The Top 10 filibuster falsehoods

[Pah]

The Top 10 filibuster falsehoods - Media Matters lists them and corrects the lie
http://mediamatters.org/items/200505180004

• Falsehood #1: Democrats' filibuster of Bush nominees is "unprecedented"
• Falsehood #2: Bush's filibustered nominees have all been rated well-qualified by the ABA; blocking such highly rated nominees is unprecedented
• Falsehood #3: Democratic obstructionism has led to far more judicial vacancies during Republican administrations than Democratic administrations
• Falsehood #4: "Nuclear Option" is a Democratic term
• Falsehood #5: Democrats oppose Bush nominees because of their faith, race, ethnicity, gender, stance on abortion, stance on parental notification ...
• Falsehood #6: Public opinion polling shows clear opposition to judicial filibusters, support for "nuclear option"
• Falsehood #7: Filibustering judicial nominees is unconstitutional
• Falsehood #8: Clinton's appellate confirmation rate was far better than Bush's rate
• Falsehood #9: Sen. Byrd's alterations to filibuster rules set precedent for "nuclear option"
• Falsehood #10: Democrats have opposed "all" or "most" of Bush's judicial nominees

 

[Sunstone]

Well, that about covers everything I've heard on conservative talk radio. Are they all false? I sure would be shocked that the conservative talk radio hosts have not been giving me the complete and unvarnished truth.

 

[johnnys4life]

WE vote for the representatives, and they are supposed to vote for the judges. By selecting people as reps who actually do what they are supposed to do - represent us, we have a say. By causing a fillibuster, you have one dissenting person making a judgement for US.

How is that fair??

 

[Sunstone]

Did you actually read the article?

 

[Feathers in Hair]

How is that fair??

Just about as fair as pretending to go to war based on mythical weapons of mass destruction. Or pretending to be for women's rights when you actually supress them and endanger millions.

There's a lot of things to be outraged about, if you choose to be, but filibustering isn't one of 'em.

 

[Pah]

WE vote for the representatives, and they are supposed to vote for the judges. By selecting people as reps who actually do what they are supposed to do - represent us, we have a say. By causing a fillibuster, you have one dissenting person making a judgement for US.

How is that fair??

Actually, it's more than 40 senators and they represent a great deal of people

 

[Engyo]

I believe that only 5% (10 out of over 200) of Bush's judicial appointments have not been approved. All this fuss is over the last, and most arch-conservative, 10 appointments.

 

[Sunstone]

A compromise on the filibuster issue has been reached by 14 Senate moderates: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=4GPBFIC3OSO32CRBAELCFEY?type=politicsNews&storyID=8580933&pageNumber=0

 

[Sunstone]

The compromise is seen as a defeat for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frisk and James Dobson:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/05/24/frist_on_sidelines_as_moderates_agree/

 

[Mister Emu]

"People at home are going to be upset at me for a while."

From S.Car Senator Lindsey Graham.

This stuck out to me, because if people at home are going to be upset with you, then you are not representing them, which is your job.

I don't know, I personally don't like the idea of filibustering as it stalls the democratic process, and wastes time which could be spent on other things. I also don't like the Democrats reaction to the "nuclear option". "If you succeed we will do everything in our power to tie this chamber in knots," is not very mature or professional.