Open borders, one and all

With the House and Senate in Democratic control, President Bush will have to do some compromising in the next 2 years to accomplish a bowel maneuver, let alone implementing policy. So, he's going to have to give some to get anything done. What are to be the most likely 'first gifts' brought to the Democrats? The minimum wage and an end to immigration reform. Translation, as of tomorrow morning, our border with Mexico will be wide open..... but keep those oil subsidies in place, please....:dizzy2:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As control of the House moves to the Democrats, Bush said immigration and minimum wage measures were areas of common ground to discuss when he meets Democratic speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi Thursday.

"We can work together over the next two years," the president said.

But he added: "She's not going to abandon her principles, and I'm not going to abandon mine. But I do believe we have an opportunity to find some common ground to move forward on."

Of all the issues to compromise on, domestic security should not be the first one coughed up. Oh well, come on in Al Queda.

Not all the dems previous to the election nor all the dems after the election approve of Bush and Pelosis amnesty plan. the problem therein lies to how much pressure the party will put on the more conservative dems to comply, i.e. "don't make us pull a lieberman on you."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

What are to be the most likely 'first gifts' brought to the Democrats?

---

[failed joke]Drapes![/failed joke]

Quicker way to remove drug trafficking and illegal immigration is to cut off the end users... drug users and businesses respectively.

Fine the businesses/ seize their assets. This will add a couple of million to get rid of the deficit. The larger impact would be there would be less of an attraction for illegal immigrants as the available job market would shrink, stage two of helping the money drain would be towards government funds that go on illegal immigrants... everything from stopping them, sending them back and looking after them... less people means less costs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Quicker way to remove drug trafficking and illegal immigration is to cut off the end users... drug users and businesses respectively.

Fine the businesses/ seize their assets. This will add a couple of million to get rid of the deficit. The larger impact would be there would be less of an attraction for illegal immigrants as the available job market would shrink, stage two of helping the money drain would be towards government funds that go on illegal immigrants... everything from stopping them, sending them back and looking after them... less people means less costs.

---

You don't get it, do you Pape? Every Mexican gang that wants to come across the border, raping and pillaging the Southwest, then flee back under a cover of amnesty will be free to. And our Middle Eastern friends? Mexico lets them in, then they take the scenic route to LA, up the coast.

And what's the principal Washington is standing on to open the border to Mexico? Cheap labor and more votes.

Well if that's your stance why not get rid of Texas? :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

[failed joke]Drapes![/failed joke]

---

haha

Simple. A nation with a closed border is a closed nation. USA is suppose to be a free nation. A free and open nation. We cannot sacrifice our rights out of fear. Too many people have done that before and it has caused nothing but disaster.

Such a bland issue. What qualifies as an "open" border? What qualifies as a "closed" border? Surely pressing against illegal immigration isn't a bad thing? You are breaking the law if you enter illegally, so you should be subject to it.

Funny, I live in south California and the raping and pillaging by gangs in General has been happening LOOONG before the Mexicans ever came across the border.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vizigothe

Simple. A nation with a closed border is a closed nation. USA is suppose to be a free nation. A free and open nation. We cannot sacrifice our rights out of fear. Too many people have done that before and it has caused nothing but disaster.

---

I think "open border" means something different here.

Namely, the freely open passage for citizens of two different countries to cross with virtually no administrative oversight. It can prove to be quite problematic as in the case with the USA-Mexico border. It isn't half as problematic with the USA-Canada border, or the countries within the EU.

The alternative that most sensible people argue for is not a closed border Berlin Wall style (though the stupid Congress did vote in a Berlin Wall...that they did not intend to build), but merely a controlled border. Their arguments rely on the principle of National Sovereignty.

As for me, let's just say the movie "Crash" has an interesting thing to say about people in general.

I do agree that we should've made Immigration Stations like we did with Ellis and Angel Island, along the border of Mexico. Granted, we only turned about 1% of Immigrants back at the time, but that roughly equates to some 30,000 people.

Damn, the mexicans ruined their country and now the dems are wanting to let them ruin ours? :furious3:

There is a reason the Standard of Living in America is so much better than that of Mexico - a lack of mexicans! They are now the largest minority in the country. Dont we have enough??

Quote:

---

We cannot sacrifice our rights out of fear.

