Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

To be honest, eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominees should just be the first step. The concept of the filibuster enrages me as a citizen. We the people elect representatives to go to Washington and enact policy that we want to see. If we elect a majority to move the country in one direction, a minority should not be able to stop the change. I am all for open and honest debate on the issues, but after that, the majority should rule.

The beauty of democracy is that there is a built-in way to correct mistakes made by the majority and its called an election. If we the people make a mistake and take the country in the wrong direction, we will correct the mistake in the next election cycle.

The idea that some pompous Senators feel they need to save us from ourselves is insulting.

Nathan,

The filibuster has been around for a long time, and all parties have used it to their political advantage.

Again I would ask;

What is so special about these particular nominees?
Is there not one person, of any political bent, that is more capable, more knowledgable, less divisive, than these candidates?
Why is it that the Republicans choose to draw the line in the sand over these nominees?
In the future, will the Republicans fight just as hard to regain the right to have the filibuster?

This is merely political blackmail, played out by a party that is temporarily in power. Aparently the Republicans belive that they won’t be giving up their position ever, otherwise they would look to political bipartisanship, and settle this once and for all.

Nathan & DP,
You’re choosing to ignore a simple fact; the Constitution allows the Senate to set its own procedural rules. ‘Advice & consent’ may involve very well involve obstruction. Since not all nominations are filibustered in committee, the 51 vote threshhold still applies, but the minority party has the option to filibuster. By the way, during the Clinton administration the Republicans blocked 60 judicial nominations by simply never bringing them to a vote in committee. It’s procedurally correct according to Senate rules.

The other day Carville said on meet the press (and I’m paraphrasing): ‘The Democrat in me hopes the nuclear option is passed. The patriot in me hopes it fails.’

And I agree with that sentiment. The liberal in me really likes the idea of the nuclear option. 10 judicial nominees & maybe a Supreme Court nomination seem like a small price to pay in exchange for the power to move the country towards the left 2006, 2008, 2010, whenever. It’s just a matter of time.

Because what goes around, comes around.

But common sense tells me moving the country far towards the left or the right is a bad idea. The filibuster is a moderating influence. And while I might be ideologically liberal, I’m practical & moderate in action.

Remember, we’re not a democracy. It’s not all about majority rule.

We’re a republic. The rights of the minority are protected.

Be careful what you wish for…

How quickly it is forgotten that both parties have used the filibuster to their own ends. Moreover, the mere fact that we have a Senate, as opposed to just a House of Representatives, reflects the wisdom of the founding fathers in guarding against the majority. Also, regardless of the academic questions of the legitimacy of the filibuster, it is highly unlikely the Republican party will be able to muster enough votes to continue control of the government if they executed the “nuclear option”; the American public tends not to like complete tyranny (it is highly unlikely that the republicans can convince those same 52% that allowed the President to remain in power to also allow a fundamental change in senate rules).

The constitution provides for a vote on candidates that have been appointed by the administration in power. This applies only when they reach the senate floor. During the process getting to that point there are many ways to stop, halt, delay, etc. a nomination. And they are for the most part legal and proper. Once the candidate reaches the senate floor a debate may follow, but the bottom line is a vote. A fillabuster is proper for legislative action but not for candidates up for a vote. It most certainly is about majority rule. That is how laws are passed. That is how court dicisions are counted. That is how my vote is counted. The majority wins. That is why when a state places an item on the ballot for the citizens to place a binding vote on, and they vote 70% for, it is wrong for a judge to say that 70% of the people are wrong and the law is unconstitutional. I am speaking of the marriage definition amendments across the land. If it was the will of the founding fathers to allow a minority vote to carry an item to fruitiion, there would have been some provision for it. Minorities are protected, it is that majorities are the one who carry the day for programs to carry forth.

Also, the republicans are not trying to get rid of the fillibuster as a tool, they are just trying to remove the fillibuster as a weapon against candidates up for an up or down vote. Really a simple thing.

tom,

If these nominees were so great, they would already be wearing their robes.

It does say that the Republicans haven’t attained the level of power that they seek. It would appear that they will not be satisfied until the power to run this country is their’s and their’s alone.

Welcome to the one party system.

Rocky
The two female judges leading the way, have very high rankings with the liberal ABA. They have received endorsement from their local area newspapers, which are usually liberal. I disagree that they would already have the robes. Clinton nominees had to wait 4 years. This judicial appointment process has turned into a nasty political hangmanship game. Shame. Shame.

An ongoing and I like to think amusing debate about the filibuster is being carried on at http://familypols.blogspot.com/, a blog to which I contribute. What I’d like to say here is that there’re a lot of good points to be made on both sides of this debate. But I think the nuclear option will be a terrible blow not only to the institution of the Senate but to the nation as a whole.

The Senate has long been the most civilized and rational part of the U.S. government, in my estimation. It’s where the grownups help keep the country running. Now it’s going to be brought very low by a Majority Leader who is blinded by his presidential ambitions. It’ll be sad and bad day if they nuke the place. It’ll be a very good one if, in the end, the truly reasonable and honorable people on both sides of the aisle can come together to find a workable compromise. That might just turn the tide against the toxic partisanship that has been poisoning the Washington wells for some years now.

We all know that, in the long run, the nuclear option isn’t about a confirming a handful of right-wing judges.

It’s about the next Supreme Court nomination, and overturning Roe v Wade.

If Frist and the social conservatives/religious fundamentalists can institute the nuclear option, they might have the firepower to bring a relatively exteme nominee to the Supreme Court.

I can’t wait! Again, as a patriot, I believe the social/conservatives/religious fundamentalists will do terrible harm to the country.

But as a liberal, I’m very very happy at the prospect of the next elections. Overturning Roe v Wade would be perfect- the Senate & House could go Democrat in fell swoop.

Please, Bill Frist, run for President! Please! The nuclear option could be his opening. Kitten killer Frist for President!

The best thing for democracy is to let democracy play out. This is the only way the people will see the results of their votes. If the will of the majority is not allowed to play out, people cannot reasses their previous decisions and come to new conclusions on the best way to vote moving forward. Let the majority dig its own grave or build its own mountain.

Sure the filibuster has been used by both sides and it is 100% legal. That does not make it right.

Get rid of the Filibuster. Just don’t whine like a stuck pig when the Democrats retake Congress and start filling the Appeals Court with Gays and fetus killers.

Provided no one’s rights are violated, the Filibuster needs to go. Who ever dreamed up this stupid filibuster idea any way.

After we get rid of the filibuster, we need to do a little more housekeeping. All that is needed is for us all, to turn away from the petty partisan bickering (a clever distraction), and take some steps to peacefully force overnment to be more Transparent and Accoutable.

Now, lets try to get a “ONE ITEM PER BILL” Amendment. This one single simplification will cut out the waste and pork-barrel secretly hidden in huge bills consisting of thousands of pages that no one reads or scrutinizes. This will allow Voters to easily see which politicians really voted one way or the other, and why (i.e. Transparency). Only, then, can we know who to hold Accountable.

