Redstate

Lobbying to prevent the two branches of government currently held by one party from co-opting the third.

Couldn't think of a better name for such an organisation if I tried.

Didn't take too much time for me to come up with one, and it's apropos to boot.

common sense Republican,

http://www.oliverwillis.com/node/2235

he took your point.

". . . two Branches of government currently held by one party from coopting the third . . ."

What, exactly does this mean.

The two elective Branches collectively responsible for making and enforcing the law, copting the non-elected branch and preventing it from doing . . . what?

Are you saying that the political processes that placed the two branches in the hands of one party are - invalid? Illegal? What?

What might that say about your views on the reign of the great FDR?  Now THAT was a lock on government with the Executive attempting to pack the very Court Mr. Bush is simply attempting to populate; while the 'other' branch sat back watching and begging for White House scraps.

The only issue here is the one issue most folks are loath to mention - it isn't that a single Party is in power today.  The issue is with the Party that is in power. And the sting is all the greater because of the flat-out and undeniable rejection of the "Outs" by the electorate.  

Forgive me if I suspect we'd be hearing an altogether different tune had the results of the presidential and last several congressional elections gone the other way.  We'd be hearing an awful lot about the 'will of the people' and the fairness and validity of the electoral processes.

Bah!

Yahuti is absolutely correct.  If Republicans were to endlessly filibuster a Democrat judicial nominee that had bi-partisan majority support for confirmation, the Senate Democrats would, if they had the majority, change the Senate rules or interpetation of those rules in a heartbeat.  

If the Democrats think that 60 votes ought to be required for judicial confirmations, they should propose an amemdment to the US Constitution.  Until then, we should operate by majority rule.  

People Against the American Way

of SouthernGent's point. If Willis' site motto was true Willis would be dead by now.

People for the Soviet Way.

People for the American Way - aren't.

And the Republicans would take what are now Democratic positions.  So what.  Sort of like the newfound interest in Federalism on the part of Demcocrats and a lessening of that concern on the part of Republicans.  What's your point?  What would you advocate if the roles were reversed.  Play dead?  I think not!

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/08/14/bush.judges/

" 'Improper' delays engineered by Senate Republicans to thwart President Clinton's judicial nominees so poisoned relations with Democrats that President Bush may see only five of his own choices for the federal bench confirmed this year, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzalez said Tuesday.

" 'We are trying to work through some of the logjams, but there is a lot of bitterness,' Gonzales told CNN. 'This is a bit of a payback. I can't argue with some of their [the Democrats'] perceptions.' "

Gonzales noted that some Republican senators placed "holds" on Clinton judicial nominees, denying them a Judiciary Committee hearing or a floor vote for as long as four years.

"That was wrong," he said. "That's not right. Part of this is based on the conduct of the Republican senators in the past. We had nothing to do with this problem. But it does affect us."

And he is going to get it on this one.  Funny how you all seem to forget how republicans blocked 3X more justices during Clinton's term than Democrats have blocked during Bush's.  Of course Republicans changed the rules when Bush won so that nominee's can no longer be shut out by a single Senator's say so.  I guess that was OK during Clinton but we can't have that during Bush.

The really sad thing is is that Clinton's nominees were middle of the roaders.  Those nominees that have been blocked under Bush are judicial extremists and should be blocked.

You want to change the rules & shut down the government.  That is exactly what you will get.  And the American people will support the Democrats on this one.

What Bush should do is make a deal.  Get together with the heads of the Minority & Majority Parties from both the House & Senate and work out who they will & who they won't confirm.  Bush won't do that.  He see's that as a sign of weakness.  It's not, it's how business works.  

Let the flaming begin.

Of that characterization.

The really sad thing is is that Clinton's nominees were middle of the roaders.  Those nominees that have been blocked under Bush are judicial extremists and should be blocked.

Please name two examples of each who could be reasonably characterized so.

Thanks.

The really sad thing is is that Clinton's nominees were middle of the roaders.

This always amuses me. It reminds me of Dan Rather loudly proclaiming that he plays it "straight down the middle." And this was a few months after headlining a Democrat fundraiser in Texas. Or Eleanor Clift stating matter-of-factly that John Kerry is and has always been a "centrist." Or that AP report marveling that Hilary Clinton was a "moderate" (if you ignore the voting record).

The Left in this country are so steeped in self-regard and thus myopic, they really believe their positions on the issues (abortion should be legal one day to the due date, thirteen year olds should be able to obtain abortions but not tattoos without a parent's knowledge, yes to same sex marriage, etc.) actually represent the views of the "center". Even after losing election after election.

What Bush should do is make a deal.

No. The Constitution places the power of judicial nomination in the hands of the President. So, on the contrary, it's not how business works.

Look, shut down the government if you want. You're the ones screaming about filibustering everything that moves if we don't throw in the towel on a battle you lost in November last year. Your party lost its Senate leader for something like that, despite the Press going all out on your behalf. So you'll have to excuse me for not quaking in my boots.

Bring it on.

Ted needs to study his history, the filibuster has not been around for 200 years.  The first filibuster occurred in 1837!  The Mr. Smith type of filibuster has been a thing of the past since 1975 when, then majority leader Sen. Byrd, in response to the "nuclear option" being threatened by Sen. Mondale, resulted in a change to rule 22 that reduced the cloture requirement to 60 and introduced the two-track system, eliminating the need to actually filibuster.  Today, a filibuster consists of only a cloture vote, no talk!  The use of the filibuster has absolutely nothing to do with "speaking out and being heard".  In fact it is only used to suppress a vote.  The implication that eliminating the 3/5 requirement for cloture votes on nominees would remove the filibuster for legislation, is as close to a lie as one can get.  