---

I don't see how having millions of unskilled workers rush our borders, lower our wages, and leech off our welfare systems have anything to do with a right.

And besides, we have at worst 49 senate seats. Filibuster anyone? The dems shouldn't complain, as they've been saying its tantamount to a constitutional right.

CR

I'm always surprised that Americans (who are mostly so proud of their immigrant ancestors) always seem so hostile to more people trying to get in...

Proud, yes. But do you see them wanting more of them coming accross?

And look at how the Americans viewed this first wave of migrants... Oh, they're in reserves and were almost wiped out.

China will lower your wages as soon as they decide to stop buying their own goods back (they're sitting on reserves of 1 TRILLION dollars). You might like to make something yourself in the meantime.

Oh, and if you think that border controls can be sufficient to prevent a determined al Quaeida... well, it's very naive.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Proud, yes. But do you see them wanting more of them coming accross?

---

your missing the arguement on immigrantion. Come across within the scope of the current system - I am all for the individual wanting to come to the United States to make his/her life better. Come across outside the system, illegal, while I understand their desire to improve their lives, by law they must return to their country of origin.

So you have missed the point rory your lumping illegal and legal immigrantion together and setting yourself up for a false arguement.

Quote:

---

And look at how the Americans viewed this first wave of migrants... Oh, they're in reserves and were almost wiped out.

---

not even close to what the majority thinks about illegal immigrantion.

Quote:

---

China will lower your wages as soon as they decide to stop buying their own goods back (they're sitting on reserves of 1 TRILLION dollars). You might like to make something yourself in the meantime.

---

Remember two can play that game. The United States could decide to impose trade tariffs on Chinese goods, which would increase the potenial for the goods to be made elsewhere to include the United States. China understands this as well as the rest of the world.

Quote:

---

Oh, and if you think that border controls can be sufficient to prevent a determined al Quaeida... well, it's very naive.

~:smoking:

---

And a lack of border controls does what?

This what I hoped wasn't going to happen. Come on In Mexcians, come on in Gangs.. I bet you, when there is a next terroist attack on the US, then they Might bulit a actually good Fence. Don't know how a Fence helps anyhow. Razor wire,sure. But just Wear Really thick Boots,Jeans, and gets couple thick stuff and climb on over....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

And besides, we have at worst 49 senate seats. Filibuster anyone? The dems shouldn't complain, as they've been saying its tantamount to a constitutional right.

CR

---

The GOP Senate almost killed the filibuster in 2005. That would have been quite ironic....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888

This what I hoped wasn't going to happen. Come on In Mexcians, come on in Gangs.. I bet you, when there is a next terroist attack on the US, then they Might bulit a actually good Fence. Don't know how a Fence helps anyhow. Razor wire,sure. But just Wear Really thick Boots,Jeans, and gets couple thick stuff and climb on over....

---

Evidence does not support this postion yet? In fact the Republican adminstrations of the past (to include this President Bush) have been very neglectful of the border and immigrantion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prince of the Poodles

Damn, the mexicans ruined their country and now the dems are wanting to let them ruin ours? :furious3:

There is a reason the Standard of Living in America is so much better than that of Mexico - a lack of mexicans!

---

You can hardly blame the mexicans for the state of mexico, its a naturally poor country, eith bad weather etc. + when a country starts going bad, its hard to avoid getting caught in a downwards spiral - My history isn't very good, but i think America occupied some of the best bits of mexico when it was created...
+ If there are so many mexicans in America then why is the standard of living still far greater? :2thumbsup:

More seriously, what would an entirely open border count as, (i find it quite an unusual term) - and what effect would it have - if half the politicians (dems) want it then it must have some advantages :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scurvy

You can hardly blame the mexicans for the state of mexico, its a naturally poor country with bad weather etc. + when a country starts going bad, its hard to avoid getting caught in a downwards spiral - My history isn't very good, but i think America occupied some of the best bits of mexico when it was created...

---

Actually this is incorrect. Mexico has an abundent oil and natural gas potential and industry. Plus it has some good argiculture land and some other natural resources. Its political system however is very corrupt

When the United States gained its independence Mexico was still under the thump of Spain. Mexico repelled against Spain around 1820. The Texans revolted against Mexico in the 1830's. Now many Texas were actually immigrants from the United States into Mexico, but a significant portion of the Texan rebellion consistent of Mexican's upset with the breaking of the 1824 Constitution of Mexico. The United States then fought a war with Mexico where in the negotation for a peace treaty Mexico sold the rights to what is now New Mexico, Arizona, California, Parts of Nevada, Utah, and Colorado to the United States for a payment of gold. So in essence the occupied best parts when created is false on both accounts.

