Compromise Proposal to Judicial Filibusters

[ltfranklin]

We're going to take a hit for our part of the showdown and inevitable fight if the Republicans do the nuclear option. To keep the American people on our side, we MUST provide a common-sense alternative and be willing to stick to it. I would like to suggest the following:

The Democrats in the Senate will filibuster the candidates for the Federal Judiciary that they feel are objectionable for whatever reason. They will withdraw the filibuster (or vote for cloture) for each judicial nominee IF the republican's will agree to 4 to 8 hours (time to be mutually decided, maybe more for a Supreme) of FLOOR DEBATE on each candidate that is filibustered. After the debate, the filibuster will be withdrawn and a straight up-or-down vote will be taken. Since these are lifetime appointments, we should stress, allowing each senator to express their opinion on the candidate and attempt to persuade the other side to their way of thinking is NOT too much to ask. After all, if their arguments are so weak that they can't afford to allow the other side to make THEIR argument, then what does that say about their candidate?

Along with this, the possibility of the "Nuclear Option" should be taken OFF the table. To sweeten the deal, we should agree that, when WE'RE in power, we will not apply the "Nuclear Option".

This is a common-sense, reasonable compromise. I beleive that, one way or the other, they're going to try to force these candidates through, either by going Nuclear or by recess appointments. By putting this offer on the table, WE become the ones that are willing to compromise, and if they turn it down, THEY are the ones that are unwilling to accept ANY kind of argument with what THEY want.

I want to be one of the good guys...do they want to be the bad guys?

[Skip Intro]

1. I say no compromise on any of it

repukes are the ones that want to change the rules. We need to just say NO, and mean it.

No compromise on this.

No compromise on Social Security.

We were 49-51 on ANWR. (and we could have won were it not for a few unreliable Dems).

We only need a little momentum.

No comprise on Senate Rules on Judges.

No compromise on ANY Social Security tampering. Any bush plan is D.O.A.

Let's stand for something and effin STAND there!

[Discord]

3. I agree. stick with the filibuster, and if they use the

nuclear option, back up their threat to bog down the Senate until the 2006 with procedure blocking.

[ltfranklin]

5. I agree with you IF...

...they do not accept a REASONABLE compromise. If they don't then all bets are off, but at least WE were the ones that were willing to go half way with them, and THEY were the ones with a stick up their butt!

[Discord]

7. Thats been the case for 20 years already.

I say fuck em, fuck the fundie judges, fuck their nuclear option.

Tell em the judges aint getting thru. If they use the nuclear option, they can bog the Senate down with procedural challenges. They can basicly grind the Senate down to a halt until the mid-term elections.

[jdj]

38. I second. no retreat, no surrender.

if they kill the filibuster, we shut down the senate.

they can stand around and call names all they want. the whole judiciary is probably really nervous at this point anyway with all the elbow nudges and nodds to the perpetrators of violence against the judges lately.


of course, the pragmatic side of me says fuck it, let go, let them steamroll the judges in, give this country what it voted for, get every repuke ridden out of their town on a rail and let the republican party destroy itself for good. in that sense, it's a coin toss.

[Yupster]

2. I agree that

some compromise will probably be reached on this issue.

[ltfranklin]

4. I'm hoping so...

Because as sure as daylight, if they use the "Nuclear Option" on filibustering Judicial appointments, they'll trot it out again when they don't get their way on something else they think is important. Oh, they'll have a perfectly valid (in a twisted way) reason for it. They'll claim the minority is again trying to oppress the majority, but they'll use it.

As I said, I want US to be the good guys. Save the filibuster for when we really need it, when they try to pull something REALLY odious. Make the compromise now to keep this weapon OUT of their hands. They talk a lot about the slippery slope, but they're happy to use it when it's to THEIR advantage...if you can't make a big change, make a lot of small ones until the goalposts are where YOU want them. Compromising on this will keep the filibuster unchanged for future use. Allowing them to bypass it a little here will make it easier to do it again later. Make the compromise, with the proviso that the right to Filibuster will NOT be compromised in the future.

[democracyindanger]

6. Major flaw

The R's will get every candidate they want, floor debate or no. Hoping for an R to vote his conscience is like playing the lottery. If you win, obviously it'd be great, but the overwhelming odds are that you'll just be light some money.

Besides, they've approved, what, 80-90% of Chimpy's judicial nominees. These are the dregs of the dregs, the wingnuttiest of the wingnuttiest.

[Discord]

8. wingnuttiest...ROFL

sorry, just got a kick out of that.

:rofl:

[Yupster]

14. I get a kick out of

the little rolling laughing guy.

That and the picture of the squirrel in the suit at the table with Bush. And Bush says "Squirrel" Don't know why I think that's so funny. I guess it's the expression on Bush's face.

They always make me chckle.

[Erika]

9. You already tried to sell this once tonight

We're not buying.

[Erika]

10. You already tried to sell this once tonight

We're not buying.

[Erika]

11. Interesting...a double post

I wonder how I did that. Sorry.

[uhhuh]

12. Because

It deserved to be said twice!!

[Erika]

13. You are so kind. eom

[flyarm]

15. no compromise for no reason period! n/t

[ltfranklin]

16. You're absolutely Right!

Let's out-republican the republican's. FUCK the nation's business, we're GOING TO GET OURS! TAKE NO PRISONERS.

Well, as long as you're willing to accept what you get when you go down that road, so be it.

[democracyindanger]

17. Ensuring a sane judiciary is the nation's business

And as long as you're willing to accept having insane, extremist partisans acquiring lifetime appointments to the federal bench in exchange for your highly sketchy gamble that enough R's will be swayed by Dem speeches to actually break from their party, you know, so be it.