The nuclear option is not getting rid of the fillibuster. It is not allowing the fillibuster on nominations. Four years ago Kennedy and company said it is a terrible thing to try to fillibuster nominations. I suppose that they have now received enlightenment and had an ephinany. Now it is ok for Kennedy and company to fillibuster a nomination. Their is a spirit of obstruction by a number of senators. Those that are rejoicing that the next round of elections will show the signs of the nuclear option backlash might need to be reminded of Mr. Daschle. There is no compromise on this latest unconstitutional attack.

“Who ever dreamed up this stupid filibuster idea any way.”

One Simple whatever,

This from wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_(legislative_tactic)

“In 1789, the First US Senate adopted rules allowing the Senate “to move the previous question,” ending debate and proceeding to a vote. In 1806 this rule was eliminated, allowing the filibuster to become an option for delay and blocking of floor votes, since this left no mechanism for terminating debate. In 1917 a rule allowing for the cloture of debate (ending a filibuster) was adopted. From 1917 to 1949, the requirement for cloture was two-thirds of those voting. As civil rights loomed on the Senate agenda, this rule was revised in 1949 to allow cloture on any measure or motion by two-thirds of the entire Senate membership; in 1959 the threshold was restored to two-thirds of those voting. After a series of filibusters in the 1960s over civil rights legislation, the Senate in 1975 revised its cloture rule so that three-fifths of the Senate (usually 60 senators) could limit debate. Despite this rule, the filibuster or the threat of a filibuster remains an important tactic that allows a large minority to affect legislation.”
“Senator Strom Thurmond set a record in 1957 by filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours and 18 minutes, although the bill ultimately passed.”

Oh, BTW, we all know that Mr. Thurmond was a fine, upstanding, Republican.

Four years ago Kennedy and company said it is a terrible thing to try to fillibuster nominations.

Saying something is wrong and actually taking steps to kill it are two different things. To their credit, the Democrats never took away the filibuster when they were in the majority (though they did change the cloture rules to a 60 vote margin). And they allowed Republican senators to use the blue slip to kill the nominees of Democratic presidents. They understood checks and balances and minority rights. This is a very long standing spirit in the Senate, reaching back to the founding fathers themselves:

“Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?” Washington asks.

“To cool it,” Jefferson replies.

“Even so,” Washington says, “we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.”

This conversation, described in the New Yorker as probably apocryphal, nonetheless fairly describes the spirit of the place. To be pushed into killing the spirit by short-sighted zealots, we risk much.

Tom,

“Those that are rejoicing that the next round of elections will show the signs of the nuclear option backlash might need to be reminded of Mr. Daschle.”

Actually, I think Daschle losing was a boon to the Democrats. Daschle was a good man, but he was a ‘get along & go along’ Democrat. The Republican who defeated him- Thune, I believe- promised he could use his Republican connections to keep Ellsworth AFB, the 2nd largest employer in South Dakota, open. Now it’s on the list of base closures. Thune is dead meat, and will almost certainly lose the seat back to a Democrat.

In the meantime, Reid has been a surprisingly feisty leader for the Dems. Who woulda’ thunk it? He has outmaneuvered Frist repeatedly. The Republicans are taking a powder in the polls over the nuclear option, and Reid deserves some credit.

Although I really don’t care for the fillibuster I can see that it protects a minority party. Both sides have used it. The rules have been changed a couple of times. First with the indroduciton of Cloture and later, in 1975, by reducing the number of votes from 67 to 60 that it takes to break a fillibuster (as Rocky has pointed out). The heart of the fillibuster is a senate rule that states the senate can have unilimited debate. It’s a way to hold up legeslation. Here, the R’s are correct. What they forget is that they HAVE used it to stop federal judges before as well as other legislation. The are appearing that they want to win at all cost. The end doesn’t necessarily justify the means.

At any rate, I found some discussion regarding majority power by none other than James Madision. In a letter to Jefferson here is what he said:

“Wherever the real power in a governmnet lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our governments, the real power lies in the majority of the conmmunity, and the invasion of private rights is cheifly to be apprehended, not from the acts of government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the government is the mere instrument of the major number of constituents.”

After reading this from the father of our constitution….I may change my mind regarding the fillibuster. These guys were pretty forward looking and wrote a pretty darn good document that we have been using for over 200 years as our government’s foundation.

Just some thoughts. In addition, if the filibuster is “nuked”…then nuke it all. Only getting rid of the portion that will be of immediate benefit to the majority party is very partisan and childish. This is the senate, for Pete’s sake! Don’t treat it like a game where the victory is all that counts.

Rocky,

I believe when Thurmand set that record he was a member of the Democratic party.

One-simple-idea,

I like that “one item per bill” idea. I’ve also thought about this from time to time. After all, that’s what gets the majority of the bills that didn’t pass killed and it is the TOP reason for PORK. Something both sides are equally guilty of. However, I think conservatives should be outraged at their Rep. congressmen if they do it (PORK)…they are “suppose” to be fiscally conservative.

May I remind you all that Sen Frist and the Republican majority is not in favor of nuking the fillibuster rule. They are in favor of the constitutional provision of a vote on nominations. The constitutional provisions will always supercede the senate rules. There have been debates on the candidates before and should continue, but when the debate on the nominee has finished, then vote. Simple. Where legislation is concerned then kick in the fillibuster for those that want to whenever they want to, but not for candidates.

Tom,
Just to make sure there’s consistency, and not just partisan slash & burn politics here…

When the Repubs stopped 60 Clinton judicial nominees in committe, without a vote, are you saying the Repubs were wrong?

Great posts Rocky and Reed.

phx8 this was very well said:

“common sense tells me moving the country far towards the left or the right is a bad idea. The filibuster is a moderating influence. And while I might be ideologically liberal, I’m practical & moderate in action.
Remember, we’re not a democracy. It’s not all about majority rule.
We’re a republic. The rights of the minority are protected.”

Then you wrote:

“We all know that, in the long run, the nuclear option isn’t about a confirming a handful of right-wing judges.
It’s about the next Supreme Court nomination, and overturning Roe v Wade.”

Nail on the head, there. That is exactly what this is all about.
Who do you think Dubya will replace Renquist with? It seems like it’s going to be between Scalia or Thomas. Personally I abhor the idea of either becoming Chief Justice.

“If Frist and the social conservatives/religious fundamentalists can institute the nuclear option, they might have the firepower to bring a relatively exteme nominee to the Supreme Court.”

It’s probably going to be more than one since Day O’Connor seems sure to retire. And these are LIFETIME appointments we’re talking about — judges who will be presiding over key cases that directly affect American’s for many, many years to come. This fact in my estimation far outweighs any political benefits that might be gained.

“I can’t wait! Again, as a patriot, I believe the social/conservatives/religious fundamentalists will do terrible harm to the country.”

I shudder at the very thought of what they are bound to do.

“But as a liberal, I’m very very happy at the prospect of the next elections. Overturning Roe v Wade would be perfect- the Senate & House could go Democrat in fell swoop.”

I’m not sure Dem’s should be so thrilled about the prospects of the next elections since there has been no election reform. This came out several days ago from Rep. John Conyers: The GOP’s Attack On Voting Rights
And in my opinion, the idea of women returning to back-alley abortions and early deaths is not something I could ever consider “perfect”. Instead, it means we’re going to be right back where we started thirty years ago. And now we’re going to have to wait until some Evangelical Supreme Court Judges actually kick the bucket before we’ll have the chance to begin fighting for our rights, yet again.

