response 90 of 154:

Feb 28 18:06 UTC 2006

You just contradicted yourself. Learn to speak English. And i say that
condescendingly not as an American-hater, but as a cretin hater.

response 92 of 154:

Feb 28 19:51 UTC 2006

johnnie you can't put the kibosh on filibusters for judicial nominations
unless you kill it altogether.  bill frist, the majority leader, made it clear
that he wanted to get rid of the filibuster altogether.  as did bush.

response 94 of 154:

Feb 28 20:28 UTC 2006

THey wanted to kill fillibusters cuz they like to kill.

response 96 of 154:

Feb 28 20:34 UTC 2006

Richard - Were you asleep?  The "nuclear option" was to have barred 
filibusters for judicial nominations only.

Here is how it was reported in The Hill:

A group of 14 Republicans and Democrats have reached a deal that will 
avert the use of the so-called "nuclear option" to end the judicial 
filibuster - at least for a time.

response 98 of 154:

Feb 28 21:10 UTC 2006

I think eliminating the filibusters on even judicial nominations is a 
bad idea, and if the republicans were not the majority party they would 
not be suggesting it.

But the point here is that nobody seems interested in posting an actual 
quote where Bush has advocated removing all filibusters. Or did I miss 
it?

response 100 of 154:

Feb 28 22:03 UTC 2006

But since you're not Bush and Frist, you would have to have come to 
the knowledge of their actual intent through something they've said, 
no?

response 102 of 154:

Mar 1 00:38 UTC 2006

(04-20-2005) 05:55 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --  Senate Majority Leader Bill
Frist pledged Tuesday that any effort by Republicans to ban Democratic
filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees would not apply to
filibusters on legislation.

"There is no need for change in relation to legislative matters," Frist
said in a statement issued before GOP senators met for their weekly
policy meeting.

(Senate Democratic leader Harry) Reid suggested last week that getting
rid of the legislative filibuster could be Frist's next target if he
wins on the judicial filibuster. 

Deputy Majority Leader Mitch McConnell also said Republicans aren't
going to strike the legislative filibuster. "There is no one I know of
on our side who wants to get rid of the legislative filibuster," he said.

But the possibility concerns some conservative groups like the Gun
Owners of America and the National Right to Work Committee, which oppose
a judicial filibuster ban, saying a ban on legislative filibusters might
be next. They say Republicans have used legislative filibuster threats
to stop antigun and pro-union legislation and that weapon is too
important to lose.

But Frist's statement said he "will not act in any way to impact the
rights of colleagues when it comes to legislation" or try to change
Senate rules that "now provide many tools for members, and leaders, to
see legislative ideas brought to an up or down vote on the Senate floor."

response 104 of 154:

Mar 1 11:52 UTC 2006

Right, NH.  Although it is good to know that RW is a psycho, er, I 
mean, psychic.

Thus far, reportedly, the Republicans have not used the filibuster to 
prevent the Senate from voting on any judicial nominee who had enough 
votes for confirmation.  In fact, Republicans generally vote in favor 
of court nominees (e.g., Ginsberg) who hold views that are anathema to 
them because the nominees otherwise qualify in terms of the actual 
requirements for the job.  It took the Deny-crats to turn the 
confirmation process into the equivalent of professional wrestling.

response 106 of 154:

Mar 1 15:51 UTC 2006

jep how can you state it is untrue when you don't know that. 

response 108 of 154:

Mar 1 16:22 UTC 2006

It is unlikely to the point of being preposterous that either the 
president or the Senate Majority Leader want to completely eliminate 
filibusters as a function of the Senate, since both of these gentlemen 
are well aware they will not be in power forever and that the 
filibuster might well be needed by their side again.  There is no 
reason whatsoever to believe that either of them wants anything of the 
sort.  It would be politically extremely risky and convey almost no 
long term benefit.  Given that it is infallibly obvious that it would 
be truly stupid for any national politician to eliminate the 
filibuster, I think it is an inescapable conclusion that these two 
prominent national leaders don't want anything like what you have 
said.  That forces me to the conclusion that you just simply made up 
your "fact".

Now, it would be the easiest thing in the world for you to counter my 
argument, if you're really citing a fact, by posting a reliable quote 
attributed to either of them that shows they, indeed, want to eliminate 
all filibusters.

I don't think you can do that.

response 110 of 154:

Mar 1 17:21 UTC 2006

"Thus far, reportedly, the Republicans have not used the filibuster to 
prevent the Senate from voting on any judicial nominee WHO HAD ENOUGH 
VOTES FOR CONFIRMATION."

Only 45 Senators voted for cloture on the Fortas nomination, making it 
pretty obvious that he didn't have enough backing to be confirmed.

response 112 of 154:

Mar 1 18:37 UTC 2006

re resp:109: Okay, here's a quote from the president on his advocacy 
for getting rid of all filibusters:

   ""

It's through.  It's accurate.  I didn't make it up.

response 114 of 154:

Mar 1 20:40 UTC 2006

Good on, JEP.