Should we let Bill Frist & Co. change the rules of the senate ?

In what amounts to an 'end-run' around the constitution, Bill Frist and his Republican supporters in the Senate want to change the rules of philibuster for the overtly partisan purpose of ensuring the appointment of seven Republican judicial nominees to the Supreme Court that are vehemently opposed by the Democrats.(i.e. this would reduce the required majority for passage from 67 % to 51 %)Is this in the country's best interest ?As Barbara Boxer pointed out, only 10 out 218 Supreme Court nominations have ever been dis-approved by the Senate, and probably for very good reason.Even old Bill's alma mater University, Princeton, that his family donated a bloody building to, is severely pissed at him... (damn pay-per-view publishing anyway %#@)The point is, this will represent a PERMANENT CHANGE in the structure of our government that will apply henceforth indefinitely to many issues unrelated to these particular appointments, and I suspect that most people (let me venture to say, many of whom voted for these guys) have little or no grasp of the potential ramifications to the power of 'minority voice' in the senate, let alone appreciation of what an arrogant insult this represents to American democracy.Surely we have some opinions.

As I underatand it, the value / purpose of allowing filibuster in the senate is to give minority opinion a chance to block legistation from being bulldozed thruough by the party in power on the sole basis of partisan support. It's not Congress, its the Senate. It's supposed to be the chamber of 'sober second thought'. While there might not be an *explicit* article in the constitution protecting the right to philibuster per se, it is *implicitly* protected under the constitution because it falls under the list of things you need 67% support to over-rule. IF we change that, then to 51 %, then we permanently weaken minority voice in the senate for many other things, not just this particular philibuster, and the constitution set the bar at 67% for a very good reason, as attested to by the other comments below.This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-20-2005 03:31 PM

Not true. By blocking a process to which they are opposed, the minority does not 'gain control' of anything. The philibuster can only negate passage of something, not pass an agenda of its own. A little 'negative power' hardly equals control, and it becomes completely irrelevant if power subsequently changes hands.This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-20-2005 03:26 PM

What a pile of hypocritical tripe. You can't really believe all that drivel unless you have been completely brainwashed by Republican propaganda.First of all, it is the Republicans NOT the Democrats, who are continously eroding our 'freedoms'. Democrats are not trying to 'eliminate religious freedoms', just ensure that your psychotic theo-crats don't step on the freedoms of others as they pander to all their bible-thumping supporters.Secondly, CORPORATE AMERICA IS THE ENEMY. They are NOT your friends. They are manipulating and using all the phony Republican 'values' issues to try and secure an eternal flow of unending wealth at the expense of the common people in this country. I wish you could have heard John Kenneth Galbraith interviewed on Jim Lehrer's News hour last night. He said words to the effect that corporate interests now dominate the entire democratic system in this country, determining both policy and candidacy.Thirdly, ' a communist dictatorship '? It always amazes me that Republicans have the unmitigated gall to call any one else 'dictatorial' while we have a little pea-brain in the White House who doesn't know the first thing about bipartisan consultation, who listens only to his closest circle of right-wing hack advisors, and is the closest thing this country has come to a 'dictator' since it was founded.

Who said anything about hating America ?
You conservatives are so quick to put words in other peoples' mouths...and construe their motives as it suits your agenda.
But I'm really glad you said that.
It pretty much typifies your party's approach to governing this country. If you don't support us and our policies - bugger off - you obviously hate America. I'm sure they must be proud of you and your simplistic 'black and white' labeling skills. If you read further back in this thread you will find some good arguments that it is consumption by the working clases that creates the jobs. The business intersts would love to produce the products for consumption without hiring anyone if they could. Their motive is profit, not providing employment and benefits for everyone. Where do you get that?
Civilization will not end just because we are allowing big business interests to hijack the democratic process and manipulate our government and its policies. But it won't make for a better country. I didn't say any such thing, and I don't support most socialist economic policies, but I find your knee-jerk reaction quite revealing.
So I'm a communist because I don't support your fascist party and its fallacial policies ?
Anything to left of neo-con is communist now?Believe it or not, I was a conservative in my former country and used to bitch and complain about some of the socialist policies that bothered me because I felt they were overly generous and did not engender sufficient self-reliance in people predisposed to take advantage of the 'the system'. But 'conservative' in this country is waaay out there, and I wouldn't want to be considered a part of that movement. Actually China only pays lip-service to communism now. They have adopted a free enterprise system.So instead of producing any cogent reasoning why my allegations are unfounded, you have tossed out a bunch of completely fabricated, vitriolic personal characterizations of what I must believe and where I should go to believe it, all of which are without any foundation and based solely on your completely polarized conservative outlook. I am actually quite pleased with your post as I think it serves as an excellent testimonial of our current administration. It is exactly this headstrong, cowboy attitude coupled with tunnel vision that will ultimately lead to the political failure of the Republican agenda both nationally and internationally.This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-25-2005 03:20 PM

I didn't presume to guess what you believe in or whether you love or hate this country as a consequence of it.And when I said that corporate America was the enemy,
I meant when it comes to political influence.
When money truly equals power in politics, then our democracy will be defeated.And yes, I am vitriolic about the sad state of affairs for which I hold the current leadership responsible, and also pissed off at how they have used religious 'values' instread of actual issues to get where they are.I'm also willing to bet I am not alone.