When did the filibuster change to allow people to go home to sleep, eat, bathroom breaks and other assorted breaks? I thought the idea of a filibuster was to not allow anyone else to speak by continued speaking by the one who had the floor.

If I remember right, they read grocery lists, phone books and whatever trying to get the other side to wear out and leave, thus loosing the vote that would occur after they had left.

We need to return to those days! Perhaps either party would try a filibuster as they do now, but the added comedy of watching the politicians doing this for hours or days without stoping would be fantastic to watch. Sort of like a remake of “Dumb and Dumber”.

Stop playing around and either do a REAL filibuster or get on with business. Besides, while they read the funny papers to keep it going they are not making stupid laws shafting the tax payers.

It’s ironic for people to try to defend the filibuster by stating it is a weapon for democracy and against tyranny. How can a procedure that requires only 41 of 100 senators be democratic?
The founding fathers understood the weaknesses of democracy and instead created a republic. They also understood the value of a ‘super majority’, and to that end, insured that a super majority was needed to override a presidential veto, ratify a treaty, for impeachment, and for passing a constitutional amendment. It is not a coincidence that a super majority is not required for a judicial nomination. Instead of following the constitution, I would argue that the use of the filibuster on judicial nominations is going expressly against the wishes of the founding fathers and promotes tyranny of the minority against the majority.
The real reason liberal democrats are aghast at these nominations is it has the potential of eroding their last real power base. Most liberal reforms are not the result of legislation, but rather the result of judicial fiat. As such, liberals need judges who are willing to rule on issues using policy and not the law as their guide. As for examples, I will cite Roe vs Wade, Lawerence vs Texas, Rasul vs Bush, and Bush vs Gore. While I don’t disagree with the results of these decisions, they were horrible law, and in the long run, that is what is far more important. The court is treading on the perogatives of the legislative and executive branches. Since the judicial branch is not elected, this expansion of judicial power is a direct threat to our republic and very anti-democratic.

Thune, I believe- promised he could use his Republican connections to keep Ellsworth AFB, the 2nd largest employer in South Dakota, open. Now it’s on the list of base closures. Thune is dead meat, and will almost certainly lose the seat back to a Democrat.

Talk about counting your chickens… The Senate hasn’t even had it’s input on BRAC yet.

I think we are on the winning side. We are on the side that stands for freedom and the rights of those not in power. We’re the underdogs, and people prefer underdogs to sore winners.

The winning side of this issue will be determined in 2006. One party government is still not a majority wish… and just like a single dictator rule is abhorred by Americans, so too will single party rule. It is just another variation of dictatorship.

You folks in the right column need to be very careful about what you wish for. Don’t forget that it was only slightly more than two years ago that the Democrats controlled the Senate. (Remember that despicable Sen. Cleland with his terrorist-loving ways?) It may not be too long before the filibuster seems to you like the safeguard of civilization.

I hope that Mr. Reid picks up the Constitution sometime and realizes that the role of the Senate in the confirmation process is advise and consent, not obstruction. Nominees only need a simple majority vote of 51 to win confirmation. Harry Reid should know better than to say that a nominee needs 60 votes.

And I that hope you pick up a dictionary and the Constitution sometime and look up the words “advise” and “consent.” You would learn that your implication that “advise and consent” equals “simple majority” has no linguistic or Constitutional foundation.

The Senate gets to decide what “advise and consent” means. It has historically meant a simple-majority vote that can be fillibustered. There’s nothing in the Constitution that mandates that definition. The Constitution doesn’t care if the Senates advice and consent takes the form or unanimous acclimation, a super majority, a simple majority, a quorum, a voice vote, or a coin flip. The oft-repeated idea that Democratic leadership are violating the Constitution by supporting the current rules is ludicrous.

The real question we face is What should “Advise and Consent” mean? In the short-term, it favors Republicans and Conservatives to interpret it as a simple majority without fillibuster. Conversely, it favors Democrats and Liberals to interpret it as fillibusterable. However, which is better for the country in the long term??

It’s almost impossible to separate short-term goals from the long-term good of the nation, but I think a super-majority for federal judges is a good idea to ensure that our judicial branch is acceptable to a broad base of the country, not just to a bare majority. Essentially, that’s what we have now, but it’s implemented through the indirect means of a fillibuster. Perhaps the Senate should change the rules to require a direct super majority instead of the current silliness:

A presidential nominee requires 51 votes.
However, it requires 60 votes to be voted on.
However, that could be overriden by 51 votes.

Silliness.

How can a procedure that requires only 41 of 100 senators be democratic?

The US is not a democracy. It’s a republic, if we can keep it.

phx8 is absolutely right. This issue is all about the GOP appointing activist judges to the Supreme Court.

The term filibuster — from a Dutch word meaning “pirate” — became popular in the 1850s, when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent a vote on a bill.

Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, until cloture was invoked after a fifty-seven day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or sixty of the current one hundred senators.

Some claim the filibuster encourages moderation.
What is moderate about preventing votes on civil rights. As in that case, too often, the filibuster is detrimental to the nation.

Too often, things such as the filibuster, were created to supposedly protect the minority.

This and other things only serve to break the system, and make government ineffectual and promote grid-lock.

“Protection of the Minority” is a false claim.
The rights of individuals are already protected by laws and human rights.

The minority should not have the right to block the majority.

What Congress can/can’t do is already limited by laws that protect people’s rights. Fundamental Laws already exist to protect rights.

If anyone’s rights are being violated, then focus on that (and that is needed), instead of dreaming up new ways to break the system.

Better yet, perhaps we need an Grid-Lock Amendment:

When Congress is in grid-lock, when bills can not reach the floor to be voted on, the issue automatically goes up for vote by the people. This in no way means that the individual rights of any person, or the Constitution can ever be violated by the majority. Laws already exist that protects everyones’ rights.

Those who charge that the riligious right, conservative, republican and whatever else they seem fit to include are pushing us dangerously somewhere that nobody knows, need to look at reality a bit closer. Judges (without labels) are legislating from the bench. 70% of Nebraska voters decide to amend their state constitution with an amendment difining marriage as one woman and one man and that is all. Some federal judge decides the people are wrong and declares the amendment unconstitutional. That is the ultimate in arrogance and surely shows someone who will trample on peoples rights with his own agenda.
Advise and consent.
In Article II the constitutiion states “… and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, and 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; …”. Whenever other percentages are required by the constitution it is explicit in mentioning them and cannot be construed otherwise. Therefore without nominations having one of those 2/3’s votes or 3/4th votes necessary, it must be 51 votes. And it is understood that once the nominee reaches the Senate floor for consideration a debate may occur and a vote must be assured. A denial of a vote at that point is unconstitutional.
Back to direction for a moment. Judges are appointed all the time by all administrations that are not pleasing to the opposition. The danger is legislating from the bench. Judges are from a third and equal branch of government. When they legislate they have now encroached onto another branch of government and then they become unequal. Judges who do legislate from the bench are not holding up the oath of office they swear to.

Democracy / Republic
_______________________
Republic: Government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated.

