<p>The students have made CNN, The Washington Post, and blogs all over the country, and they will be on Hardball today. They've been at it 24/7 and have been joined at various times by Paul Krugman and various legislators and a famous physicist. Watch the webcam: <a href="http://www.princeton.edu/%7Epetehill/filibuster.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.princeton.edu/~petehill/filibuster.html</a></p>
<p>damn the democrats confirmed like all of Bush's judge nominees except like ten and the Republicans are acting like the world is about to collapse</p>
<p>they confirmed about 205 out of 215 put forth by bush</p>
<p>republicans used filibusters and intimidation to block Abe Fortas and MANY of clinton's nominees</p>
<p>It's called tyranny of the majority. This is so freaking awesome. If I were already at Penn right now, I'd travel the 50 miles to Princeton just to take part in it.</p>
<p>Sorry to burst all of your liberal bubbles, but the 205 out of 215 judges is irrelevant. Nobody votes down the 200 or so minor court judges, it's the appelate's that count. Bush has had 65% of appelate's confirmed, which is the lowest of any president. Before Bush's term, no one has EVER filibustered a judicial nominee. It wasn't even legal until a rule change in 1949. Look, from an objective perspective, there are enough moderate Republicans in the Senate that if their were anything wrong with ANY of the nominees, they would be voted down. When Lincoln Chafee says he will vote for someone, you know they are objuective. Get a grip, you can't rewrite history. But then again, if Dems continue this act, I can't say I'd mind seeing former KKK member Robert Byrd and that murderer Ted Kennedy go the way of chief obstructionist Tom Daschle. I laugh at these protesters for their ignorance.</p>
<p>I applaud them for the passion and intensity with which they are exposing their cause. Were I there right now (and oh, how I wish I were right now; alas, I'll be arriving four months too late), I would gladly participate. The exposure of both the issue at hand and of Princeton itself is remarkable. Princeton was on Hardball tonight! I only watched the clip where they talked to Asheek (or something like that) and Rob (who's an '08! wow...on Hardball as a freshman), and it was pretty good.</p>
<p>And people say Princeton isn't politically active :p</p>
<p>Here's that Hardball video. <a href="http://www.dembloggers.com/story/2005/5/3/173858/8605%5B/url%5D">http://www.dembloggers.com/story/2005/5/3/173858/8605</a>
Shows the interview with two students as well as lots of footage of the students with signs, etc.</p>
<p>Inside Politics: <a href="http://www.dembloggers.com/story/2005/5/4/13618/39431%5B/url%5D">http://www.dembloggers.com/story/2005/5/4/13618/39431</a></p>
<p>The filabuster is just one way of Congress blocking a judicial nominee</p>
<p>After the Republicans took the Congress in 94' Gingrich tied up many of Clinton's nominees in committee and they never got a vote</p>
<p>its a part of the game. Frist is just trying to boost his profile for 08'</p>
<p>i saw this on MSNBC... and I said "woah, that owns... weighing in on an Ivy"</p>
<p>it's nice that Princeton allows different beliefs. my school is so liberal and any conservative sentiment said makes teachers yell at you. it sucks.</p>
<p>i hate people who say they are so open minded, they are close minded.</p>
<p>it's great to know Princeton allows these mixed demonstrations. :D</p>
<p>This is horrendous. It is a travesty of our government.</p>
<p>Robert C. Byrd is about as competent as William Howard Taft and Warren Harding. He has constantly changed the laws in the senate about judges since he won the senate seat for WV in 1953.</p>
<p>Judges deserve an up-or-down vote in the senate...why filibuster? I agree with Senator Frist and wish him the best of luck. He threatened that idiot Senator Reid back in the fall that he would jerk the filibuster right out from under them if he deemed it necessary, and it's good to see he's doing it.</p>
<p>If you'll notice, only the extremists are involved in this charade. Byrd, Boxer, Kennedy, and to an extent, Clinton, are the masterminds behind the whole thing. I am about as traditional as anyone can be, and this clearly violates tradition.</p>
<p>Think about it: Frist payed for the campus center because there was no such place for students to hang out. If I were you, I would not **** him off. I would praise him, and maybe you'd get something else...</p>
<p>Furthermore, I believe that Princeton should call security and force the "filibusterers" away. For that matter, they are not filibustering, they are protesting, and it's not going to get them anywhere.</p>