See, now you have said something I can actually agree with.
I don't think anyone's job description can or should be carved in stone. Neither do I believe in penalizing industry for chasing profit, but it needs government regulation to make sure the country isn't fleeced in the process, not the total 'hands-off' approach advocated by The Republican party. So I'm not really even a socialist, let alone a communist.What I am opposed to is a system that seems to allow huge monetary entities to control the political machine by manipulating the selection of candidates, buying advertising campaigns to (in many cases) distort the truth about real issues, and engaging powerful lobbyists to represent their interests - things neither you nor I can afford to do.

You can break down voting blocks into an infinite number of arbitrary categories any way you want, but the sterotype still seems to fit very well the actions and policies of the Republicans *actually wielding power*.They have constructed an inner circle of presidential advisors seemingly comprised of these 9% 'staunch conservatives' in your first category.They are pandering to the religious right and trying to blur the line separating church and state with their 'faith-based initiatives'.They have pushed aggressive polices of foreign intervention and unprovoked war that appeal more to the extreme right than to anyone else.They have demonstrated disdain for international diplomacy (they are only seemingly learning about national diplomacy in the last few days) and disregard for the opinions and positions of most of our (formerly) closest allies in foreign policy.They have advanced legislation to diminish the rights of minority groups, and the rights of all citizens to protection from undue invasion of privacy by 'security forces'.They are trying to handcuff the advancement of medical science by cutting off public funding for stem cell research (assuming Bush vetoes the current bill, as he says he will).They have passed tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthy when the wealthy don't need them.They have created a huge pipeline that directly channels public money into the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies with their bogus Medicare drug benefit (= benefit to pharmaceutical companies, not medicare recipients) while at the same time eliminating the ability of the Medicare administration to use its huge purchasing power to bargain for better drug prices.So please excuse us 'liberals' if we perceive that the 9% Republican 'stereotype' is running the show.Added in edit. PS: I should probably apologize for publicly calling your president a 'pea-brain' down thread, but I still have no respect for his intellectual abilities or public persona.This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-26-2005 05:02 PM

Well there seems to be a lot of evidence accumulating to support that contention. If they do think for themselves, many people don't seem to do a very good job of it, or all the ludicrous, character-assassinating political commercials wouldn't have had the impact they did in the swing states. I watched them and found it difficult to believe anyone would be suckered by them, but a lot of people apparently were. But then, I guess ignorance is cheaper to buy than intelligence.(for spelling)This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-26-2005 04:57 PM

Not so. I assume that the default for intelligent, educated, individuals is to scoff at ALL political commercials and read or watch some actual news coverage that relates to party positions on real issues (preferably something other than the mind-pablum offered by Fox and CNN).Given the apparent effectiveness of political advertisements, and the massive expenditures on them, I am tempted to conclude that the majority of voters are neither intelligent, nor educated, regardless of whom they vote for. Not so, as you rightly point out. It is not their mere existence that bothers me, but rather their apparent effectiveness in influencing public opinion. The other thing that bothers me is how wealthy people can channel vast sums of money through this '527' organizational loophole to buy commercials to slander the party they want to defeat. You have to admit, this was one tactic that Republicans took much greater advantage of than Democrats in the past election. It was an integral part of Karl Rove's strategy, which is fine, but my point is it wouldn't work so well if we had a more informed population of voters.

It is not any reference to any religion per se, Christian or Islamic, that is in any way offensive, it is any *implicit* inference that we need all necessarily share the same religious outlook. That is always a valid fear whenever religous elements gain political influence.I happen to greatly enjoy blues and gospell music and admire the inspiration these musicians sometimes find in their religious beliefs. It doesn't offend me to hear them sing of God and Jesus etc. even though certain aspects of Christianity sincerely offend me.

Based on your assertion: Schraf would appear to be right.But aren't you confusing 'conformity' with 'unity' ?
Surely it is 'unity' of purpose in the country that is essential for 'preserving US power', not conformity to a single set of social and religious values.Can't we by unified in purpose without making everyone conform to Christian morality and values?Doesn't it seem like all these efforts on the part of the current administration to enforce conformity to their 'Christian values' (e.g. denying legal recognition for gay unions) are reducing unity among the citizens of this country, rather than increasing it? Unity in a culturally diverse state hinges on tolerance of diversity, not pandering excessively to one theistic group because of their perceived power as a voting block. I would argue that national unity is invariably reduced when the ruling power tries to enforce conformity.This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-29-2005 01:00 PM