Democracy: That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy.

COMMENTS: Notice that in a Democracy, the sovereignty is in the whole body of the free citizens. The sovereignty is not divided to smaller units such as individual citizens. To solve a problem, only the whole body politic is authorized to act. Also, being citizens, individuals have duties and obligations to the government. The government’s only obligations to the citizens are those legislatively pre-defined for it by the whole body politic.

In a Republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether one or many. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives as he chooses to solve a problem. Further, the people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government being hired by the people, is obliged to its owner, the people.

The people own the government agencies. The government agencies own the citizens. In the United States we have a three-tiered cast system consisting of people —-> government agencies —-> and citizens.

The people did “ordain and establish this Constitution,” not for themselves, but “for the United States of America.” In delegating powers to the government agencies the people gave up none of their own. (See Preamble of U.S. Constitution). This adoption of this concept is why the U.S. has been called the “Great Experiment in self government.” The People govern themselves, while their agents (government agencies) perform tasks listed in the Preamble for the benefit of the People. The experiment is to answer the question, “Can self-governing people coexist and prevail over government agencies that have no authority over the People?”
… .
The citizens of the United States are totally subject to the laws of the United States (See 14th Amendment of U.S. Constitution). NOTE: U.S. citizenship did not exist until July 28, 1868.

Actually, the United States is a mixture of the two systems of government (Republican under Common Law, and democratic under statutory law). The People enjoy their God-given natural rights in the Republic. In a democracy, the Citizens enjoy only government granted privileges (also known as civil rights).

“Some federal judge decides the people are wrong and declares the amendment unconstitutional.”

tom,

Just whose job do you think it is to declare an unjust law unconstitutional anyway?
Nope, not the Legislature.
Not the President either.
Certainly not Faux News.
Gee, that would leave the courts, because that is what the courts are there for, and those that feel wronged have the right to appeal.
Please don’t tell me that you think that these nominees wouldn’t do the same thing, just differently.

The filibuster is an essential tool right now to make sure that the radical right does not pack court with activist judges out to further their special interests. Without the filibuster, average Americans will be at the mercy of the radical right special interest groups.

Rocky
The point in particular is, the Nebraska judge that determines that all of a sudden it is unconstitutional for a man and a woman to be married. When the majority of the people have decided to alter their state constitution and state that marriage is one man and one woman then what is a judge saying in his decision that makes it unconstitutional. Reason, common sense, traditiion, law, all go into the understanding that marriage is one man and one woman and nothing else.

cdp326
|
| The filibuster is an essential tool right now to make sure that the radical right does not
| pack court with activist judges out to further their special interests. Without the
| filibuster, average Americans will be at the mercy of the radical right special interest groups.
|

Whether judges uphold (or not) the law is a separate issue.

“Protection of the Minority” is a false claim.
The rights of individuals are already protected by laws and human rights.

Also, perhaps supreme court judges should have term limits.

tom,

No, sorry, the point was that the definition of marriage as “only” a man and a woman was unconstitutional.
Populations don’t make the law. Even referendums must pass the Constitutional test.
Nowhere in the American Constitution is there such a definition.
Last time I checked, Nebraska was still part of America.

The more activist judges keep overturning laws voted in by 70% or more( many of them Dem.), and Dem.’s in the senate keep blocking votes on judges, the sooner all the red state Dem. senators will get booted from office.

If the “Byrd” option gets used, and the fillibuster rule changes, there will be fallout, but where it falls is anyones guess at this point.

Every state gets 2 senators, there are FAR more red states than blue, If I was still in the Dem. party, I’m not real sure I’d be cheering to loud for Reid to keep blocking judges.

If pushed hard enough the “Byrd” option will be used, voters may/may not like that, if used and Dem.’s shut down the senate like they said they would, voters WONT like that!

Will this put “kick me” signs on the back of some blue state Dem. senators?
I don’t know, but do Dem.’s really want to find out?

This is all nothing but hardball politics. There’s no protection of minority issues here, no constitutional crisis, only the protection of the Democratic Party’s fading power in Washington. They need to win elections, and it appears that their strategy is to win them not by offering issues and ideas, but by their opposition and continued labeling as extreme of the GOP.

If the GOP is so radical and so extreme why are they winning these so called elections? Oh yeh, it’s because of Faux News, black box voting, and the vast right wing conspiracy. Sorry I forgot.

Time will tell if the Democrats can make a platform out of opposition to the Republicans. I’m sure we’ll know something by the midterm. Until then, AP can keep posting the wonderful and uplifting Democratic agenda that no one in the party is talking about; they can’t take time away from their name calling stone walling.

“Some federal judge decides the people are wrong and declares the amendment unconstitutional.”

Just whose job do you think it is to declare an unjust law unconstitutional anyway?

It is not the place of the judiciary to decide whether the people are right or wrong. It’s also not the place of the judiciary to determine whether a law is “just” or “right”. The place of the judiciary is simply to determine whether a law has been violated or not. In no way do they have the power to make laws.

Most of the time, they use precident to determine whether a law has been broken. If a given action in the “grey area” has been considered a law previously, by a higher court, the lower courts follow that precident.

Where the confusion comes in is when two laws conflict with one another. At that point, it is up to the court (and nobody else) to determine which law is the “higher” law.

Judicial review, in theory, is simply the use of precident in “higher law” determinations. If a law conflicts with the Constitution, which is the highest law in the land, it can’t win. Precident would say that such a law can NEVER win, and so enforcing it would be a waste of time.

So if, using a previous example, the Nebraska state constitution was amended to something that conflicts with the U.S. Constituion (the highest law in the land), then the U.S. Constitution wins, and the State amendment becomes unenforceable. The question is never “which law wins?”, but simply, “is there a conflict?”.

What is unconstitutional about the Nebraska marriage amendment. It is the opinion of a person without consideration of law.
In the matter of legal precedents, that has not always been the case. When the legal profession went to legal precedents, it became more that a slippery slope down hill. It has become an avalance. Constitutional law is what the country was set up to operate under.
The judges that are making so many of these present day decisions that fly in the face of common decency and twisting the words and spirit of the constitution were in large part appointed by administrations that are left and liberal. But they were voted in by a simple majority. No fillibuster. Now that the political picture has changed, there are those that want to still control the majority when they are in the minority. Get Real!!

Just for a related item to Reid and company, the fillibuster, federal judges, and dirt.
Bob Novak on May 16 in his column that a political consulting firm requested the financial records of Judge Edith Jones and 29 other appellate judges. According to Novak this is unprecedented. The interesting part of this story is one of the partners of the consulting firm is Craig Varoga, a former aide to Senator Harry Reid. The consulting firm was hired by National Abortiion and Reproductive Right Leasue (NARAL). Why does someone need financial records of federal judges; 30 of them. There will no doubt be more to this story.

There are two good articles on the nuclear option, the filibuster, & Senate rules on:

www.dailykos.com

For those not already familiar with it, this is a liberal site, but a good resource for articulate explanations on topics such as the nuclear option.

In a nutshell, what I took away was this; because the nuclear option violates Senate rules & overrides the Senate Parliamentarian, there’s no doubt the Dems will slow the Senate down to a crawl if the nuclear option passes.