Quote:

---

+ If there are so many mexicans in America then why is the standard of living still far greater? :2thumbsup:

---

Simple because they have the advantage of the United States system. Which is significantly better then the governmental system in Mexico

Quote:

---

More seriously, what would an entirely open border count as, (i find it quite an unusual term) - and what effect would it have - if half the politicians (dems) want it then it must have some advantages :2thumbsup:

---

The advantage is in the votes to maintain power in the government. An open border exists between the United States, Canada, and Mexico already in the aspects of the NAFTA. Trade is allowed to go back and forth with minimumal constraints. Immigrantion however should be controlled in some way, legal immigrantions is always a good thing - however illegal immigrantions violates the laws of the nation. You ever asked yourself why Mexico will severly punish illegal immigrants into their nation - but activitily pursue policies that pushes illegal immigrantion to the north?

Thanks Redleg - I won't quote due to length, but very useful post (my American history isn't the best) :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

I'm always surprised that Americans (who are mostly so proud of their immigrant ancestors) always seem so hostile to more people trying to get in...

---

If you, or anyone else, wishes to emigrate to this country, following the legal process and procedure for doing so, you will be more than welcome.

We do not like, but reluctantly understand, how someone who is frustrated with the waiting involved in the legal process might want to illegally speed things up a bit. They still seek to be a part of our society and to grow with it.

We get frustrated at the increasingly numerous illegals who come here to work -- admittedly hard and well for the most part -- but have no desire to contribute to our society, only to siphon off resources to send home. It's wrong, but hard to fault someone completely when their desire is merely to make things better for their kin. So we're angry, but recognize that these individuals are not the root of the problem of themselves.

We get damned angry at a neighboring government that is so riddled with corruption and inefficiency that despite massive oil revenues it has a perrennial poverty crisis -- which it then exports to the United States so that they don't have to undertake the hard work of reforming their own government and society so that it functions without siphoning off 40 billion dollars a year from the US economy.

We need to become visciously upset with the industries and employers who ignore our own labor laws to create a market for this traffic in wage-slaves -- and to make it completely unviable for them to continue if discovered.

Fencing the border can never, of itself, be a solution. Any wall must be defended, or it merely increases the time required to move from point A to point B. Fencing has its place, particulary for security concerns in a war against terrorism, but other changes will have to occur.

Note: Yes, Al Queada and other terror organizations cannot be stopped by a border fence. No such preventive measure can be 100% effective. However, it will increase the difficulties they face and any resource/effort that they have to expend getting past my defenses is a resource/effort they can't use to kill my countrymen. If your rationale for defense is "it needs to be 99% effective or we shouldn't bother" then quit bothering with anything and go get stoned or something, but please do get out of the way of people who are trying to do something effective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

The GOP Senate almost killed the filibuster in 2005. That would have been quite ironic....

---

On judicial nominations only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

On judicial nominations only.

---

I stand corrected. ~:doh:

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prince of the Poodles

Damn, the mexicans ruined their country and now the dems are wanting to let them ruin ours? :furious3:

There is a reason the Standard of Living in America is so much better than that of Mexico - a lack of mexicans! They are now the largest minority in the country. Dont we have enough??

---

That is one of the most arrogant, ignorant statements I have ever heard in here.

And that is saying something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

That is one of the most arrogant, ignorant statements I have ever heard in here.

And that is saying something.

---

He does have a point, just saying it outright. What is wrong about that then??

He's stating that the Mexicans aren't capable of our standard of living, unbelievable it needed to be spelled out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

He's stating that the Mexicans aren't capable of our standard of living, unbelievable it needed to be spelled out.

---

:laugh4: Oh and your flower scares me.:bigcry:

Me too! I'm going back to a dinosaur hatchling soon...

The reason Mexico is the way it is today is that when the US was passing a constitutional amendment here and forming a new political party there, some podunk Mexican colonel with a few troops under him was drafting a brand new constitution about every other year and overthrowing the government, only to be overthrown by the next wiseguy a couple of months or years after that.

