The Frist Filibuster continues after 1 week...

Colleges and Universities A-Z Princeton University
21

<p>There's no reason for me to argue with you since obviously you're so firmly rooted in your conservative ideals (which is fine, although I'll honestly never be able to understand why). However, I will say that never ever should justice and liberty be sacrificed in the name of "tradition." Were that the case, slavery, Jim Crow laws, segregation, and all of their other ignorance-driven cousins would still run rampant around this country that was founded on the principles of personal liberty and justice for all. You cannot compromise when it comes to progression, much as you would like to (repealing all the way back to the EP? Come on. Were that the case, segregation would still be place, and there's no way you can convince me that there are positive aspects of that disgraceful institution). If we're going to be a progressive country, we're going to be a progressive one. If we're going to be one so caught up in the throes of what believe to be tradition as to deny one of the greatest traditions of the American culture: liberty, then as Mr. T would so eloquently put it, I pity the fool who would live here ;)</p>

<p>Why am I so tolerant? Because I for one see that much more is to be gained through a country whose citizens can be tolerant of each other's ways of thinking and lifestyles than a country whose intolerance because so divisive that it simply cannot live up to the great standards that it and the rest of the world place upon it(self).</p>

<p>Signed,
The Nuttiest of Liberal Nuts :)</p>

22

<p>Look, you guys are all free to have your views. As (I believe) Voltaire once said, "I may detest what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." That said, I refuse to get into political flaming on this thread.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I can't wait to read everyone's scathing reply. Have fun, and God bless.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
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!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>IvyH2O, PALEOCON, you guys are just ansty for a political flame war that will accomplish nothing but generate enjoyment for you two, at the same time as getting everyone mad at each other. Well, QUIT IT! This thread is not about political debate, and neither is this board. If you want to have this argument so bad, then just head over to the Cafe or something.</p>

<p>One of the greatest things about Princeton CC is that there are almost no fights on this board. People dont bite each other's heads off for just expressing their views. So guys, lets end this stupid debate right now- these guys dont deserve to get confirmation of their belief that all liberals are raging protesters and get to laugh at our expense.</p>

<ul>
<li>Another Nutty Liberal</li>
</ul>

23

<p>
[quote]
At the same time, however, when this free speech is socially unacceptable, offensive, and derogatory, it should be stopped immediately.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And why do you get to decide what socially unacceptable is? It was socially unacceptable for all sorts of things before. Women couldn't work. Blacks couldn't vote. You yourself think it was right for slaves to have been freed, when slaves were a socially acceptable concept before. How's your foot taste in your mouth? Thank goodness America isn't made up of people like you who say that anything that makes you uncomfy in your little bubble is 'socially unacceptable'. </p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>For one, you don't know my background. Your narrowmindedness constrains you to what I designate my current location as equal to my citizenship/childhood/associations/experiences and concerns. Two, assuming you're right that I don't know what is this a-meree-can politricks is abowt, my issues are not with politics, as I can respect that there are several schools of thought and ideals in America, but about the type of things you and ivy say to back up your arguments. People like you and ivy dismiss the posts of others by asserting that they are "liberal nuts", deride without substantiation - "freak judge", tell people their opinion isn't worth theirs, are emotional over rational, overgeneralize, make assumptions, and show a haughty intolerance for anyone who thinks differently to you. </p>

<p>
[quote]
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!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't see the relevance of using abortion - a long debated and controversial topic as an argument for saying the Constitution should be trashed. </p>

<p>Same with euthanasia. Funny how you paint me as an ignorant fob but you don't seem to be aware of how passionately people -yes! American people! - can be for and against these topics. There was such a divide over Shiavo...the difference between you and I is that while I have my own very passionate conviction on what should have been done, I can recognize the different values that others place on the matter. The reason I'm not throwing things and cussing people out is because I think that both sides of the debate have been valued and a decision has been made. What, is it that much of a newsflash to you that people may not agree with you or that you are in no position to preach at other people that they are nuts and freaks because *maybe you are wrong. *</p>

<p>
[quote]
Why are you so tolerant?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I can only imagine the horror on your face. </p>

<p>If not being self-congratulatory and blinkered means I'm a liberal....then thank goodness.</p>

24

<p>silmon, I just saw your post. </p>

<p>I have no problem with where they stand politically, but they have an attitude I don't think belongs anywhere.</p>

<p>But you're right silmon. Ivy + paleo, I don't know you or how you mean all this, so I won't think of you or anyone on this board in a negative light -- at least not until I get to meet you all in the flesh this fall : ).</p>