Rob,

Maybe in a typical court you are correct. However, the U.S. Supreme court does exactly what you say a court does not do. That is, they verify if the constitution upholds certain actions by the people and the legislators. If a law is passed against the constitiution the only recourse is to appeal to the U.S. supreme court, the Constitutional experts, to verify if the claim is just or unjust….ACCORDING TO NOTHING BUT THE CONSTITUTION.

PHX8,

Do you think that slowing the senate to a crawl will be good for the Dem. party, or bad for the Rep. party?

Beagle,
It certainly didn’t work for Gingrich and crowd.

But I’m not sure anyone will notice! It might even be a good thing if it stops the insane spending spree…

one-simple-idea:
I read your posts everyday, sometimes I agree and sometimes I don’t. I ABSOLUTELY DO AGREE with your simple idea of transparent government. My gosh the trouble it would save. You posed a question:
“perhaps supreme court judges should have term limits”

I would like to say I do not think term limits are a good idea for members of the Supreme Court. It would lead to the same kinds of problems we have today with partisanship. If Supreme Court Judges are subjected to the election and re-election process, then it behooves them to support one party or another, one cause or another, popular vs. unpopular issues etc.

I am not sure a lifetime appointment is the exact way to go, but I strongly oppose electing them.

Beagle:
Liberals, Democrats and anyone in-between who do not agree with the current administration might as well ALREADY be wearing Kick Me signs. We are ALL not only being kicked, but thrown to the ground and stomped on by this administration. Not only us “radical, left-wing, all-going-to-hell, liberal Democrats but,even those who support this administration are being kicked, and are going to suffer the long term consequences of the current administration.

Rob:
It IS the job of the Supreme Court to decide that this law passed by the voters of Nebraska is unconstitutional. It matters not whether you, I or anyone else is in support of it. Sorry, but any law that impedes, restricts or prohibits participation of a particular population of citizens, IS unconstitutional.

sassyliberal

Tom L,

I never said that the SC doesn’t make personal judgements outside the law — only that it SHOULDN’T do so.

And the SC is more than just a Constitutional court. They can review cases based upon other aspects of law as well, and judge based upon such things. Consider the case of the California man who argued against the Pledge of Allegiance. The SC made its ruling entirely upon whether he had custody of his daughter, and therefore whether he had the right to represent her in the case.

A more correct statement would be that they verify the claim according to (a) the facts of the case, and (b) the laws of the land. Laws of other lands, international precidents, etc. should not be a basis for SC decisions (or lower court decisions, for that matter).

I was glad when the SC refused to hear the Terri Schiavo case, not because of my opinion of the case, but because the court had no legal reason to hear it. Likewise, I am bothered by Roe v. Wade, because it doesn’t stand on firm legal ground. There are many reasonable arguments to support legal abortion, but none of those arguments give the SC the authority to declare it.

Neocon hypocrites, all of you!

Which party abused the power of the filibuster more than any time in history between ‘92 and ‘94, to trip up Clinton’s agenda? Republicans!

Which party filibustered many more judicial nominees in the Clinton years than the paltry few of the current Democratic leadership? Republicans, that’s who!

And now the neocons are screaming about fairness when the table’s turned on them…ha!

Neocons, remember this: Someday the table will turn again, and you’ll get yours.

If Supreme Court Judges are subjected to the election and re-election process, then it behooves them to support one party or another, one cause or another, popular vs. unpopular issues etc.

I prefer the idea of SC judges serving a single fixed-length term (say, 12 years), then stepping down WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF A SECOND TERM! This would prevent pandering for votes while in office, while getting rid of the rather elitist life terms.

It sounds like some people cannot tell the
difference between fillibuster and debate.

phx8
the nuclear option does not go against senate rules. The nuclear option only will clarify what can and cannot be fillibustered according to the constitution. Nominations are to receive an up or down vote—period!! Legislation can and does get fillibustered often and this is constitutional because it is a senate rule.

Sleemoth
give me a list of judges that have been fillibustered. Many judges on both side of the political spectrum have been delayed. Clinton had two judges delayed for about 4 years. Bush has some judges likewise. In neither case were they fillibustered.

Majorities can be scary things. The difference between a democracy and a mob is the protection of minorities.

“Protection of the Minority” is a false claim. The rights of individuals are already protected by laws and human rights.

But, if you give the majority the power to remove those laws and rights, how do they protect anyone?

A 60-40 requirement on a life-term appointment is not unreasonable.

Instead of removing the filibuster, I would prefer to see an “acting appointee” option — where, if the Senate doesn’t vote on the nomination within a reasonable period of time, the nominee is instated in the position on a temporary basis until the vote finally does occur. This prevents gridlock, while still allowing a large minority to block the issue (say, until the next election, when they might become the majority).

Rocky,
The Republican should seek political bipartianship?
Yeah just like the Democrats did when they had thw majority I guess.

|
| one-simple-idea:
| You posed a question:
| “perhaps supreme court judges should have term limits”
|

That’s a very good point.
Judges in some states are elected to office.
It’s bad enough that we have lying, pandering politicians.
But, we don’t want pandering judges too do we?
Perhaps they should still be appointed (not elected),
and have a long (e.g. 12 years) but not life-time term.
There’s no reason they can’t be reappointed after their term ends.

Sleemoth wrote:
|
| Neocon hypocrites, all of you!
|

Not everyone. I don’t like any of ‘em, and they all look childish, and
I’m sick of the petty partisan bickering, grid-lock, and paying these
clowns fortunes to do nothing but perpetuate the usual distraction
from important issues. The only thing they do agree on is pork-barrel
(lots of it), spending, pandering, new things to tax, more loop-holes,
and voting themselves a raise.

One reason I’m for eliminating the filibuster, is because we need to
simplify government and eliminate all such idiotic and over-complicated
rules and procedures that invite abuse. The filibuster is abused equally
by both parties, and provides an ideal example of government gone-wrong,
doing nothing, and being responsible for nothing. All of the parties are
petty and childish, and they love to stir it and make it stink.
Because, the same-old-same-old is much easier than real work.
It’s not rocket science.

That’s why it’s up to the voters now. Those that are too fond of the
petty partisan bickering, and seduced by the overly-complicated idiotic
rules, procedures, and process, and do not trust the Constitution or
anyone to govern and enforce the rights of everyone, will prefer to
perpetuate the filibuster, and prefer grid-lock, and all other sorts of
obstructionist tactics, and all the while claiming they’re protecting
the minorities. Yeah…right. Like when they used it to block Civil Rights bills?

But, if you don’t like grid-lock, and you want streamlined, efficient,
transparent, responsible, and accountable government, and you realize
the problem is not just one party or the other, but all of us
(voters and politicians), and you realize that politicians are abusing
the voters, then you (the voters) must also be responsible, and
unite your vote to peacefully force government to be
Transparent and Accountable. There’s only one peaceful way to
do that, because government will never voluntarily do it themselves,
and they’re hoping this is the one thing voters never discover.
VOTE only for NON-incumbents and NON-main-party candidates.
NO exceptions. Repeatedly, EVERY election.
UNTIL things drastically improve. It’s doable, and it’s free to you,
but many have died to ensure that freedom.
That’s why you have a vote. Now make it count.
Don’t guess at who you think is honest and responsibile.
Almost anyone can be honest and responsible, if they’re given the incentive.
Currently they don’t have incentive. It’s like their brains turn to jelly
soon after winning the election. It’s less important who you vote for,
than whether they’ll be responsible and accountable after they’re elected.