Mexico's biggest weakness was a large standing army with no sense of national identity. Several attempts were made to reduce the size of the army and establish local militias, but these only provoked further military revolts, and then conflicts between the militias and the regulars.

This is the real meaning of the US's 2nd Amendment-- the founders clearly felt that local control of security organizations was the best option, and the demise of Mexico just a few decades later is a perfect illustration of their concerns.

You could also refer many of Mexico's problems to the conflict between the reactionary conservative ideas that were trying to hold things together in the later days of the Spanish Monarchy, and empassioned liberals who wanted to remake the whole societal structure from scratch.

Or you could refer to issues with the social structure and the structure of the labor system that take their origins in the aims and methods of the Spanish conquest and colonization.

..

Also, do remember than when we speak of illegal immigration we only speak of the lower end of Mexican society. Most Mexicans, while not wealthy, live stable lives and have little real motive to ever leave their homes. We get the desperate and the restless.

If someone from another country were to visit an Appalachian trailer park, and formed their entire concept of the USA on that one experience, would this be a fair or an accurate picture of our nation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

On judicial nominations only.

---

No. It wasn't a case of cherry-picking only judicial nominations for removal of the fillibuster. It was a case of eliminating the fillibuster option from the executive calendar entirely in order to stop fillibusters for judicial nominations. This method would have been a major change to Senate Rule XXII - the "cloture rule" - far greater than when Republicans ranted and raved back in 1975 when the Dems lowered the number needed for a cloture vote from two-thirds (67) to three-fifths (60).

It wasn't called the "nuclear option" because it was a
smart weapon targetted with precision. :no:

No- you're wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Frist

My resolution, by contrast, is more narrowly tailored to respond to the problem at hand. It applies to nominations alone, and leaves the rest of Rule XXII unamended. It addresses only a defect that needs repair.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

No- you're wrong.

---

Frist was lying through his teeth. I'm not terribly surprised that you believed him. What Frist said and what he actually put on paper were two different things. His resolution was not specifically tailored to nominations but to all of the executive calendar. That means all business sent from the White House to the Senate, not just judicial nominations. Frist, of course, counted on the ignorance of the general populous as to what the executive calendar really is.

Let's examine the facts, instead of Frist's lies.

"Under the most likely scenario now under discussion, they would secure a ruling from the chair that Senate Rule XXII does not apply to executive submissions to the Senate — and that includes judicial nominees. Rule XXII provides for unlimited debate on all legislative issues that reach the floor unless three-fifths of the Senate calls a halt."

(From the May, 7 2003 issue of The Hill - a notoriously non-partisan paper covering Congress).

There are many other places on the internet to look into the matter. I recommend using keywords "nuclear option" and "executive calendar" to locate them. They'll explain it all in exquisite detail for you.

The whole problem with the so-called "nuclear option" was that it involved a decision from the chair that Rule XXII doesn't apply to the executive calendar. Such a ruling would call into question all Senate debate rules which aren't a simple majority, excepting those specific votes detailed in the Constitution which are required to be a two-thirds instead. That was why it was called the "nuclear option" in the first place. It wouldn't just affect judicial nominees, but nearly all Senate procedures.

Do a little research about these things. Stop believing the drivel that gets spouted for public consumption by the spinmeisters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

Do a little research about these things. Stop believing the drivel that gets spouted for public consumption by the spinmeisters.

---

And why don't you read your own links?

Quote:

---

"Under the most likely scenario now under discussion, they would secure a ruling from the chair that Senate Rule XXII does not apply to executive submissions to the Senate — and that includes judicial nominees. Rule XXII provides for unlimited debate on all legislative issues that reach the floor unless three-fifths of the Senate calls a halt."

---

Executive submissions- you know submissions from the executive aka: presidential nominations. Maybe you need to do some more research- virtually every news story on the matter makes note of the fact that it's about nominations and not the filibuster in general, including the Hill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Frist

My resolution, by contrast, is more narrowly tailored to respond to the problem at hand. It applies to nominations alone, and leaves the rest of Rule XXII unamended. It addresses only a defect that needs repair.

---

That's from his speech on the Senate floor where he proposed the rule change- not some news interview. Done derailing the thread yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

And why don't you read your own links?