Heh. Trust the Republicans? Riiiiiiiight.

[ltfranklin]

18. Well

If you overlook the fact that Insane, Extremist partisans are STILL going to have to come up with a constitutionally sound argument for their decisions that will pass the STINK test, yes, I think we can take a chance. Now, I'd suggest that the Supremes are a different thing, and the compromise does NOT apply there. There is NO higher court, so that's the point at which you Filibuster, and NO compromise.

[democracyindanger]

22. Um...

The Supreme Court hears less than 100 cases a year. Federal appeals courts handle thousands of cases every year. So more often than not, by a wide margin, the appeals courts have the final say on constitutional issues. They are the ones who pass out, collect and grade the stink test.

[ltfranklin]

24. That's true...

But they don't do it in a vaccuum! Federal appeals court judges, like all judges, HATE to be overturned. If they make a judgement that goes against SCOTUS precidence, they're going to have to make a HELL of a case for it, because if they try to go against the Supremes, the Supremes ARE going to take the case. So, to my mind, they're not likely to make any BIG changes...they may be able to peck away at the edges of the law, but I think the threat of the SCOTUS stepping in if they overstep the bounds of presidence will at least temper their activism.

But maybe I'm wrong...I'm willing to admit it. I'm not an expert. Are you?

[adwon]

73. Actually, you are wrong

The Supreme Court only takes the cases that it feels are best suited to set out the law in a given situation. Bear in mind, it can take decades before bad rulings are overturned by the Court (Plessy anyone?).

By the way, some of these judges that have been nominated, like one from NC, don't much care if they get overturned or not. If I recall, the one I have in mind has had more than half his decisions overturned by the NC Supreme Court.

[ltfranklin]

75. Maybe I'm wrong...

But SCOTUS get's somewhat peeved if the lower court decisions go against precidence they have set.

And your second statement goes to my argument that the most flagrent wingnuttery is overturned in higher courts. The judges still have to make a decent case for constutionality.

[Richard Steele]

21. You seem to assume that we are opposing REASONABLE opponents...

...who have some sort of RESPECT for rules, laws, the Constitution, or the very PRINCIPLES of this nation.

Your ASSUMPTIONS are INCORRECT. And everyone on BOTH sides knows it.

At this point, we are not fighting for political gains, or our Party's ideas about some issue or another...

We are FIGHTING to maintain the basic IDEA of "The RULE of LAW". We are struggling to REVIVE the few struggling roots of AMERICA.

It seems CURIOUS to me, ltfranklin, that you are so 'outraged' by our party's attempts to use LAW to oppose those who are so struttingly PROUD of their lawlessness.

I wonder if simple "ignorance of the issues" is sufficient to explain your opinions.
I don't mean that as an insult, honestly. But I would very much like to hear WHY you feel the way you do about this.

Sincerely,
dick

[ltfranklin]

23. Hmmm...

Now, I hope you're not implying that I'm doing this cause...(gasp)...I'm from THE OTHER SIDE!

So, because I don't agree with you, I suffer from "ignorance of the issues"
You tell me I'm 'outraged' by our party's actions, when I said no such thing.
"Why do you hate America?"

Thanks for explaining what I really MEAN to say when I say what I'm saying, Rush.

Seriously, I DO NOT appreciate your using the standard RIGHT-WING HACK tactics in your reply. I would hope that our side is better than that, but perhaps, as you say, my ASSUMPTIONS are INCORRECT. Perhaps we are no better than the other side.

Given that, my reply would be that, although the other side may well have "RESPECT for rules, laws, the Constitution, or the very PRINCIPLES of this nation", they still have to ACT like they do, or they don't stand a chance in HELL of getting reelected. So, publically CALL them on this, and they WILL have to respond in a way that at least LOOKS like they have some respect for the Constitution and rational government or take the hit in 2006!

[Richard Steele]

27. You seem to be offended, and using insinuations to dodge my question.

I clearly stated that I wanted to hear your rationalle for your post, and you respond by ACCUSING me of the very thing I SPECIFICALLY stated that I was not accusing you of.

Just FASCINATING.

Thank you for your time.

dick

[ltfranklin]

33. Well...

Perhaps if you read to the end of the post, instead of stopping after the first few sentences, you might have read the last paragraph, where I answered your question...or at least, I thought I did...here's the paragraph.

Given that, my reply would be that, although the other side may well have "RESPECT for rules, laws, the Constitution, or the very PRINCIPLES of this nation", they still have to ACT like they do, or they don't stand a chance in HELL of getting reelected. So, publically CALL them on this, and they WILL have to respond in a way that at least LOOKS like they have some respect for the Constitution and rational government or take the hit in 2006!

Is that dodging the question?, which I believe was:
"But I would very much like to hear WHY you feel the way you do about this."
I'm sorry...was I supposed to talk about my FEELINGS, or the reasoning behind my proposal. Gee, my bad!

[LynneSin]

54. I see you're a male - no wonder you support giving in to the repukes

I mean, it's not you having to make heartwrenching personal choices over pregnancy

It's not you trying to get your birth control pills only to be rejected by idiotic pharmacists infiltrating this new arena

It must be nice to be a man and not worry about how a little compromise could affect half the population of this country.