25

<p>hey, don't align me with that fascist nut. I'm not that bad, at all.</p>

<p>Please do not confuse me with a Hitler-esque individual. I haven't just posted the Mein Kompf of the 21st Century.</p>

<p>So I'm a little traditional, but I'm not a neonazi.</p>

<p>At least I respect others' opinions, obviously unlike our friend, here.</p>

<p>PALEOCON: it is important for others to be tolerant. As someone said to me, move to Singapore or North Korea</p>

26

<p>"Thus, I humbly request that you not become involved in American politics until you actually arrive in America."</p>

<p>I agree with you on this point, for sure. People shouldn't get involved with the politics of other countries that don't involve them...illegal, expensive wars get started that way! Children and soldiers and women die and countries are sacked. Oh, wait. </p>

<p>The anti-choice rant was just too much, too. Gosh. I am so sheltered in my wonderful liberal Massachusetts hub. I didn't know people like this existed.</p>

27

<p>Well, considering that over half of the country agrees with me on pro-life (according to the presidential election), you should believe it.</p>

<p>You need to get out more. I would be afraid to live in the same state as Ted Kennedy--I tend to avoid those individuals who should have been convicted of vehicular homicide.</p>

28

<p>okok last post here promise until this topic gets moved out of here. </p>

<p>A few oddities: You think there are too many laws, yet you want more laws to ban abortion and euthanasia. Free speech upsets you but you are not even speaking for a clear majority. In the future, what I view as your arrogant/paranoid outlook may well be a minority and you'll be suddenly be glad for the respect of others for your view. Your ideas contradict themselves and are embarassingly hypocritical -- you tell me not to opine on the affairs of other countries,yet Bush (an idol of yours?) did a little more than voice his opinion. </p>

<p>According to the presidential election? You mean over half voted for Bush --> over half voted for pro-life (and over half disappeared conveniently after the 9/11 attack?)? Another little gap there in common sense. Over half of the country may agree with you on Bush for president, but not everyone who voted for Bush voted for pro-life. Some voted pro-war (not sure if that quite equals pro-life for you, but your thinking has....surprised me....in many ways). Going by your belief that the crowd = always right (aka the baa baa mentality) it might be time to consider that a good bit of the country will disagree with you on a lot of things. </p>

<p>Of course, you may insist that it is the US' God-given duty to bomb out any country without a government like yours. Again, I refuse to make this a political debate so I won't ask you awkward questions you'll run away from like about North Korea and WMD and why citizens of the countries Bush went saving wish fervently for their old governments (funny how when I went to the US such inconvenient sentiments were omitted from the media there...). Thus I will leave that point. </p>

<p>
[quote]
You need to get out more.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Like I said, I am not going to make personal judgements about you - I will merely comment on your ideology. You would be more convincing if you refrained from making personal attacks and actually addressed the weaknesses in your arguments, because otherwise it seems as if you,well, can't, and as philntex has guessed, you intend merely to be inflammatory.

[quote]
I would be afraid to live in the same state as Ted Kennedy--I tend to avoid those individuals who should have been convicted of vehicular homicide.

[/quote]

Don't see how that's very convincing that fids needs to get out more. Your narrow-minded + intolerant paranoia stretches beyond your political leanings I see - you, my friend, will live a very nervous life. What state do you live in which you can aver has no "individuals who should have been convicted of vehicular homicide"? Get out of your bubble -- I just hope the shock won't kill you.</p>

29

<p>"Texas. Why are you so tolerant"</p>

<p>you just reinforced the image in my mind of texas being the land of white drunk hicks who are still upset that they lost the civil war.</p>

<p>heres my rant</p>

<p>Tom DeLay is a family values man right, NO. He pulled the life support from his father. If this is what he means by preserving values then I question which values he is preserving</p>

30

<p>"Well, considering that over half of the country agrees with me on pro-life (according to the presidential election), you should believe it."</p>

<p>I think the Republican party used voter intimidation and unreliable voting machines to win. I would like to believe that the majority of my country stands for freedom, a viable economy, and a healthy ecosystem...all things that Bush's policies are inherently against.</p>

<p>"You need to get out more. I would be afraid to live in the same state as Ted Kennedy--I tend to avoid those individuals who should have been convicted of vehicular homicide."</p>

<p>What, like Laura Bush?</p>

31

<p>I don't know whether people here are following the Frist Filibuster, but the students have received $10,000 in contributions, attracted considerable media attention, and are now (in the middle of exams) filibustering outside the Capitol building in DC: <a href="http://www.filibusterfrist.com%5B/url%5D"&gt;www.filibusterfrist.com&lt;/a>. Several of them have been invited to a meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee.</p>