---

I do indeed. Do you read my links? Or perhaps just read them and fail to understand them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Executive submissions- you know submissions from the executive aka: presidential nominations. Maybe you need to do some more research- virtually every news story on the matter makes note of the fact that it's about nominations and not the filibuster in general, including the Hill.

---

Not going to waste much more time trying to explain this to you. But here's one more try.

Executive submissions is the same thing as the executive calendar. The executive calendar is the official Senate term for those items which the Executive BRanch must submit to the Senate under the advise and consent portion of the Constitution. It isn't just judicial nominations, now is it? In fact, you just admitted that it isn't just judicial nominations, didn't you? You, in your post above, stated presidential nominations. Can we possibly think of some other types of nominations besides judicial nominations? Of course we can. You do remember stating that it was just judicial nominations, don't you?

Just for clarity, let's see your entire post again, shall we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

On judicial nominations only.

---

That was, in fact, the post to which I responded and which began this argument. I suppose you could go back and delete that post and pretend that you didn't say it. Oops, too late.

Where were we? Oh, yes. "Presidential nominations" as you now claim as opposed to "judicial nominations" as you first stated. We have hmmm...

Cabinet positions. All other executive branch appointments. IN fact, one is in the news right now. Bush is wanting to have the Senate confirm Bolton as U.N. ambassador. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he isn't "Judge" Bolton as a result of being in that post, is he? Didn't think so.

Quote:

---

That's from his speech on the Senate floor where he proposed the rule change- not some news interview. Done derailing the thread yet?

---

Yes. A speech on the floor. Aside from the fact that his speech which you've quoted twice now doesn't say "judicial" like you think it did, it also is quite completely wrong. As I said before, what Frist says and what gets put on paper aren't the same thing. You're welcome to believe Frist, if you so desire. As I also said, I'm not terribly surprised that you do. The article in The Hill goes into great detail on exactly how the "nuclear option" would have been handled. And, as I said, many other articles are there for you to read on the internet. Please do so.

Frist stated one thing. But all of the available information on how his resolution would have been achieved differ. They all state that the option would be to claim that Rule XXII doesn't apply to executive submissions (or, in the more exact and as-used language in the Senate, the executive calendar). And that procedure, the issues sent by the Executive to the Senate for a vote, doesn't just include judicial nominations, in spite of what you said. Even Frist didn't try that lie out. But even more, those issues included in the executive calendar (or submissions, if you insist) aren't confined even to nominations. Have you read a copy of the Constitution lately? Have a clue perhaps what issues might be included in the Senate term "executive calendar" besides nominations?

Can you say treaties? I knew you could. If you are confused, I recommend a thorough reading of the Constitution. Pay particular attention to Article II, Section 2.

As for derailing the thread, I was correcting your error. I replied to your post. So, how is my pointing out that you're wrong derailing the thread; but you making the post which needed correcting not derailing it? Pot meet kettle.

I'll readily admit that it would've applied to all nominations- it's a small distinction, but a significant one. I was responding to the suggestion that the GOP tried to end all filibusters- they didn't.

Quote:

---

Can you say treaties? I knew you could. If you are confused, I recommend a thorough reading of the Constitution. Pay particular attention to Article II, Section 2.

---

Im only confused as to why you bring up treaties. They require a 2/3 vote regardless- the filibuster and rule XXII have no effect on that.

Quote:

---

I suppose you could go back and delete that post and pretend that you didn't say it. Oops, too late.

---

Wow, what a classy guy you are. :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I'll readily admit that it would've applied to all nominations- it's a small distinction, but a significant one. I was responding to the suggestion that the GOP tried to end all filibusters- they didn't.

---

The end result of the nuclear option wouldn't have been the end of all fillibusters. Drone was indeed incorrect. But no less incorrect than you were when you stated that it ended judicial nominations fillibusters only. So, I corrected you.

Quote:

---

Im only confused as to why you bring up treaties. They require a 2/3 vote regardless- the filibuster and rule XXII have no effect on that.

---

I think I see now why you don't get it. You appear to be confused about what Rule XXII is and what a fillibuster is as opposed to actually voting on an issue. Of course they don't have any effect on the 2/3 vote required to approve a treaty. That isn't at all near to the point. A fillibuster can be made to stop that vote from even taking place. Rule XXII, the cloture rule, would then come into play to stop the fillibuster. Under current rules, as of 1975, that cloture vote would require 3/5 or 60 to end debate, i.e. to end the fillibuster. None of that touches on the 2/3 needed to approve a treaty after debate.