<p>For the record, I do not align myself with any particular party. I am a traditionalist and vote accordingly.</p>
<p>So, for all of you "filibustering" right now, go home...nobody cares.</p>
<p>Um...wrong. On so many counts. Disregarding the filibuster issue completely ('cause that would honestly take more room than I'd like to take up on this board), several points of yours aren't holding up.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Think about it: Frist payed for the campus center because there was no such place for students to hang out. If I were you, I would not **** him off. I would praise him, and maybe you'd get something else...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wrong. And I think you know that. There's absolutely no reason for students to praise Senator Bill Frist if he's doing something they don't agree with. I'm sure they (we) all appreciate the fact that he donated so much money for the center, but that's no reason to shut our mouths about our political stances. He's not going to "take it back." Princeton and its students have acknowledged his outstanding contribution to the campus, and that's as far as it need go.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Furthermore, I believe that Princeton should call security and force the "filibusterers" away. For that matter, they are not filibustering, they are protesting, and it's not going to get them anywhere.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Um, wrong. Obviously the university isn't having a problem with it (considering they ended the earlier protest of an LGBT group for protesting without a permit), so there's absolutely no reason for Princeton to call security. There'd be an uproar if it did, since students are simply expressing their opinion on it (as they should be, whether they're for or against).</p>
<p>
[quote]
So, for all of you "filibustering" right now, go home...nobody cares.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Obviously if they've been on or referenced to in national media, someone does care.</p>
<p>Go Princeton filibusters!</p>
<p>other things:</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would praise him, and maybe you'd get something else......(protesting) is not going to get them anywhere.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Seems like we have conflicting ideals of what a person should do. What you choose to stand up for is motivated by the possibility of "getting something else." The filibusters choose to stand for their cause because they believe it is right. I side with the filibusters on this, but will accept that you do things to "get something else" because you are, well, very practical and put yourself first. Really, fine with me if you personally feel that people should act only in ways which get them more gifts from guys with big bucks, but I find it pretty big-headed of you to think you have any authority to dictate what others should believe/do.</p>
<p>Singapore's a nice place. Humid weather, but otherwise great. If the free speech upsets you so much, you should check it out.</p>
<p>IvyH2O, it's called the 1st Amendment. Trust me, as long as the protest isnt breaking any laws, they have the constitutional right to protest (well, the right is actually in the Bill of Rights, not the constitution, if u want to split hairs).</p>
<p>And as I stated before, the majority can still form a tyranny over the minority. The filibuster was designed to give the minority a chance to have a voice that counts. True, it has a rather ignoble history. However, that still does not change the fact that it is the only real power the Democrats have right now.</p>
<p>As Mel Gibson's character stated in the great movie The Patriot in response to an argument that a legislature would govern better than a king - "Why should I trade one tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants one mile away?"</p>
<p>The first Amendment is overrated, overused, and overprotecting. Has anyone ever heard of respect?</p>
<p>I knew I'd get a kick out of everyone with my post, as I will with this one (especially my previous statement).</p>
<p>I am of the opinion that if a person has a problem with something, that's perfectly fine; however, he or she should keep it to him or herself unless is endangers him or her.</p>
<p>As a popular pundit (name withheld for credibility) stated the other night, college *radicals<a href="notice%20I%20didn't%20include%20moderate%20Democrats">/i</a> are unable to successfully argue a point of any kind; instead, they simply protest. In some cases, they shout obscenities and become violent, but for the most part, they just talk with absolutely no defense for their points. Moderates, on the other hand, do have the ability to successfully argue points, chiefly because they actually have points.</p>