32

<p>neat stuff!</p>

33

<p>that's all good for u libs, but seriously filibustering judicial nominees has never in American history been acceptable, but the MSM makes it now</p>

<p>No matter where you stand on this issue, I just want you to know that Frist will probably pull the trigger within a week or so, and Whip McConnell says he has the votes, so have fun hosting your useless protests while watching your silly unintelligent "ideals" go up in flames.</p>

<p>Smirk, Evil Laugh</p>

34

<p>drumm, I can dispute many of your points in the polie manner you don't show. Read if you want the truth. I'll break the post in two so it isn't so long.</p>

<p>Frist's Hypocritical and Dishonest Attack on Democracy</p>

<p>January 4, 2005</p>

<p>Documents obtained by American Progress show Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist participated in an effort to block one of Bill Clinton's judicial nominees via filibuster, then lied about it.</p>

<p>In recent weeks, Frist has been relentlessly preaching about the evils of judicial filibusters. Speaking to the Federalist Society on November 12, Frist said filibustering judicial nominees is "radical. It is dangerous and it must be overcome." [1] Frist called judicial filibusters "nothing less than a formula for tyranny by the minority." When Bill Clinton was President, however, Frist engaged in the same behavior he is now condemning.</p>

<p>In 1996 Clinton nominated Judge Richard Paez to the 9th Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals. Conservatives in Congress held up Paez's nomination for more than four years, culminating in an attempted filibuster on March 8, 2000. Bill Frist was among those who voted to filibuster Paez. [2]</p>

<p>Frist was directly confronted with this vote by Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation (11/21/04). Schieffer said "Senator, a group called The American Progress Action Fund sent me a question to ask you. And here's what it says: 'Senator Frist, if you oppose the use of the filibuster for judicial nominations, why did you vote to filibuster Judge Richard Paez when President Clinton nominated him to the 9th Circuit?'" [3] Frist replied "Filibuster, cloture, it gets confusing--as a scheduling or to get more information is legitimate. But no to kill nominees."<a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=281089"&gt;http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=281089&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

35

<p>The Not-So-Secret History of Filibusters</p>

<p>By GEORGE J. MITCHELL
Published: May 10, 2005</p>

<p>EVERYONE recalls "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," but too few remember the real-life Mrs. Smith. So, as the Senate nears a vote on a proposal to unilaterally change Senate rules for confirming federal judges, I am reminded of the words spoken 55 years ago by Senator Margaret Chase Smith of Maine in her famous "Declaration of Conscience" against the tactics of Senator Joe McCarthy, a member of her own party.
Readers
Forum: Op-Ed Contributors</p>

<p>"I don't believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest," the senator said. "Surely we Republicans aren't that desperate for victory. While it might be a fleeting victory for the Republican Party, it would be a more lasting defeat for the American people. Surely it would ultimately be suicide for the Republican Party and the two-party system that has protected our American liberties from the dictatorship of a one-party system."</p>

<p>The circumstances are obviously different; there is no McCarthyism in the current dispute. But the principles of exercising independent judgment and preserving our system of checks and balances are at the heart of the Senate rules debate.</p>

<p>Senator Smith embodied independence and understood the Senate's singular place in our system of checks and balances. Our founders created that system to prevent abuse of power and to protect our rights and freedoms. The president's veto power is a check on Congress. The Senate's power to confirm or reject judicial nominees balances the president's authority to nominate them. The proposal by some Republican senators to change rules that have governed the Senate for two centuries now puts that system in danger.</p>

<p>Since 1789, the Senate has rejected nearly 20 percent of all nominees to the Supreme Court, many without an up-or-down vote.</p>

<p>In 1968 Republican senators used a filibuster to block voting on President Lyndon B. Johnson's nominee for chief justice of the Supreme Court. During the debate, a Republican senator, Robert Griffin, said: "It is important to realize that it has not been unusual for the Senate to indicate its lack of approval for a nomination by just making sure that it never came to a vote on the merits. As I said, 21 nominations to the court have failed to win Senate approval. But only nine of that number were rejected on a direct, up-and-down vote."</p>

<p>Between 1968 and 2001, both parties used filibusters to oppose judicial nominees. In 2000, the last year of Bill Clinton's presidency, Republican senators filibustered two of his nominees to be circuit judges. They also prevented Senate votes on more than 60 of Mr. Clinton's judicial nominees by other means.</p>

<p>So much for the assertion that filibustering to prevent votes on judicial nominees is a new tactic invented by Senate Democrats.</p>