What Hatch and Frist and others intended, in order to stop any fillibuster of judicial nominees, was to have the chair (which would be Vice President Cheney, or the Pro Tem in Cheney's absence) rule that Rule XXII doesn't apply to the executive calendar items, and thus wouldn't apply to judicial nominations, and thus could cut off debate with a simple majority vote rather than the 3/5 required by XXII.

Once made, that ruling stands. They can't then come back and say "oh, but now Rule XXII applies to executive calendar items again!" So, that means future executive calendar items would also not have Rule XXII applicable to them. Thus all, let me repeat that... all, future issues in that category would be immune from fillibuster. And, as I think we've established, executive calendar items are all issues sent to the Senate by the Executive branch - all nominations requiring Senate confirmation and treaties.

This entire argument started because you took exception to me pointing out the error in your own statement:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

On judicial nominations only.

---

That was, quite clearly, wrong. As wrong as Drone's statement that the GOP almost ended fillibusters. They almost ended all fillibusters of executive calendar items, yes. And that was the entirety of my response to you, at first:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

No. It wasn't a case of cherry-picking only judicial nominations for removal of the fillibuster. It was a case of eliminating the fillibuster option from the executive calendar entirely in order to stop fillibusters for judicial nominations. This method would have been a major change to Senate Rule XXII - the "cloture rule" - far greater than when Republicans ranted and raved back in 1975 when the Dems lowered the number needed for a cloture vote from two-thirds (67) to three-fifths (60).

It wasn't called the "nuclear option" because it was a
smart weapon targetted with precision. :no:

---

Your response was that I was wrong. Clearly, you were wrong. You chose to use a statement of Frist's that obscured the real effects of the nuclear option to try and prove me wrong. That statement not only didn't prove me wrong, it proved what you said was wrong by specifying nominations in total, not just judicial nominations. I then gave evidence that Frist wasn't speaking the truth - intentional or not; but I'll always assume intentional lying when it comes to Dr. Cat Killer.

Then I had to argue with you about the meaning of executive calendar, which you also misinterpreted. Once past that, now I'm having to explain that cloture has nothing to do with the 2/3 requirement for approving treaties. It's getting rather old.

Are we clear now? Anything else I can explain to you?

Quote:

---

Wow, what a classy guy you are. :no:

---

Why thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

Then I had to argue with you about the meaning of executive calendar, which you also misinterpreted. Once past that, now I'm having to explain that cloture has nothing to do with the 2/3 requirement for approving treaties. It's getting rather old.

---

I thought this was obvious, but I'll lay it out for you. If a proposed treaty wouldn't have enough votes to end debate under rule XXII, it certainly wouldn't have enough votes to pass under the Constitution. What's the effective difference? Nominations could be passed with a simple majority and treaties would still require a super-majority to be passed which is greater than the cloture threshold.

I've already admitted that the word "judicial" the preceded "nominations" was inaccurate- yet you feel the need to keep ramming it home... Let's see if I can come up with a statement that would make Aenlic happy- mind you I didn't have my lawyer go over it...

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The GOP Senate almost killed the filibuster in 2005. That would have been quite ironic....

---

On judicial nominations only and treaties. And the effect on treaties would be minimal since they already require a 67 vote majority to pass which is well above the 60 votes needed for cloture.

---

Do you approve?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Do you approve?

---

I'll approve when you state, clearly and openly, that you were wrong when you corrected Drone's error. And you were again wrong when you said my correction was wrong. And you were wrong a third time when you misinterpreted the term "executive calendar" as not being the same thing as "executive submissions" and tried to claim I was wrong about that, too.

Three admissions of error and I'll let you slide.

Deal?

