Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Since club, mentioned Abe Fortas, here's something from today's WaPo, via The Carpetbagger's Report:

• Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) told his panel this month that the judicial battles have escalated, "with the filibuster being employed for the first time in the history of the Republic." Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said in a Senate speech last week, "The crisis created by the unprecedented use of filibusters to defeat judicial nominations must be solved."
  
  Such claims, however, are at odds with the record of the successful 1968 GOP-led filibuster against President Lyndon B. Johnson's nomination of Abe Fortas to be chief justice of the United States. "Fortas Debate Opens with a Filibuster," a Page One Washington Post story declared on Sept. 26, 1968. It said, "A full-dress Republican-led filibuster broke out in the Senate yesterday against a motion to call up the nomination of Justice Abe Fortas for Chief Justice."
  
  A New York Times story that day said Fortas's opponents "began a historic filibuster today." As the debate dragged on for four days, news accounts consistently described it as a full-blown filibuster intended to prevent Fortas's confirmation from reaching the floor, where a simple-majority vote would have decided the question.

That site also has the details about how Frist participated in a fillibuster of a Clinton nominee, Richard Paez, a few years ago.

So it was a "real" fillibuster in that it shut down Congress and some gasbags had to keep talking for hours on end until they had to pee.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
So it was a "real" fillibuster in that it shut down Congress and some gasbags had to keep talking for hours on end until they had to pee.

I'm all for requiring that fillibusters be what slave calls "real fillibusters." Make 'em keep debating.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
So it was a "real" fillibuster in that it shut down Congress and some gasbags had to keep talking for hours on end until they had to pee.

When we start interpreting the Constitution according to Frank Capra's vision, rather than the framers' original intent or what's in the text, I'm sure that will be required.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
When we start interpreting the Constitution according to Frank Capra's vision, rather than the framers' original intent or what's in the text, I'm sure that will be required.

Well, common law, common wisdom, not so different as one might think ...

BR(also in favor of making millionaire sr. citizen gasbags stay up for days on end to stick it to the man - who knows, maybe after they lose their seats and return to private practice they'll think twice about forcing their associates into all nighters?)C

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Ummm- did you have Con Law at Florida Coastal?

Congress- main duty----- Legislate

Senate- secondary duty----- call bullshit on the Prez' nominations for judge IF necessary.

Weak.

Here's the truth: "Senate -- additional duty -----call bullshit on the Prez' nominations for judge IF THEY WANT TO." The Senate is free to advise and consent (or withold consent) in any manner they wish.

Your distinction is based on the premise that the Senate must serve as handmaidens to the Executive in judicial appointments (as opposed to while legislating).

Not so. Both are legislative functions under the Constitution. The Exec. and Legislative are co-equal branches of government -- and if the Pres. can't convince the Senate under whatever rules the Senate uses, the President loses that round.

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Weak.

Here's the truth: "Senate -- additional duty -----call bullshit on the Prez' nominations for judge IF THEY WANT TO." The Senate is free to advise and consent (or withold consent) in any manner they wish.

Your distinction is based on the premise that the Senate must serve as handmaidens to the Executive in judicial appointments (as opposed to while legislating).

Not so. Both are legislative functions under the Constitution. The Exec. and Legislative are co-equal branches of government -- and if the Pres. can't convince the Senate under whatever rules the Senate uses, the President loses that round.

S_A_M

Is this a debate about whether this is legal? Or just historically polite? A lot of these posts seem to hit cross-purposes.

The Constitution contains the (relative) unchangables. Everything else must be interpreted according to those precepts, but can vary as long as the Constitution is given its due. We've had rule changes before - that's how we got filibusters in the first place.

Is such a rule change civil? Maybe not. But both parties have had their very uncivil moments, so this is nothing new, nor is it particularly a badge of dishonor for any one side. It's in the nature of such a body to tussle procedurally, and to take power as the votes allow.

We all know that this is the runup to the SC appointments coming up. By itself, the rule change isn't that tough of a concept, but given the probable retirements, it's a critical one, and thus the enraged attention. But, I hope people remember that things cycle.

If they do change the rule, I truly hope that they do not then use it to appoint the most radically right SC justices they can find. At some point, Dems will rule once again, and it would be nice if there was some feeling, at least, that moderation prevailed over advantage. Otherwise, we're into a hundred year war.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Is this a debate about whether this is legal? Or just historically polite? A lot of these posts seem to hit cross-purposes.

