Open borders, one and all

[drone]

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....

[Xiahou]

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

On judicial nominations only.

[drone]

On judicial nominations only.

I stand corrected.

[Aenlic]

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.

[Xiahou]

No- you're wrong.

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.

[Aenlic]

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.

[Xiahou]

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?

"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.

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?

[Aenlic]

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?

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?

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.

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.