As for treaties, which illustrates your continued error in insisting that the nuclear option would only affect nominations, you still aren't getting it. It doesn't matter whether or not treaties require a 2/3 vote to be approved. We're not talking about final floor votes here. We're talking about fillibusters and invoking the cloture rule. Both of which come before the final floor vote on an issue. The point of a fillibuster is to prevent a vote from taking place. It doesn't matter if the final vote would pass with a simple majority or 60/100 or 67/100 or 99/100. If one, just one, senator wants to fillibuster, then he or she can do so. It takes 60 votes to stop him or her. What if 59 other senators support the right of fillibuster even if they would vote for the measure itself? Is it possible they might be thinking ahead to when they might want to fillibuster themselves? Of course. So, even though you seem to think it wouldn't matter if Rule XXII were needed to invoke cloture for treaties which require a 67/100 vote anyway, it is entirely possible that 60 or more senators would support the right of fillibuster even though 67 or more of them might also support the measure being fillibustered. Is that just too complicated for you to grasp?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

I'll approve when you state, clearly and openly, that you were wrong when you corrected Drone's error. And you were again wrong when you said my correction was wrong. And you were wrong a third time when you misinterpreted the term "executive calendar" as not being the same thing as "executive submissions" and tried to claim I was wrong about that, too.

Three admissions of error and I'll let you slide.

Deal?

---

I've already admitted error. If you want more than that you'll have to find someone else to pump your ego, Im not interested in the position.

Quote:

---

As for treaties, which illustrates your continued error in insisting that the nuclear option would only affect nominations, you still aren't getting it.

---

I get it just fine, thanks. You think that removing, in theory, the ability of 1 senator to endlessly filibuster a treaty's ratification that otherwise has the support of 67 or more members would be a "far greater" change than lowering the filibuster threshold from 67 to 60 for all cases. :dizzy2:

I maintain that isn't the case because 41 senators who'd be willing to sustain a filibuster there'd almost certainly be 32 who are willing to vote it down.

Now, if you're right and your concern is justified, you should have no problem finding any number of treaties that have been filibustered and not voted on since the cloture threshold was reduced to 60. Easy right? Otherwise, I'm going to maintain that there is no practical difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I get it just fine, thanks. You think that removing, in theory, the ability of 1 senator to endlessly filibuster a treaty's ratification that otherwise has the support of 67 or more members would be a "far greater" change than lowering the filibuster threshold from 67 to 60 for all cases. :dizzy2:

---

Don't put words in my mouth. When did I say 1 senator fillibustering was worse? That makes error #5. I said that the change to the cloture rule was far greater than the previous change from 67 to 60 done in 1975. Are you going to attempt to argue that a change from 67 to 60 is greater than a change from 60 to 59? Don't bother. Even just mathematically, the change of the proposed nuclear option would have been greater. And from a non-math standpoint, the nuclear option would have been a greater change in procedures and might also have sparked a Constitutional challenge, while the 1975 change was only in the numbers required. The nuclear option wouldn't just change the numbers, it would eliminate the cloture rule altogether for executive calendar items.

Quote:

---

I maintain that isn't the case because 41 senators who'd be willing to sustain a filibuster there'd almost certainly be 32 who are willing to vote it down.

---

What? If there were 41 senators willing to sustain a fillibuster, then that's the end of the story. What possible connection does the number 32 have with anything we're discussing? That would be error #6.

Quote:

---

Now, if you're right and your concern is justified, you should have no problem finding any number of treaties that have been filibustered and not voted on since the cloture threshold was reduced to 60. Easy right? Otherwise, I'm going to maintain that there is no practical difference.

---

That doesn't follow logically at all. You're still missing the point. I'm not concerned about it. I'm pointing out why your statement was in error. You stated, after being corrected on your initial error several times by me, that the nuclear option would only have an affect on nominations. That's not the case. You were wrong. Rather than just admitting that you were wrong, you've set up this whole straw man argument about how it wouldn't matter if treaties couldn't be fillibustered. That isn't and never has been germaine to the argument. Clearly, the nuclear option would have affected all executive calendar items. That means more than just nominations. Thus, you were wrong and Bill Frist was lying.

Even more, a case can be made that the executive calendar includes other items besides just nominations and treaties. It can include other issues presented to the Senate by the executive branch. We haven't even gotten that far in the argument yet; but we might as well. What other items are presented to the Senate by the executive? Remember the vote to authorize the president to invade Iraq? Executive calendar item. We can go on.

To steal a line from Bill Hicks, you're responding to my arguments like a dog who has just been shown a magic trick.

Edit: On second thought, I'm tired of this pissing contest. I'll just stand by my corrected statement in post 40.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Edit: On second thought, I'm tired of this pissing contest. I'll just stand by my corrected statement in post 40.

---

OK, you win. I was going to stand by my statement in post #432; but you ended the debate early.