The Constitution contains the (relative) unchangables. Everything else must be interpreted according to those precepts, but can vary as long as the Constitution is given its due. We've had rule changes before - that's how we got filibusters in the first place.

Is such a rule change civil? Maybe not. But both parties have had their very uncivil moments, so this is nothing new, nor is it particularly a badge of dishonor for any one side. It's in the nature of such a body to tussle procedurally, and to take power as the votes allow.

We all know that this is the runup to the SC appointments coming up. By itself, the rule change isn't that tough of a concept, but given the probable retirements, it's a critical one, and thus the enraged attention. But, I hope people remember that things cycle.

If they do change the rule, I truly hope that they do not then use it to appoint the most radically right SC justices they can find. At some point, Dems will rule once again, and it would be nice if there was some feeling, at least, that moderation prevailed over advantage. Otherwise, we're into a hundred year war.

I think we were arguing about the constitutionality fig leaf that Frist is going to put on his rectal probing of Senate Democrats. Of course he can do it -- he's a man -- but he shouldn't pretend he's not fucking them up the ass.

OK, that was maybe too much to drink with dinner.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think we were arguing about the constitutionality fig leaf that Frist is going to put on his rectal probing of Senate Democrats. Of course he can do it -- he's a man -- but he shouldn't pretend he's not fucking them up the ass.

The ass-fucking baton just cycles back and forth, and every new ream seems like the worst ever. This, too, shall pass.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
The ass-fucking baton just cycles back and forth, and every new ream seems like the worst ever. This, too, shall pass.

I am resigned to the ass-fucking, but I wish they would stop pretending that it's anything else. None of this "fillibusters are unconstitutional" shit. Let's here Frist say, Reid, why don't you have a couple drinks and grab the lube, 'cause I'm comin' in.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I am resigned to the ass-fucking, but I wish they would stop pretending that it's anything else. None of this "fillibusters are unconstitutional" shit. Let's here Frist say, Reid, why don't you have a couple drinks and grab the lube, 'cause I'm comin' in.

You know being President is like being married- you get to put them/it in. It's like a right or something.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You know being President is like being married- you get to put them/it in. It's like a right or something.

You told me you were married.

[Adder]

Originally posted by sgtclub
One is the implicit notion that had the founders wanted to provide for something other than a simple majority they would have done so.

Is this the only senate rule that takes a super-majority? If not, are all of the others unconstitutional too?

The second is that I think it's one thing to give weight to Senate rules and precedent in how its handles its internal business and another thing to permit those rules to impede on the Constitutional responsbilities of another branch of government.

Does the Senate do anything that isn't a "Constitutional responsibility?"

[Adder]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
The thing is no one said it was fine and the cerebral cortex wasn't mush. Not one of those 17 experts touched the finding of the court that the cerbral cortex is basically liquid. The closest any of the "experts" would go on the cerebral cortex issue is that maybe there are other tests than catscans and MRIs.

Thankfully, I got Pat Robertson's take on this issue, so I am now fully informed.

Turns out its the doctors who want her dead, 'cause there's lots o' money in "harvesting her organs." Who knew? The probably is capitalism. And, of course, evil, money grubbing doctors who are undoubtedly liberals anyway.

[Adder]

Originally posted by bilmore
Ah, well. I think that, were she my kid, I might be going to (almost) the same lengths, mostly out of an unwillingness to accept my kid's death. I can't think of anything harder.

That explains the parents (it has to be incredibly hard), but what is Dan Burton's excuse?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
Thankfully, I got Pat Robertson's take on this issue, so I am now fully informed.

Turns out its the doctors who want her dead, 'cause there's lots o' money in "harvesting her organs." Who knew? The probably is capitalism. And, of course, evil, money grubbing doctors who are undoubtedly liberals anyway.

I know you are being sarcastic, but it brings up a very relevant point. Her organs could save a lot of lives, and increase the quality of many other lives. So who in this debate is really conscerned about life. I have left directions with my parents that if I can be even slightly compared to a vegetable (which in my case may not even be much of a stretch right now) then I want my life line pulled and all my organs given away. Since I ain't getting no nobel prizes, I figure hey, if I give an organ to somebody who does, I could get partial credit. I won't have any use for them anyway.