:grr: :grr: :grr:

A real democratic man would stand up and realize this is all ultimately going to help control over women (along with hundreds of other issues, mind you we women aren't the only ones affected - but we are all affected if we give in to the judges)

So seriously, please think long and hard about the assinine suggestion of "Oh, let's be good democrats and find compromise because in my delusional world I just know a repuke would cross the line if he/she was forced to sit through 8 hours of debate knowing that the yes/no vote would finally happen at the end" You're living in a dream world, please don't use it to affect the real world the rest of us live in

[ltfranklin]

58. For the love of....

Does anybody do anything here but kneejerk without reading all my posts? First of all, you know NOTHING about my feelings about the subject of choice, and I object, MOST STRENUOUSLY, to your objectification of me. Evidently, there are no real Democratic men, because they've already let over 200 other judges through, of which a significant portion are probably ill-disposed towards the question of choice. We've got 10 more that they ARE going to find a way to get through, and I am here suggesting that we choose our battles, and I get labeled as ANTI-CHOICE! AUUUUGH!

So Please stop putting words in my mouth. We get enough of that type of stuff from Limbaugh, we don't need to be doing it to each other.

Once more, I'll restate what I said in many other posts. I do not really expect (although I do have some small hopes) anybody on their side to change their votes! I'm saying, and have been saying, that IF we are about to see the Nuclear Option applied, that the time in debate would be as much to make our cases to the American people as to the other side, and to force the other side to respond to our objections on the public records, where it can be reintroduced in 2006 and 2008.


Edited to tone down the subject...got a little emotional there...sorry

[LynneSin]

60. I'll stop putting words in your mouth when you stop suggesting...

...idiotic ideas.

FACT: Repukes WILL NOT sway from their stance. For those who try to sway, they'll probably be taken into a back office and have their career threatened by Cheney & Frist until he/she promises to vote accordingly

FACT: In another post you suggested that by compromising, this will come out in the public and suddenly the world will know that Democrats were the ones to compromise. Sorry, NO ONE WILL KNOW!!! The media won't cover it and other than a few thousand die-hard political junkies like you and I, no one in the public will know about it? Do you think John Q. Public who works 40 hours a week so he can spend the weekend with his wife & kids really cares about the status of judges & filibusters in congress? I don't think so. No one will know, hell even the public is not aware of the fact that we have allowed 200 judges to get appointed which was a much better record than what repukes did for Clinton.

And finally, I realize this is a discussion board and thankfully Harry Reid probably isn't reading this thread thinking "Gee, that Itfranklin has a great idea, I think I'm going to do it". But it just irritates me to no end that anyone would actually think that compromising on judges would actually be a good idea. It's not - it's one of the worst one's ever! Hell, I'd rather think suggesting Joe Lieberman as Senate Minority Leader and DNC head would actually rate as a better idea than compromising with repukes so they can finally vote on what has been deemed the worst of the worse judges

[ltfranklin]

62. Pax

We obviously have differing ideas of the possibilities and dangers of this proposal. I have no problem admitting that I could be wrong in this...I don't think I am, but I can see it going many ways, and many of those ways not to our advantage.

I fear that to make this work, we would have to be a great deal better at working the media than we have been in the past, or are likely, unfortunately, to be in the future.

However, If you can't at least appreciate that I was sincere in my hopes, and that I was sincere in my wishes to examine this idea with an open mind, I would at least appreciate that you at least grant me the asssumption that I had valid intellectual reasons for posing the questions, and stop treating me like I was talking out my posterior!

I certainly never tried to demean you or your intellect or the quality of your ideas when I responded, nor have I done so with anybody that has responded, except perhaps to express some exasperation with the constant reiteration of arguments I did NOT make, attributing them to me.

[LynneSin]

63. Your reasons were since but wrong

Even Bob Dole has come out against doing away with the filibuster because this could turn around and bite them back in the ass. We can't compromise in this area because it's not like these judges will go away when Bush does. Bush is appointing 40+ year old judges to lifetime positions which means 30 years from now our grandkids could feasibly be still dealing with this mess.

The only solution I could conceive of to help fix this mess is to eliminate the lifetime appointments at least for half of the judges. Some say the lifetime appointment allows for experience to be ruling the bench but it's obvious that's not the case. If we term-limited some of the judges then there would be hope that we would be able to find real judges who won't be swayed by special interests and get them on the bench.

[ltfranklin]

64. Thanks (I think).

One small point...I didn't advocate doing away with the filibuster, just avoid the constitutional question for the moment and work away from the NO for now...save the big guns for later. And I see your point about the judges, just thought that (a) they'd be limited by how far they could push their wingnutedness by constituional limitations and SCOTUS precedence and (b) if they're that out of sync, it'd only be a matter of time before they blew it in a big way. There are standards of judicial behavior and practices, and frankly, I can't see these guys being able to resist breaking the rules. But of course, that's just a feeling, not a sure thing.

I agree with your point about term limitations...maybe a 15 year max at a certain level, with the clock restarting if they get moved up to a higher court (after going through a new confirmation, of course)

This is a tough one.

[xxqqqzme]

19. absolutely NOT

Time 2 stand up and shout them down. NO, 2 the christo-fascist, death cult neo-cons. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.

Get it?

[ltfranklin]

20. So...

You're against it?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

25. Bad idea

No amount of debate will sway a partisan wingnut. Seriously, they could have Charles Manson up for a vote and the wingnuts would all file in line and pass him through. You're suggesting we appeal to their reasonable side, newsflash, they don't have one.

[ltfranklin]

26. You haven't been reading...

I have NOT been saying that we are likely to sway any wingnuts. I make the assumption that they WILL not change their minds unless it becomes so obvious during the debate (which will, no doubt, show up on CSPAN, the news-cables and Daily Show) that the candidate is going to be unacceptable to their constituency. So DON'T go putting words in MY mouth just so you can make your OWN point, bucko...we get enough of that from the other side.