The Constitution says that Congress can make its own rules and it has. The movement to “stop the filibuster” is nothing more than the radical republican attempt to change rules that they themselves have invoked when it suited them.

cdp326,
I agree with that.
But, this is one instance where the outcome is desireable, despite the motive.

That’s not to say the means justify the ends.
I’m saying there are ample good reasons to eliminate the filibuster.

Besides, if you say “Congress can make it’s own rules”, the they can also change them?

one-simple-idea
We probably don’t agree on much, but I am with you on the fillibuster.
You mentioned one peaceful way. In order to do as you propose, there needs to be some grass roots support for non-party candidates all over the country. It could be pulled off in some cases and as it occurs more and more the success rate would have to be looked at by both parties to see how not to be loosers again.
And I would join you to offer our services to read books, directories, etc. and give the congress a 50% discount for our services. That would be a sweet piece of bread.

Tom,

Here’s yout list of filibusters.

ElliottBay
I will repeat show me a list of the fillibustered nominations. The reference you have is about cloture. You are trying to make a Ford into a Chevy. Cloture is not fillibuster!!
Cloture is the stoppage of debate. Simple.
Fillibuster is the usage of time so that no debate can occur and the use of time is as such that mundane things are done. Telephone books are read. Magazines are read. Monologues are done. Anything to keep control of the clock and nobody else can step into that control slot. With cell phones so prevalent today, we no doubt will find somebody using their cell phone to fillibuster with.

The people don’t really need a party to make government Transparent and Accountable.

Most third parties are tiny, and their messages and values actually overlap a lot with main and other third parties, and most people won’t vote for any third party candidate, because there’s no chance of winning. If anything is futile and virtually impossible, it’s a third party candidate getting voted into office.

But, if a third party wants to promote something that will resonate with voters, perhaps it should be a party without a candidate, but a message instead.

Or, perhaps ALL third parties should unite to spread the message to convince voters to give them a chance they’ve never had. And if they don’t work out, vote ‘em all out too.

The people already have the most important thing they need: their vote.
Now, just don’t vote on any incumbents or main-party candidates, and
get lots of people on the ballots.
Use Write-ins if necessary.
Look at all the third parties.

Really, all that is required though is to spread the idea.
If it’s a good idea, it will spread far and fast.

Many incumbents were voted out of office in 1992, because
voters were generally fed up. The problem is
that replacing them more Democrats and Republicans accomplished nothing.

The interesting thing is that this is theoretically possible, even if it never happens.
It is actually the only thing that is very easy, very simple, and provides the one thing all other parties and systems are missing: the peaceful force required to make Congress police their own ranks.

Those who can Do, Those who can not, vote Democrat!

I no longer care; I just want all this to be done!
I am part of the vast right wing conspiracy, and I think it is time that we get on with it!
Give me a break! All this Nancy Boy whining, what the *&^%! If the United States was as empirical as you Socialcrats would make out, then why are their other places, and not just the good ol’ USA?

Now what has this got to do with the Belly Buster mung? If the VRWC (vast right wing conspiracy) was as prevalent as you would like to make out, then why are you still allowed to sally forth and issue your seditious tripe?

Cause their ain’t no VRWC! So let it go, you were defeated, not by dirty tricks, or not getting your message out, but by plain old everyday people sick and tired of you telling them that you can run their lives better.

Get back on point, how can you claim to be the party of the oppressed if you won?t even consider Justice Brown? Get real this is so obvious, she is not on your side, so your not going to side with her, even though she exemplifies overcoming odds that would make most quit (or at least run to the government and say “Wah”) You have been lying to people for about fifty years, and the jig is up. No the Republican Party is not perfect, and has its own share of kooks too, and the president is not perfect, and will not barricade the borders, but it is better than telling me I can’t do it with out you help. News Flash! People are making it just fine, and they have risen from their matrix like slumbers realizing that you are taking away from them too. Spare all of us the canned post about my obvious lack of compassion, I admit I am an economic Darwinist and think all should help themselves (and if you were not in my pocket for eight thousand dollars every year I would help more, yes zircon the evil has a small heart!)
It all ties back to your party’s belief that we are for the most part idiots, morons, and back water bumpkins. Not even able to comprehend the larger picture, we needs help cause usuns is slows and donts knows how to be thinking.

Seen the Red Blue map lately? Guess the backwaters flow deep, and further than expected

Looking forward to the revolution when all the seditious are made to answer for their treason.

MAY GOD ALMIGHTY SAVE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FROM ALL THOSE WHO WOULD SEEK TO DESTROY HER.

Sean

Now, Now. Let’s recall what our parents told us:

I don’t care who started it, or did it first (Democrats or Republicans).
Just stop the petty childish (partisan) bickering, and silly games, and wasting everyone’s time.
Let’s just not do it anymore (i.e. get rid of the filibuster).

One Simple:

I don’t think Sean will be joining us in our third party revolt.

If your 3 party is:

For American interest first, foremost, and always including: barricading the borders, promoting a strong defense, limiting government intrusion on peoples personal property, eliminating the IRS, banning socialism, communism, and fascism.

For self reliance: By making everyone dependant on themselves, by not allowing anyone to use excuses of their personal failure to force all to be equal, allowing citizens to regulate themselves in their own conduct as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.

For Capitalism: In all it’s wondrous and chaotic glory, let the market sort it self out, promote business and investment by allowing all to keep what they own, and earn, and only having a sales tax system of revenue generation.

For the right to keep and bear arms, for when all else fails, it is in the end up to you to protect and defend your own rights, and they are less likely to take what you have if you fight back.

So if this is what you offer, allow me to offer my sword to you.

I am looking forward to the revolution, when the seditious will be made to answer for their treason and be called to account for their actions.

MAY GOD ALMIGHTY SAVE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FROM ALL THOSE WHO WOULD SEEK TO DESTROY HER.

Sean

“I am looking forward to the revolution, when the seditious will be made to answer for their treason and be called to account for their actions.”

When that happens, Sean, there won’t be a politician left in Washington….

Sean

If you ever find a party that stands for all you listed, please let me know. I would join in a New York minute!!!

