and balance keeps our two parties at bay. I believe absolute power corrupts absolutely and like both parties keeping each other honest. I do not expect either party to roll over and accept whatever the other party wants.

 

I also don't accept anything less than honorable and respectful debate based on logic and facts not :22 second sound bites and distortions.

 

I expect any President to pick candidates that shade to their political views, but not so much as to be objectionable to the other party.

[Rex Kickass]

It isn't unconstitutional to change the Senate rules, but it would be a bad idea for a number of reasons. Just remember these are the same rules that the GOP will have to play by when they are back in the minority.

[YASNY]

It isn't unconstitutional to change the Senate rules, but it would be a bad idea for a number of reasons. Just remember these are the same rules that the GOP will have to play by when they are back in the minority.

 

They'll just change them back just before their majority leaves office.

[Rex Kickass]

But once that precedent is set...

[Texsox]

But once that precedent is set...

 

Which is why we have a downward spiral. Each side uses bad behavior by the other as justification for their own bad behavior.

[TheBigHurt35]

I expect any President to pick candidates that shade to their political views, but not so much as to be objectionable to the other party.

 

Unfortunately, one party will always find something "objectionable" about the other's nominees. More often than not, it has more to do with partisan politics than whether or not the nominee would be a good fit for the position.

Edited May 15, 2005 by TheBigHurt35

[Rex Kickass]

But not objectionable enough most of the time to stop a nominee.