No, I'm saying get the information into the public domain...the stuff that comes up in committee will barely make it into the public domain, but the stuff they say on the Floor will be much harder to keep from the public. Make em talk about their charming to-be-judges on the floor, and give us a chance to hit the other side! Maybe after we get EVERYTHING about the first few appointees out and aired in public, they might be a little less sure of putting the rest in the spotlight.

As I've said, if you can't stop the inevitable, USE it.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

29. Have you watched any of the previous confirmation hearings?

Condi Rice, Alberto Gonzales or even the most recent John Bolton? It didn't matter how vile, unfit, unjust or incompetent any one of them were. What did you hear about their transgressions in the media? Brief comments at most that were almost always followed by, "Democrats claim". Has this in any way caused the Republicans to choose more suitable people for even just one post? The answer is no. No, they haven't and no, it's had no impact on them what-so-ever.

If these were different times I might be open to a compromise. At this point in time, the only thing it would do in is further cause the Democrats to feel as if no one is fighting for them.

The time has come for our leadership to stand up for what is right.

[ltfranklin]

31. Debate on the floor is different than in Committee

You have seen both, haven't you. Committee meetings are a question and answer, but neither side gets to "duke it out", they just ask questions and get (or don't get) answers. Floor Debate is quite another thing...there, you do get to duke it out. And it's a lot more exciting than committee meetings, and more likely to get on the MSM or the cable news.

And I thought I made it clear that this isn't, for at least the first few, an attempt to get them to "choose more suitable people", it's to get them to go public about their choices, in a way that we can perhaps use in future appointments and in 2006. If they want to put wingnuts in the judiciary, I want them to have to stand up and JUSTIFY why they want this wingnut in! That way, when the wingnut says something stupid or does something even stupider, we can point to individual Republican senators and say..."See, this is the guy YOU said was worthy of the post, this is the guy you couldn't WAIT to see take up the robes. Happy?". More important, we can prove it in 2006.

You want to know what scares a Republican? Having to say something that they might actually have to justify later!

Now, if we can make the debate process sufficiently painful for them for the first few candidates (and we should be prepared with press conferences, media opportunities and our own talking heads right after), we MIGHT just be able to make them gun shy later on. And we might even get lucky and convince a few, on specific topics, that they're going to be best served in 2006 to not go with the leadership. Probably not, but if we're smart about it, maybe.

By the way, when it gets to the Supremes, all bets are off. THAT'S when we need to go all the way, and I'd like to already have made the deal that the "Nuclear Option" is NOT an option when a Supreme comes up. And if we have to compromise a bit now to get an agreement to take the "Nuclear Option" off the table, well, I think it'll be to our advantage in the real battle to come.

Just to make myself clear...no compromise unless the Republicans agree that the "Nuclear Option" is NOT to be used under any circumstances, at least through till 2008. And I want the agreement public so they can't weasel out of it!

[Lone_Star_Dem]

70. A few points

"We should be prepared with press conferences, media opportunities and our own talking heads right after."

Even when we point out tirelessly the flaws of their previous appointments, the media responds with "Democrats claim". Press conferences have to be aired in their entirety for context. I do not see this happening.

The damage these judges will do will probably not be evident by 2006 or even 2008. It will become evident years down the road when we are saddled with these appointments. Yes, even when we are the ones in office.

There is a reason for the filibuster, judicial nominations are supposed to be acceptable by both parties. The reason for this is simple, they rule over both parties. For many people these judges will be their last stop, their last chance at a fair ruling.

Do you think the people whose cases are presided over for the next 40 years will be OK with this compromise?

To answer your question on if I've seen floor debate, I have. I find it highly entertaining. However, over the past four years are you honestly going to tell me you think the Democrats have received a fair shake in the media for their efforts? I've watched performances deserving of an Oscar that got a 10-second recap in the news. When I mention it later to people most Democrats I know weren't even aware of what transpired.

I understand what you're trying to say. I just don't think it's the proper solution at this time for this problem.

[ltfranklin]

76. Well, I don't totally agree with all...

you say, but I don't totally disagree. The filibuster is supposed to do exactly what you say...but more likely then less, the Repubs are going to do an endrun around it. If they get away with it, they'll start packing the courts as fast as they can go. Unfortunately, if they go with the Nuclear Option, I would guess that the Dems will have about as much luck getting their point that they're fighting for the constitution as they would trying to get the point across with my proposal.

At any rate, thanks for responding to my proposal, and not to the incomplete readings of my proposal that many have been responding to.

[LynneSin]

56. We couldn't even sway Lincoln Chaffee on John Bolton

seriously!

If the most moderate member of the senate republicans can't be swayed then we're pretty much fucked when it comes to the judges. When Jeffords refused to toe the line, repukes made his life hell and started to force him out of committee chairs and leadership roles. Jeffords ultimately left the party. I'm thinking Mr. Chaffee was told if he doesn't vote for Bolton then they're going to run a RW nut job against him and believe me, his counterpart in RI is pretty nutty so you know there is a chance Chaffee could be defeated in the primaries.

[GiovanniC]

50. Oh, Yes... the CONSTITUENCY!

The first thing that will be going through the Republican's mind is, "Oh, fuck... these judicial nominees are going to be so unacceptable to my constituency, all of whom are watching C-SPAN at this very moment! And if I vote for this judicial nominee, I am certain that my constituency will punish me severely for it!"