Sean wrote:
| If your 3rd party is:
| (1) For American interest first, foremost, and always including: barricading the borders,
| promoting a strong defense, limiting government intrusion on peoples personal
| property, eliminating the IRS, banning socialism, communism, and fascism.
|
| (2) For self reliance: By making everyone dependant on themselves, by not
| allowing anyone to use excuses of their personal failure to force all to
| be equal, allowing citizens to regulate themselves in their own conduct
| as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.
|
| (3) For Capitalism: In all it’s wondrous and chaotic glory, let the market
| sort it self out, promote business and investment by allowing all to keep
| what they own, and earn, and only having a sales tax system of revenue generation.
|
| (4) For the right to keep and bear arms, for when all else fails, it is in the end up
| to you to protect and defend your own rights, and they are less likely to take
| what you have if you fight back.
|
| So if this is what you offer, allow me to offer my sword to you.
| I am looking forward to the revolution, when the seditious will be made to
| answer for their treason and be called to account for their actions.
| MAY GOD ALMIGHTY SAVE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FROM
| ALL THOSE WHO WOULD SEEK TO DESTROY HER.
| Sean
| If you ever find a party that stands for all you listed, please let me know.
| I would join in a New York minute!!!
|
Sean,
I support all of that above with the following exceptions:

Regarding (1): banning socialism, communism, and fascism…..
We can not ban socialism, communism, or fascism,
but I don’t like any of them and would never support any of them.
The one that poses the largest risk now is socialism. Too many
people want the government to take care of them from
cradle to grave, and pandering politicians promise the
requested benefits, but they’re almost always plundered
and mismanaged (e.g. Social Security and Medicare).

Regarding (3) National Sales tax….
We could not support a national sales tax. I used to support a sales tax,
but after doing some calculations, it places the largest
percentage-of-income tax burden on the lowest-income levels, which
won’t work very well. I’d prefer a simple single Flat Income Tax Rate, with
no loop-holes or deductions (see One-Simple-Idea.com for details).

Regarding (3) Capitalism….
We could not responsibly support total unregulated capitalism.
Corporations must follow a few laws to ensure that monopolies
don’t illegally destroy competition, because we all benefit from competition.
I’m not advocating a lot of regulation, but a referee is required to make
the playing field fair. Many years of abuses and anti-trust laws were
developed to keep the playing field fair, and I wouldn’t want to return
to the 1800s and early 1900s when huge corporations gouged the
public and ran all competition out of business. Those were
hard-learned lessons and we should not repeat those mistakes.

_______________

This country faces many problems, but the two biggest core problems are:
(a) government is irresponsible, unaccountable, and arrogant
(b) most voters are frustrated, uninformed, disaffected, and apathetic

And the many symptoms of this are:
(01) declining quality of Public Education; declining numbers of engineers and scientists;
(02) troubled and mismanaged Social Security and Medicare systems; an aging population;
(03) $8 trillion national debt and growing fast; rising personal debt of $27 trillion;
(04) astronomical health care costs;
(05) decline in manufacturing; soon, we won’t know how to make anything;
(06) energy vulnerability; no Energy Plan;
(07) terrorism, unsecured borders, illegal aliens;
(08) corporate and investor fraud; insufficiently regulated capitalism;
(09) ridiculously complex tax-everything-from-A-to-Z Tax-System;
(10) cultural, race, and religious intolerance; violation of the 1st Amendment; moral decline;
(11) legal plunder and the infliction of countless wasteful systems upon society; perversion of the law to do the very things it is supposed to prevent; disregard of the constitution;
(12) a dysfunctional judicial and prison system that releases sociopaths, pedophiles, and murderers back into society to commit more crimes;
(13) IDentity theft; America’s fastest growing crime
(14) damage to the environment; pollution of the land, water, and air; where’s the EPA?
(15) government growing and growing (at all levels);

And $40 trillion in total debt ($8 trillion national debt, $27 trillion personal debt, $5 trillion corporate, financial, etc. debt), only magnifies these problems.

I don’t mean to be alarmist or cynical, but all of that above most likely will cause a gradual and inevitable decline of the U.S., a shrinking middle-income population, increasingly poorer population, increased crime, poverty, ignorance, and disaffection.

That’s why it’s important for voters do their part and take action soon to peacefully force government to be responsible, transparent, and accountable, because government will never do it themselves, and government will continue to arrogantly ignore the voters and continue the corruption, pork-barrel, pandering, lying, bribery, wealth redistribution, the distraction of petty partisan bickering, and abuse of the people, and grid-lock, unless the voters peacefully force government to be pass some fundamental reforms to be transparent, accountable, and responsible.

The whole filibuster crap is pithy and petty partisan BS. As One-Simple-Idea illuminated, there are a billion more pressing issues for this country and the world. And here we are, two pathetic partisan groups, wasting time on such a BS thing. Even as a pro-life person, I believe anyone who thinks Sen. Frist is doing anything but trying to win the allegiance of the Southern christian right/activists, is fully kidding themselves. Once again, party and self-ambition win out over country and the people.

Christ Almighty, Wake Up, Please.

Amen, James.

The minority should not have the right to block the majority.

OSI, how big of a majority would you apply that rule to? A majority of one? Two? How about ten?

Really, all the Republicans need to do is find five more votes to override the filibuster. If the majority position is so self-evidently right, that shouldn’t be any problem, right?

AP,

Those 5 more seats you speek of may come in 2006 if this gets pushed to the limit.

I don’t know for sure how it will fall, and on which side, I do know both sides MAY be treading on dangrous ground.

AP,
Only 51% is required to appoint the judge.
Why should more than 51% be required to even arrive at a vote.

The majority should rule, UNLESS the rights of any individual are violated, which is an entirely different legal matter for the courts.
Anything that violates rights or is illegal will be overturned. All things are already subject to this requirement.

The filibuster is wallowing in pathetic petty partisan obstructionism. The claims of “protecting the minority” are false claims.
Both parties have abused the filibuster.
Both parties are pathetic.

That’s why we (the voters) need them all out.

VOTE only for NON-incumbents
and NON-main-party candidates.
NO exceptions.
Repeatedly , EVERY election.
UNTIL things drastically improve.

Stop wallowing in the petty childish partisan politics and falsly claiming “protection of the minority”.

Were politicians “protecting the minority” when they were blocking civil rights bills?

I’m sick of the petty partisan politics, bickering, and bullsh!t, because it is (by design) distracting all of us from the truly important issues that need attention now, before it’s too late.

OSI,

you wrote:
“VOTE only for NON-incumbents
and NON-main-party candidates.
NO exceptions.
Repeatedly , EVERY election.
UNTIL things drastically improve.”

With all due respect, both sides of the isle will say; Great plan!.. you go first.

There was a period of 4 years where I just stopped voting because I felt it was a supreme waste of time.

But, later, I felt ashamed of that, because
many people fought and died to give me the right to vote.

So, I vote now. No matter how long I have to stand in line,
or how futile it seems.

But, we all need something else,
and we all need to do something else
We all need to (civilly) discuss, debate, argue,
complain, and work to find solutions to our currently
broken, abused, and declining government and country.

After much thought, searching for root causes and
core ideas, I realized there was one simple idea
that was very easy to understand,
very easy to do, costs nothing, doesn’t need any party,
has nothing standing in its way, and could regain control
of an out-of-control government, provided voters
could all agree (the majority at least) that it is
necessary, and perhaps the only thing that has
any chance of success (short of revolution or civil war).

Sure, I hear it all the time. It will never work,
because…because…because…

But, the only thing that won’t make it work is that people
never realize the true power of what they already have:

their vote

They just need to know how to use it wisely.
Thereafter, government would probably start
resolving a lot of problems, and many other
good things would probably naturally follow.