<p>Back to the "filibuster." Does anyone else think it is hilarious that they're calling their little protest a "filibuster" when it is a protest? I mean, it's creative and all, but a filibuster, as everyone knows, is used to delay and prevent legislation.</p>
<p>I can't wait to read everyone's scathing reply. Have fun, and God bless.</p>
<p>Oh excellent! Better not to be hypocritical; do "keep to yourself" if you think you should.</p>
<p>But wait, would that mean you would be standing up for what you believe in .... with no gain to yourself? </p>
<p>The coc.ky one has a dilemma.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Has anyone ever heard of respect?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh how aggreived he is. Poor and helpless one, how terrible it must be to be hypocritical and self-congratulatory. A noble pillar, standing tall amidst the raging effluence that is our decadence. weep. sob. clap. clap. </p>
<p>Ah, as to your other concern - why don't you check up what a filibuster is before you showcase more of your incredible skills of argumentation and well-constructed posts.</p>
<p>"The first Amendment is overrated, overused, and overprotecting."</p>
<p>Hey, Ivy, good you got that right out there on the table. What is this, the Choose Your Own Adventure approach to the Bill of Rights?</p>
<p>the founding fathers were some of the smartest men alive... it should be illegal to defame them for what great God given rights they endowed upon us.</p>
<p>I happen to agree with IvyH2O on every one of his points except one: I am not moderate...I am a thriving republican...come and get it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The founding fathers were some of the smartest men alive
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am more than willing to agree with this statement, amnesia.</p>
<p>I also believe, to inconvenience all of you even more, that the Constitution doesn't evolve....many people play the 1st Amendment card way too often.</p>
<p>Free speech, etc. are necessary in a republic. At the same time, however, when this free speech is socially unacceptable, offensive, and derogatory, it should be stopped immediately.</p>
<p>College liberals think they can simply hide behind the mask of the Democratic party (or what's left of it, for that matter) and blazon their opinions. They think everyone will hear, and everyone will care! As Clemenceau said of Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points Address at Versailles, "Hmm...What rich idealism!"</p>
<p>I think it's hilarious to observe the "I'm going to make a difference" thought process. As handsonthedash wisely stated in a previous post,
[quote]
...in ten years they'll all be donating to the RNC...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And, mea, I believe that your opinion matters equally as much as mine does. Actually, mine matters much more than yours does simply because I actually live in the United States. When you arrive here, your opinion will equal mine in terms of importance. Thus, I humbly request that you not become involved in American politics until you actually arrive in America. You are obviously out of the loop wherever you are.</p>
<p>And phil, I mean come on, you're from Texas. Why are you so tolerant? America is going to pot because nobody cares about preserving tradition, as Ivy said. The internet, all music, television, movies, and other sources of entertainment should be heavily screened by the government in order to preserve America. Our generation is truly "lost," as Gertrude Stein described the flappers in the Twenties.</p>
<p>I mean, here we are using the Constitution to defend some freak judge in FL ruling that a 14 year-old girl can have an abortion--take a human life--murder--without the consent of her parents. Please!</p>
<p>So now we practice euthanasia, abortion, and we're on our way to legalizing marijuana (which could NEVER be regulated, I might add). I'm horrified by American culture.</p>
<p>Rights should be privelages. Americans should have to earn privelages. What happened to the Alien and Sedition Act?</p>
<p>Finally, American law should be repealed all the way back to the date of the Emancipation Proclamation, which was the final progressive idea in history. After we freed the slaves (which was critically necessary in order to be viewed as an acceptable culture and not like Saudi Arabia), we were fine. Now, because our politicians are over-letigious, we have a law for everything.</p>
<p>Ahhh!</p>
<p>I really can't wait to see what you liberal nuts have to say about this one! My very first post, and I am soooo excited it is this one!</p>