[depakid]

28. Some people never learn

You CANNOT compromise with Republicans- it doesn't work- they have ZERO integrity and will stab you in the back every time.

They give a shit whether they're good guys or bad guys! LOL! PULEESE- have a look at their record over the years- especially in the last 10.

Far from being a common sense proposal, this post is probabably one of the most profoundly naive things I've ever seen written on DU. And that's saying A LOT.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[depakid]

35. If you knew even a little

about negotiating strategy, you'd realize that you have to do so from a position of at least some power- which is something at the point the Dems haven't demonstrated even a little of. Moreover, this so called "compromise" of yours simply sells out what power that they might actually have by shutting down the Senate.

Also, why would I need to come up with a "better" argument than there's no such thing as a trustworthy (or a good) bunch of Republicans- becuase they have proven time and again THAT THERE IS ISN'T! You act like these people have integriy.

Now, you can continue in your naivety if you wish- but I prefer to remain part of the reality based community that views issues like this based on evidence of past behavior, rather than some silly notion that the Republicans aren't capable of and won't do ANYTHING- no matter how egregious- to force their shortsighted, narrow and oppressive beliefs on anyone anywhere. That's not paranoia- that's a FACT- and one that's backed up by years of evidence.

[ltfranklin]

36. I'll just say one thing, and continue in detail later

It's a shame we have to become them in order to beat them.

[Swamp Rat]

30. No compromises with fascists!

[markus]

34. That's not compromise, that's capitulation

What we need to ask the American people is--do you want judges who will leap into your private life any time Randall Terry asks them to?

[ltfranklin]

37. Then let's ask them...

And is it capitulation if I'm not willing to become the enemy in order to beat the enemy? If I can't beat them and still keep my honor, then what the hell have I won?

[Discord]

40. How are we "becoming the enemy" by blocking

unqualified and religiously biased judges from taking lifetime appointments?

We blocked them for a reason. We compromised already and passed over 200 of the nominees.

No backing down. We are the ones who always makes compromises while they are content to steamroll us. Your expectations of the RW if far to high, and their perfomance to date proves that beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm tired of bending over backwards to try to be civil with people who seem to desire civil war, and a theocratic nation. No more! They have damaged this country enough and time to slam on the emergency brakes and shut them down. They fight dirty and win, we fight fair and get our asses handed to us time and time again. So you would like to propose we continue to pull down the pants and just bend over for them??? sorry, no thanks. I've taken just about enough shit from the repukes and I hope that the Dems in office have the balls to stick to their guns.

You know if we compromise, in '06... They will be on the news and in the media, claiming that we came to our senses, and realized they were right and allowed them to make the up or down vote. Its lose lose.... time to tell them where to stick those judges.

[ltfranklin]

41. The original premise appears to be fogotten

My original premise was that a compromise was only made possible if the Republicans agreed to (a) take the Nuke Option off the table for the rest of the session (or 2008, whichever we could manage) and (b) agree that the filibuster will be lifted ONLY after so many hours of debate on the floor.

There's only two things they can do:

a) accept the compromise, which means that we'll have 4 to 8 hours on each candidate to make our case, and they'll have an equal amount of time to try and justify their putting unqualified and religiously based judges into lifetime appointments. The result will be the same as if they took the nuclear option...the judges will probably be confirmed, but we'll get two things. The first, we'll have them on record talking nice about wingnuts, which will be fine to have when 2006 and 2008 rolls around. Even better when the wingnuts start spouting off in public forums or displaying their wingnuttery in their judicial opinions. The second will be we can save the fight against the "nuclear option" for when we really need it, when a Supreme retires. If they take the option now, it'll be taken for granted in the SCOTUS fight. I can predict that, once the Nuclear option is taken, soon after we'll see retirements from the Supremes, cause they'll know there'll be NO filibuster that can't be broken.

b) reject the compromise. At this point, we'll have the moral highground with the American public, because we offered a reasonable compromise and they rejected it. Then, if they do take the Nuclear Option, we can at least point to our attempt at compromise and say we tried to come to an agreement to save this constitutional crisis, but we were rebuffed...now we must enter this battle to save the Constitution and the traditions of the Senate.

[Discord]

42. I understand the original premise.

But it is a lose lose compromise you are offering. No amount of debate will change the lock-step vote to confirm the judges. So asking for debate time is useless. 4-8 hours per nomination, for 10 judges would only set to delay the final outcome for 2 weeks at best. Then we are stuck with.... 10 shit ass judges confirmed.

We already have the "moral high ground". They are the ones that are trying to power-grab, and bypass Constitutional procedures. Your proposition, doesn't change anything as far as our moral stance on the issue, but allows them to get their judges in. THAT is the central issue, the filibuster and the nuclear option are perephrial issues. BIG issues to be sure, but they are being talked about for a reason. These nominees connot be confirmed.

None of the more liberal judges would consider retiring on Bush's* watch. End of story. If a conservative judge wants to retire, then so be it, they can't be much worse than the ones already in there. So we wont lose any of the existing balance on the SC.

[ltfranklin]

44. I disagree

The compromise is to be used if it looks inevitable that the Nuclear Option (lets call it the NO, I'm getting tire of typing the damn thing OVER and OVER) is going to be used. IF it's used, the 10 judges get rubber stamped, and all we get is THIS DAMNED T-SHIRT. I've already said, multiple times, that I don't really expect the debate to CHANGE ANYBODY'S MIND on the other side...although it would be nice if it happens, I don't expect it. The idea is, if the nominations go through, at least we have a forum to express our problems with the nominee...right now, we HAVE NONE! The committee meeting is pretty much viewerless, and they can wait for weeks before putting the nomination to a vote, pretty much insuring that anything that came up in committee will be forgotten. Not only that, but once the judicial filibuster is gone, you can expect Bush to start dumping wingnuts into the machine as fast as possible, and the Republicans to run them through committee just as fast.