A summary of the history of the filibuster.

Up until 1806, the Senate could stop debate by a simple majority by "Calling for the previous question". So those that argue that the founding fathers contemplated the filibuster are dead wrong and in fact there was no possibility of a filibuster from 1789 until 1806.  In 1806 the rule allowing calling for the previous question was dropped as being unnecessary as it had only been employed a few times.  Since the tactic of using extended debate as a means of blocking legislation was not even thought of, a rule to cutoff debate was not implemented.  This inadvertently introduced an opportunity for a filibuster.  The first time the tactic of continuing debate as a means of blocking a bill was in 1837 when the new senate attempted to expunge the previous senate's censure of President Andrew Jackson (for withdrawing federal deposits from the Bank of the United States). So the first Senate filibuster occurred in 1837, 168 years ago, not 200 as has been advanced.  

The first limitation on debate occurred in 1917 as compromise alternative under the threat of obtaining the same result via the "Constitutional Option" tactic.  Cloture was established at 2/3 of the members present and only applied to legislation.  In 1949, the "Constitutional Option" was again threatened and resulted in another compromise that changed rule 22 to requiring 2/3 of the total members and extended the cloture to include motions and matters pending (which includes nominations).  In 1957, VP Nixon, in responding to an inquiry from Sen. Humphrey, gave an opinion that the "Constitutional Option" was valid.  In 1959, the "Constitutional Option" was threatened again and a compromise change was made to rule 22 that changed cloture to 2/3 of the members present and added requiring 2/3 to change any rules.  Finally, in 1975, Senators Mondale and Pearson threatened the "Constitutional Option" and forced Senator Byrd to offer a compromise to rule 22 for cloture requiring 3/5 of the total members (60) and instituted the two track system for dealing with filibuster (this eliminated the actual need to filibuster).  There is an 88 year senate history of the threat of using the "Constitutional Option" to force changes in the filibuster rules.

...really makes no sense whatsoever.  Filibustering nominees isn't exactly a Constitutionally protected Article I check on Article II.

. . .he said that he couldn't come up with a better one.  Given my observations of his contributions here, I'm sure he was telling the truth.

. . .the motto refers to red kryptonite, in which case it might have simply mutated him.  Into--just for an example--one of David Brock's tame blogwhores.

Simple.

Play the game!

Play the game by-the-rules.

Advocate?  New Republican leadership in the Senate if Frist and his fellows haven't the stones to get this ball rolling.

feel threatened by the notion that 'you' will shut down government after holding your collective breath, stamping your collective feet after not having it your own malicious way - do you?

Shut down the government?

Could we get that in WRITING, please.

A fight?

How about simply a loyal opposition - if opposition  is all 'you' have to offer the country.

Clinton's middle-of-the-roader:  Ruth Ginsberg, who (reportedly) has a tattoo on 1 butt cheek that says "I <heart> ACLU", and one on the other cheek that says "Men suck".

GWB's judicial extremist: Charles Pickering, who while being accused by national Dems as a racist, and strenuously opposed by NARAL, NAACP, NOW, and PFAW (a regular role call of middle-of-the-road groups), was supported whole-heartedly by blacks and civil rights leaders in his home state, including Charles Evers, brother of Medgar Evers.  This exchange during 60 Minutes between Clarence Magee, who heads the NAACP in Hattiesburg, MS,  and Charles Evers, brother of the murdered civil rights leader Medgar Evers.

From 60 Minutes transcript, precisely:

Mr. CHARLES EVERS: You know, maybe you don't know, you know that Charles Pickering was the man helped us to break the Ku Klux Klan? Did you know that?

Mr. CLARENCE McGEE: Well, you know, I've heard that statement made.

Mr. EVERS: I mean, I know that. Do you know that?

Mr. McGEE: I don't know that.

Mr. EVERS: Well, I know that. Do you know about the young black man that was accused of robbing the young white woman? Do you know about that?

Mr. McGEE: No.

Mr. EVERS: So Charles Pickering took the case, came to trial, and won the case, and the young man became free.

Mr. McGEE: I don't know about that.

Mr. EVERS: All right. But did you also know that Charles Pickering is the man who helped integrate his--his churches? Do you know about that?

Mr. McGEE: No.

Mr. EVERS: Well, you don't know a thing about Charles Pickering.

 

Do you have a link for that 60 minutes transcript. I'd love to see it.

I don't like making my point with a paraphrase if I can't see the original, since it might be slanted to the right, making me look like an idiot when somebody locates and posts the original.  Having found a paraphrased version here and splattered all over the internet, I went to LexisNexis, which has the exact transcript with no commentary, which is what I posted.  Once I got that, and the exact date, I was able to find a public link deep in the bowels of CBS.  It adds a little commentary, but that portion of the broadcast is pretty clean.

the exact transcript of that segment as I have it from LexisNexis, I can email it to you or post it in my diary (as long as I cite the source, I think I'm legal OK with it).  It includes, like the CBS link,  Mike Wallace, Judge Pickering, Chuck Schumer, and Deborah Grambrell and Charles Lawrence (the latter 2 being 2 black lawyers that practiced in CP's court).

Thanks for digging up that link! That was very gracious of you.

as a moonbat before being a moonbat was trendy.

Cheers.