However, some people are too fond of the petty childish partisan bickering, and too easily seduced by parasitic politicians, and choose to wallow in the shameful pigsty that distracts them from the real problem: government and politicians that are corrupt, do-nothing and wasteful, arrogant, tax-everything-and-spend-crazy, intolerant of race/religion/ideals, unconstitutional sometimes, and quite possibly, no net benefit to society. Those that choose this way are hurting society. If voters can’t get involved and get together to do one simple thing to resolve it, and the country continues to decline, then we’re going to start looking for someone to blame. But, we won’t have to look far. We’ll only need to in the mirror to see who is to blame.

Thus, the voters must do their part to
peacefully force government to do their part.

_____________
| Beagle wrote:
| With all due respect, both sides of the isle will say; Great plan!.. you go first.

Beagle,
That is all the more reason for us to do it (vote ‘em all out).
Think of the arrogance of such a response.
And that is probably a very accurate prediction of their attitude. They don’t think it could ever happen. At least, they’re hoping this is the one-simple-idea that the people will never discover, since it is the one thing that could actually unseat them from power.

Also, the politicians don’t have to do anything.
They’re all about to lose their jobs anyway.
Regardless of whether we vote them all out,
or the nation spirals into ruin, rebellion, or
civil war. It might no happen in my lifetime,
but it will happen eventually, unless voters
take steps to do something historic to make
government responsible and accountable.
That is, both voters and politicians must make
each other be responsible and accountable.
As it is now, we’re both irresponsible, but we’ll
eventually all be accountable, when we all find
ourselves in weaker, dysfunctional, and
eventually declining into a third world nation (or worse).

OSI,

I wasn’t trying to be arrogant, just stating facts.

Untill such a time as there are NO political partys it wont work.

People may vote for someone they don’t really care for to keep party control in the house/senate.
I understand what you wish for, but trying to remove politics from politics?, good luck on that one if you can get it to work.

Beagle,
No offense taken at all.
Maybe you’re right? Maybe not?
I’m not sure anyone can be sure.
The thing about the idea is that it does not need a party, and there are many disaffected voters.
Thanks!

OSI~
That is a beautiful idea~ and it’s to bad that we do fear the worst of “throwing our vote away” on a third candidate! Let’s invite the candidates to our blog! It may teach them a thing or two about real voters!

Traci,
Thanks! It is a very simple idea.
Every idea has it’s nay-sayers.

I think the only thing keeping it from becoming
reality is merely spreading the word, because
it doesn’t need all the things parties need.

It doesn’t need:
[_] a party
[_] a lot of money
[_] a broad platform
[_] high profile or famous candidates

In fact, if all of the 3rd parties would unite
to promote the idea, they may find that it resonates with so many disaffected voters,
that they suddenly find themselves all swept
into office, and finally given a chance to prove
they can govern more responsibly, and be
transparent and accountable.

I hear a lot of people say, gosh, that sounds great. If only it were possible. And their
reason is usually because it needs party support
and a way to promote the idea.
Yes, the idea needs promotion, but I’m not sure
any single party should promote it. Perhaps
all third parties should promote it, since they
could potentially benefit from it (at least once); they’ll have to act responsibly, or be
voted out like their predecessors.

OSI

I agree that your compromise on point of national sales tax, I still think it could work, but would rather see a no loop hole flat 10% income tax than keep it where it is. I also agree that competition is a very good thing, and would not like to see a return to the mega corporations of the past, in my own industry I fight a daily battle with a corporation, and am in my own humble estimation holding my own, Which now brings us to point 1, which I remain firm on, and think that the dissident Isms should vanish a painful death.

But we are in complete agreement about the dependency factor now going on. Why are so many willing to allow the government the ability to make personal choices for you? Boggles the mind, I would rather pick my own savings plan, and medical care.
I worked for the Uncle Sam; trust me it is in no way efficient! Matter of fact it is designed to be the opposite! In normal work place you are expected to minimize cost, in the government you are penalized for doing so. In the military we had a budget for our department (Food Services) and at the end of the year we were scrambling to spend $100,000 we had not spent. When asked why we had to spend it I was informed that if you do not spend your budget out, and have a surplus you are told good job, and they reduce your budget by the amount of the surplus! No department will ever want less money than they had the year before! So it is no wonder that the spending never stops, what madness is this?
So I am all for the new non party.

I am looking forward to the revolution, when the seditious will be made to answer for their treason and be called to account for their actions.

MAY GOD ALMIGHTY SAVE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FROM ALL THOSE WHO WOULD SEEK TO DESTROY HER.

Sean

Sean,

“In normal work place you are expected to minimize cost, in the government you are penalized for doing so.”

Unfortunately, running the government as a business is really the only viable option for making it more efficient. I say “unfortunately” because governments and businesses have different objectives and therefore when ideas are transferred between the two disaster strikes.

Obviously if a business was run as the government it would go bankrupt within a year, but less obvious is why the government cannot be run as a business. The simple answer is that the government exists for the sole purpose of serving the people whereas businesses only help their customers because they need to keep them happy and buying their product/service. Hence, businesses have a good and bad side with constantly improving their products but giving them built in obsolescence so that dependence is made. The government does neither improvements on ideas nor built in obsolescence meaning you take away the good AND the bad.

In the end, the profits of a business always go to the owners of the company, but for the government, those profits usually end up in the pockets of politicians instead of going back to the citizens. That’s why when programs manage to be efficient and achieve their goals below the budget, the remaining money is simply siphoned off. I admit this is a far-cry from a perfect, or even good, way of dealing with corruption in the government but until that better way is found it’s what we got.

If you’re still reading this rant I’m impressed :)

VOTE only for NON-incumbents and NON-main-party candidates. NO exceptions. Repeatedly , EVERY election. UNTIL things drastically improve.

You go first, Mr. Bush re-electer. :)

A.P.
After you, Mr. Kerry voter and/or non - Mr. Bush elector.

Until there’s a united effort to vote only for non-incumbents, most of our votes are pretty much wasted. It’s almost a waste of time to vote at all, since the choices stink. Yes, I did not vote for Kerry, because I dislike him more. Kerry was just way too wish-washy, lied too much, was on all sides of the issues, he’s a stereo-typical tax-and-spend career politician, and his choice of VP helped confirm all of it. He embodied too much that I dislike and see wrong with 99% of all politicians. I also didn’t like his behavior after leaving Viet Nam, and his statement once saying he thought it would be doubly advantageous to be both for and against the View Nam war. Protesting is one thing, but visiting with the enemy is quite another thing.

I dislike some things about Bush too, but I had
already followed Kerry’s career for years (before Bush was even Governor in Texas), and I already disliked Kerry based on his many years in Congress. I also dislike Kerry’s buddy, Teddy Kennedy, who should be serving time in jail for man-slaughter, drunk driving, leaving the scene of an accident, and hiding it all until it was too late to save Mary Jo Kopechne.

So, yes, you are correct. I did vote for an incumbent in this case. I made an exception this time, because I very much did not want Kerry/Edwards in office, and no third party candidate had a chance.

However, if voters would ever unite to do the one simple thing required to peacefully force government to be responsible, transparent, and accountable, then we’d all have more and better choices, because the problem is not just one or two offices (e.g. President/VP); it’s all of Congress and the Executive branch that needs some incentive to reform.