And the idea is, NOT to give up any ground on the constitutional issue. By compromising, we are not admitting to their premise, that the judicial filibuster is unconstitional...we are putting off the battle on that front until the stakes are worth it, when there's a Supreme on the table.

You can't fight the NO if they decide to use it...all you can do is make the aftermath ugly. And those nominees that cannot be confirmed, will be. If we make the offer when they're about to take the NO, and they turn it down, we've lost nothing and gained the moral highground. If they take it, we get hours of debate time to make our case, not so much to the opposition, but to the American public. Either way, at least we gain SOMEthing.

Now, can I please ask anybody that responds after this to please double-check my earilier arguments before you respond...I'm getting tired of retyping the same arguments.

[Discord]

45. I've read them, and I simply do not agree.

I gave you my counter argument. take it for what its worth.

:)

[ltfranklin]

47. No problem with that...

You can disengage whenever you please. I've stated my thoughts, you've stated yours.

I guess my problem is, I'm old enough (52) to remember when, although there was a real adversarial relationship between the Dems and Repubs, they at least assumed the other side was sincere in their beliefs (for the most part) even though "misguided". These days, it is not accepted (or allowed, for that matter) to give the other side ANY assumption of sincerity. I had hoped that we might begin to step away from THAT particular precipice, but obviously neither side is willing to retreat...I fear we are approaching the point beyond which no retreat will EVER be possible, and I don't see either side winning, and the nation as the final loser.

[Discord]

51. While I agree that in principle, it would be a better situation

for the country, but generally, it has been the Dems, constantly willing to compromise. Not the other way around. The Repugs have consistently pushed their agendas forward with force, and with no willingness to compromise. If you want to talk to people about being willing to compromise, speak to any Repug supporters you may know, and tell them to pressure their party into being more cooperative.

The agenda that they now persue has been the most Anti-American, destructive, and unethical agenda that faces this nation with a great crisis, with the risks of permanantly and fundamentally changing the very fabric of this country. Every inch we give them at this point is going to come out of the rights and freedoms of you and me in the not so distant future. Our very country itself is at stake, and they will keep going UNTIL somebody puts a stop to them. The sooner. The better.

[ltfranklin]

55. Then tell me...

...how we're going to get that message across to the American people. We're obviously not doing it now, and I'd like to see how we're going to do it when we're in the middle of the fight, because from where I sit right now, I beleive the people are pretty much going to say, "A pox on both your houses". It's going to look like politics on both sides, and both sides were willing to go to the mat with no attempt at compromise, and without a care about the nation's business.

[Discord]

57. most people who follow politics already know.

The informed public is not going to change the views they have right now. The filibusted/nuclear option info has been making its rounds thru ads and mailings. Anyone who knows about it, probably already has their minds made up on which side they agree with. The uninformed, will do what they always do, remain uninformed and side with whatever political party they agree with. This issue (the F/NO) issue is fairly black and white. Not much room for grey. They are already backing off the NO because of lack of support for it and they very well could not have enough votes as 3 R's are already opposed, and up to 6 others are on the fence. They don't have the support, don't let them rally their troops with more debate.

[ltfranklin]

61. Ok then.

So what are the possibilities.

1) The Republican's cave and don't do the Nuke...for now. They've still got it in the wings, and they'll make propaganda points with their base about how the Dems are keeping "good" judges out of the courtrooms...they make big money on donations, and they still have the Nukes in the wings for when they want to press it.

or

2) The Republicans use the Nuke, and all the judges get approved as fast as they can do it, so we haven't stopped the judges from getting in, AND we get to retaliate with OUR nuke, and take a chance on whether the Repubs will be able to turn popular opinion their way or we can spin it ours.

Am I missing a third, or am I misstating one of the above? If so, please enlighten me.

[Discord]

65. response

As for option 1. Anyone who would believe that, already does. This has been propagated for quite a while now. They have low public support for the NO and currently do not have the votes they need to win the NO vote. I'm not worried about propaganda, because, as has been the case, no matter what we do, it will be spun negatively. Damned if you do, damned if you dont.

Option 2 is pretty straight forward, but unlikely to succeed at this time. Wouldn't worry about it, right now public opinion is in our favor, as well as the votes.

Your Option we'll consider option 3. This would ensure that they DO get to vote a simple up and down, they will still spin us in a negative light. They will use this to their advantage and make it seem to the public that we..."came to our senses." by caving in. But your option is the only likely option that would ensure that all 10 judges get confirmed.

[ltfranklin]

78. Well, not to argue, but..

I beleive option 2 also ensures that all 10 judges get confirmed, as well as those to follow.

[JerseygirlCT]

53. Where's the honor in this?

I don't see it.

The honorable thing to do is stick to your convictions. Bush has gotten far more of his rw judges approved than, say, Clinton ever did from the Repubs. These are extreme right wing, dangerous judges -- being given lifetime appointments. This is crucially important!

The RW has aptly demonstrated that their idea of bi-partisianship is having us cave to their demands. We need to stop that. We need to call them on it. We need to take our case to the American people loudly and often.

We DO NOT need to give them what they want.

They are held in tight lock-step. There's no persuading any of them with reason -- think about it -- if reason worked, why would they be Republicans to begin with?

[in_cog_ni_to]

39. 205 judges confirmed!!!!! 10 not confirmed!!!!