<p>Senate rules can be changed, and they often have been. But Senate Republicans don't have the votes for a change within the rules. So they propose to go around them, to act unilaterally to get their way. It's what they call the "nuclear option."</p>

<p>They claim that their actions are justified because the filibuster is being used unfairly to stop the confirmation of President Bush's nominees. But 208 of the president's 218 judicial nominees have been approved. That's right: the Senate has confirmed 95 percent of Mr. Bush's judicial nominees. That's a higher percentage of approval than any of his three predecessors achieved.</p>

<p>During my six years as majority leader of the Senate, Republicans, then in the minority, often used filibusters to achieve their goals. I didn't like the results, but I accepted them because Republicans were acting within the rules; and we were able to work together on many other issues. There were 55 Democratic senators then. We had the power to take the drastic action now being proposed, but we refrained from exercising that power because it was as wrong then as it is now.</p>

<p>Most Americans may not be aware of the complexities of the Senate's rules, but they do know and understand two fundamental principles: playing by the rules and dealing fairly with others.</p>

<p>The nuclear option violates both. If it's exercised, I hope that enough modern-day Senator Smiths, guided by what is best for the nation and the Senate, will vote to stop it.</p>

<p>George J. Mitchell is a former majority leader of the Senate.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/10/opinion/10Mitchell.html?oref=login%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/10/opinion/10Mitchell.html?oref=login&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

36

<p>Drumm,
Bursting your bubble is fun and important as Bush likes to take advantage of Americans he can fool all the time(He said so himself). It was the favored tactic of the Republicans to place "holds" on judicial nominees (Jesse Helms did this over and over again) preventing even a committee hearing on many nominees, so filibusters weren't needed. Also, Republican-controlled committees time and again either failed to pass qualified nominees to a vote of the full Senate or never held hearings on judicial nominees, obviating the need for any filibuster.</p>

<p>You are wrong and disengenuous. Your either a demagogue, or uninformed or just ignorant. The truth will out.</p>

37

<p>Good column, except for, "The circumstances are obviously different; there is no McCarthyism in the current dispute." Many are remarking on the parallels between McCarthyism and the rise of the religious right.</p>

38

<p>Drumm,
Just out of curiosity have you looked at any of the judges records? Humor me. Find out who the "quota queen" is and why Alberto Gonzales called her an activist judge. Tell me why Gonzales thinks she's to far to the right.The then come back to me and tell me with a straight face that you honestly think this choice is good for the country. Know one likes to be wrong, but the longer you deny the truth, the longer our country suffers.</p>

39

<p>Drumm,
you said "Bush has had 65% of appelate's confirmed,"</p>

<p>Clinton had less,61%. You do see that 61 is less than 65 don't you.</p>

<p>And further if anyone out there values your supreme Court, the filibuster threat is not about ten judges, it is about Bush paving the way to get any kind of judge in that seat he damn well pleases. If you think Abu Grahib and the torture of many innocent civilians held not for any crime, but because they got caught in a dragnet, in violation of Geneva Conventions was wrong for America, and fixing intelligence to match the planned attack on Sadam.
(<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/complete/la-fg-memogate12may12,1,6906930.story?coll=la-iraq-complete%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/complete/la-fg-memogate12may12,1,6906930.story?coll=la-iraq-complete&lt;/a>
"Reports in the British press this month based on documents indicating that President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair had conditionally agreed by July 2002 to invade Iraq appear to have blown over quickly in Britain.</p>

<p>But in the United States, where the reports at first received scant attention, there has been growing indignation among critics of the Bush White House, who say the documents help prove that the leaders made a secret decision to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein nearly a year before launching their attack, shaped intelligence to that aim and never seriously intended to avert the war through diplomacy."</p>

<p>The Supreme Court is Bush's real goal, not the same ten judges who couldn't get through before the last election.</p>

40

<p>I'm glad your kids are "sweet" because, with all do respect, you are not.</p>

<p>You seem so closed-minded that you are probably to the left of extreme. As an adult, you really have no place on this website other than to politely inform us. Your place is certainly not to criticize our views, as you are not one of "us."</p>

<p>I couldn't care less that Frist has attempted to filibuster in the past. As I previously mentioned, Senator Byrd from WV has changed the laws in the senate to conform to his personal preferences.</p>

<p>As Drumm said, I can't wait till Frist pulls the rug out from under you. Face it: YOU CAN'T DO A SINGLE THING ABOUT IT! NO ONE CARES...NO ONE WANTS TO LISTEN TO YOU.</p>

<p>You can protest all you want, but it will get you nowhere. I'm sorry to burst YOUR bubble, but I think YOU'RE being disingenuous.</p>