Those are the numbers. The repukes look like FOOLS using the nuclear option. Harry Reid made a statement at his news conference yesterday (I paraphrase here)..."There's 47? court vacancies. We told the president to bring other nominees forward. We will confirm them or try to confirm them. They HAVEN'T brought forward those nominees because they don't want to see the confirmation number go higher. They don't want to see 245 confirmed and 10 not confirmed. It makes them look bad." He also said if the republicans use the "nuclear option" it WILL NOT BE THE DEMOCRATS WHO ARE SHUTTING DOWN THE GOVERNMENT, it will be the REPUBLICANS who are doing it.

NO COMPROMISE ON THE CONSTITUTION. The Democrats need to stop these bastards...in their tracks.

[Toots]

43. Let's threaten to sic the "Liberal Media" on them..

That ought to get them trembling in their boots. :shrug: Give them an inch and they will take a mile, every damn time... IMHO it may not be a bad thing if government were to be shut down for a while. Government checks would still be paid but no new Republican legislation would be introduced. The country would be better off at least for a short while...

[in_cog_ni_to]

46. That's right. The "shutting down" only means the repuke's agenda is at a

standstill. ALL important business will continue. The bills WILL BE paid. Our troops will have funds. The elderly will still get their SS checks and everything else will be funded. This just stops the bastards from destroying our Constitution. The repukes will look REALLY, REALLY foolish. I hope they do it.

[ltfranklin]

52. I think you may be underestimating

...the problems you're prediction may face. The Repubs have TOTAL control over the contents, amendments and additions to the bills, as well as when they come to the floor. To get what they want, they WILL find ways to add their wishes to bills that they know must be passed to keep the country running, the army fed and in the field, the checks going out the door. Do you really think they're going to be nice enough to keep that stuff separate? The Dems will be forced to either vote for the bill and swallow the additions, or take the heat for "bringing the country to a standstill".

[Discord]

66. everything will continue to run as status quo.

no new bills need to be passed to feed the poor, pay grandma her SS checks, and pay the troops. Those bills are already in effect. They can try to poison good legislation we allow to pass through, but then if they do, we immediately strike the bill to a standstill and redraft essentially the same bill for passage, but the new one not containing the poison.

The country wont be at a standstill. just the repuke agenda.

remember one thing as well, they have to be on extra special behavior come Jan 1 2006. Its election year, and they wont chance pushing bad bills while the voting eye is watching more closely.

[GiovanniC]

48. In Other Words

We say we will stop the filibuster if they listen to us for a few hours, at which point they may then proceed to tell us to fuck off.

Why don't we just do that with EVERYTHING?

- Listen to us tell you why we oppose outlawing abortion, and then if you still want to, okay.

- Listen to us explain why we support gay rights, then if you still want to oppress them, who are we to say no?

- Listen to us giving our reasons why we are against unjustified wars and torture, and if you still want to keep doing it, then all right.

[LynneSin]

49. Absolutely no fucking way no!!

These repukes would be happy to give us 4-8 hours of debate and guess what - they'll still vote for the judge. The fact that Lincoln Chaffee voted for John Bolton for UN Ambassador is living proof that the repukes want you to toe the line and vote their way or else!!

They have more than 50 senators to ensure that even with a 4-8 hour vote they'll still put those judges on the bench. You think all that extra debate would actually change the mind of even one of those asshole repukes?

[ltfranklin]

59. Short reply

Never said they'd change their mind...just have to answer our objections and defend the wingnut. Supplys us with ammo for future battles. Getting tired of having to restate this, go back and READ the thread this time.

[Discord]

67. what? we dont have a house full of ammo already?

theres hundreds of instances of bad deeds, bad bills, and bad ethics to use against the Repukes... How much has it mattered up to now? Do you seriously think that one more piece at the expense of 10 extremist religious judges is an acceptable tradeoff?

Sorry, but that idea is insane.

[ReadTomPaine]

68. Your politics are well intentioned but outdated..

I wrote the response below in December before taking a road trip earlier this year across the US that has only re-enforced my opinion about these issues. Even tho this was written over a different issue, I was struck at how precisely it answers your arguments.

---

Your constructive plan is well considered but the time for compromise governance ended with the Clinton impeachment. Fascism cannot be combated institutionally; it must be approached like a criminal organization in the way it is dismantled, with both law enforcement and a 'take back the streets' style movement that extends from the bottom to the top of progressive left.

Dealing with the GOP now is like dealing with the Mafia – they are devil's deals. The DLC should in actuality be the RLC, fighting the far right of the party they truly represent, but it was easier for them to take over the Democratic Party and since they will always avoid a fight that is the way they went. Rather than reform the party that really represents their largely conservative, pro-business agenda, they took over the weaker party – the Democratic one, as they are essentially opportunists. This explains why so many of them eventually turncoat on us and become actual GOP members when pushed against the wall careerwise.

Democrats will not follow or be inspired to change their minds when weak figures like Daschle spend his time lauding Bush as much as opposing him. Conservatives largely abhor the ‘me too’ politics currently espoused by Democratic leadership as well. They will, instead, vote for Bush and his associates out of strength, conviction and loyalty.

I can’t tell you how many people I know voted for Bush, despite being anti-war, simply because they felt that Democrats were gaming the issues and ‘didn’t stand for much’. The main problem here isn’t selection of the “Magic Candidate” (i.e. just the right southern conservative Democrat) or picking a more rightward platform, it’s having a progressive leadership that believes what it says and acts with strength and conviction on those beliefs. Don’t back down. People want confidence and strength and both are rare in leading Democrats today.

Republican didn’t get where they are today by being friendly with Bill Clinton. They opposed him at every step, attacked him at every turn, and as Democrats gave an inch at a time they lost two votes for every vote gained by the GOP – one lost from moderate conservatives who voted for strength, and one from the progressives who felt abandoned. People instinctively react to the sort of energized leadership the GOP displays. We need it back, too. Bush must be obstructed every step of the way, in everything he does, and the reasons for our opposition need to be trumpeted loud and clear.

If news outlets won’t carry the message, create new ones. If newspapers are shy about it, have wealthy progressives buy them out and change their editorial lines. Sue GOP owned electronic voting machine companies continually and drive them out of business. Bus as many people as needed to protests in key areas and at key times, and have Congressional Democrats join the protests and shout out loud with the people. Organize national strikes. Fund progressive voices and give them a career in bashing the far right, just as the far right gives to their own vocal proponents. Make the movement active, vital and alive. Let the money flow so that people who get involved actually profit by their activities instead of having to sacrifice to support liberalism. And for goodness sake, stop lunching with Karl Rove.

Liberal policies are by their very nature more agreeable than conservative ones – but they can’t be supported half heartedly. Fight as hard as the right wing does, use their own tools against them, but in support of a progressive agenda, and you’ll see the country turn blue overnight. Just as many have already voted against their interests and beliefs to support the image of Bush, we will draw conservatives who might otherwise vote GOP by returning to our progressive principles and being strong *and* fair, the latter trait being absent in the GOP.

Modern America, at least the America we were before 2000, looks the way that it does because of bare-knuckled liberalism. Blue collar union members, civil rights leaders, families with draft age sons, long haired protesters, gay men and women, feminists- they were the ones who made the 20th century great. They didn’t do it by rolling over. They fought and they fought hard. You need to have the stomach for a fight to win these battles, or they are over before they begin no matter how strong your position.

When the Soviet Union started to dissolve, people didn’t rally around the political platform of Boris Yeltsin. They responded to his courage and his leadership – those are essentially non-existent qualities among leading Democrats, with rare recent exceptions.

As people have been responsive to strength in the GOP over issues that would otherwise be questionable (i.e. erosion of rights, massive bureaucratic expansion, unending war) they will be doubly responsive to progressives who are equally strong but promoting a platform that truly resonates with the better side of human nature. Strong hope trumps strong fear.

I know it’s never easy to prepare for a fight. It’s always easier to try and make friends across the aisle in Washington and the GOP knows this and is counting on it. But compromise with the GOP is not going to work this time.

RTP

[mmonk]

69. I gather your family

is not going to have any members lose their civil rights over these judges. Some of us have family members that will. So the answer is no this is NOT REASONABLE and therefore my answer is HELL NO.

[madinmaryland]

71. Why the hell should we compromise?

Democrats have been compromising for the last four years and I don't recall the repubs ever giving in on anything. I just don't trust them, and would not want to give this last opportunity to slow the runaway train down.

[adwon]

72. ?

The point of the filibuster is not debate. The point of the filibuster is to kill that which you want killed or to intimidate the other side into acquiescence. If the candidates are unacceptable, then your proposal has a major flaw: unaccepable judges end up being appointed after a token debate.

I'm no fan of ideological politics, but even I think your proposal is pointless. From a practical standpoint, it offers nothing but a Judas-kiss before candidates who senate Democrats find unsuited for the federal bench are given lifetime appointments.

I think your argument is based on the assumption that there are votes to be had in this situation. I highly doubt any votes are uncommitted at this stage. I could see applying compromise logic to many situations, but this is too defining for the Democratic party as a whole to simply drop.

[ltfranklin]

74. Still

Nobody really reads my arguments...I'm sick of the whole straw-man thing. Tell you what, go back, look through my posts to this thread, and try again...otherwise, go away. Hint: It's not about changing votes.

[mmonk]

77. You can't trust them

because their whole premise is to generate a filibuster over a controversial nominee so they can remove the filibuster and therefore have a straight up vote for the supreme court. They aren't going to give up their plan for their historical chance at the supreme court. Therefore, they will agree to no REAL compromise. Either that or they will move to court "stripping".

[Discord]

79. The point is... everyone who HAS read your posts

simply does not agree. You have almost every single poster disagreeing with you and citing many differing reasons explaining clearly why your idea is well intentioned, but will not work. Its no good, and will set us back a long ways. You can continue to pitch a dead idea, but don't expect anyone to start agreeing with you. Your idea has several fundamental flaws and based on false hopes.

Sorry, but if you don't want to read everyone elses criticisms and rething your position, I see no reason to continue this conversation.

[maxrandb]

80. How About This Compromise??

As I am sure you are aware, the Senate is apportioned as 2 Senators from every state. It's not like the House of Representatives where the number of members is tied to population and the census.

In that way, Wyoming for example, which is about 1/20th the polutation of California, still has 2 Senators. The argument I have with changing Senate rules and eliminating the fillibuster comes down to this. You could very likely have 51 Senators (a majority in the Senate), that only represent 18% of the population (a definite minority). If we allow them to win on this without requiring the use of the "nuclear" option, we are screwed. If you're a blue state like CA or NY, you might as well tell your constituents to "bend over and grab the vaseline".

Now, if we compromise and say we will allow a majority vote in the Senate as long as those 51 Senators represent at least 51% of the country, then I may be willing to reach a deal.

[ltfranklin]

81. OK, I give up...

I'm tired of talking about this...moving on to my next subject:

"Hell, LET Hitler have the Sudetenland!"