• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A how to guide on saving the fillibuster.......

allknowledgeisone

New Blood
A
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
1
The vote on the Nuclear Option is expected to happen next week, and
there are only a few Senators left who are considered undecided. We need
to get at least three more Senators to vote NO in order to save the
filibuster. Senators in these six states will likely determine the outcome
of this incredibly important vote:

Alaska, Maine, Nebraska, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia

Although these six states are the first priority, many other Senators
are under an extraordinary amount of pressure from both sides on this
vote. Calls or emails to senators in these nine states will help us
ensure that we have the votes needed to save the filibuster:

Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio,
Rhode Island, South Dakota

This call will only take a few seconds out of your day and could make a
huge difference. The message to your Senator can be very brief, such as
:

"Hello. I live in Maryland, and I would like to urge Senator ________
to oppose the 'nuclear option' to eliminate the right to filibuster
judicial nominations. I believe in fair judges, and checks and balances.
Thank you very much."

Phone numbers for all Senators in key states are at the end of this
email. A call is usually more effective than an email, but every message
counts - so if you prefer to email your Senators, you can do that here:

http://hq.demaction.org/dia/organizations/movingideas/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=522

If you want to read more about why the Nuclear Option vote is so
important, take a look at this FAQ:

http://www.campusprogress.org/tools/266/campus-debate-crib-sheet-the-filibuster

Your messages will help save the filibuster and ensure that both
parties continue to have a voice in the confirmation process.




Senators Phone Numbers:
(Local office numbers are listed in case you can't get through to their
DC office)

Alaska
Sen. Lisa Murkowski
DC Office: 202-224-6665
Juneau: 907-586-7400

Arkansas - please call both senators
Sen. Blanche Lincoln
DC Office: (202) 224-4843
Little Rock: 501-375-2993

Sen. Mark Pryor
DC Office: 202-224-2353
Little Rock: 501-324-6336

Delaware
Sen. Joseph Biden
DC Office: 202-224-5042
Wilmington: 302-573-6345

Florida
Sen. Bill Nelson
DC Office: 202-224-5274
Tallahassee: 850-942-8415

Louisiana
Sen. Mary Landrieu
DC Office: 202-224-5824
Baton Rouge: 225-389-0395

Maine - please call both senators
Sen. Olympia Snowe
DC Office: 202-224-5344
Augusta: 207-622-8292

Sen. Susan Collins
DC Office: 202-224-2523
Augusta: 207-622-8414

Montana
Sen. Max Baucus
DC Office: 202-224-2651
Helena: 406-449-5480

Nebraska - please call both senators
Sen. Chuck Hagel
DC Office: 202-224-4224
Lincoln: 402-476-1400

Sen. Ben Nelson
DC Office: 202-224-6551
Lincoln: 402-441-4600

North Dakota - please call both senators
Sen. Kent Conrad
DC Office: (202) 224-2043
Bismarck: 701-258-4648

Sen. Byron Dorgan
DC Office: (202) 224-2551
Bismarck: 701-250-4618

Ohio
Sen. Mike DeWine
DC Office: 202-224-2315
Columbus: 614-469-5186

Oregon
Sen. Gordon Smith
DC Office: 202-224-3753
Eugene: 541-465-6750

Pennsylvania
Sen. Arlen Specter
DC Office: (202) 224-4254
Harrisburg: 717-782-3951

Rhode Island
Sen. LinI coln Chafee
DC Office: 202-224-2921
Providence: 401-453-5294>

South Dakota
Sen. Tim Johnson
DC Office: 202-224-5842
Sioux Falls: 605-332-8896

Virginia
Sen. John Warner
DC Office: 202- 224-2023
Roanoke: (540) 857-2676


Even if you don't agree or use this, I think this is an interesting glimpse into modern political organizing in the United States....
 
Just out of curiosity, why would we want to save the filibuster?

I am not talking about wanting to employ the tactic over a particular issue, but in general why would we want a tactic like this to even be possible?

While we are at it why would we want to save the tacking on of unrelated legislation into 'must pass' bills?

What is wrong with a simple yes/no vote?
 
username said:
Just out of curiosity, why would we want to save the filibuster?

I am not talking about wanting to employ the tactic over a particular issue, but in general why would we want a tactic like this to even be possible?

What is wrong with a simple yes/no vote?
Click to expand...
1. The senate is designed to protect the rights of the minority.

2. Many things don't come to an up/down vote for a wide variety of procedural reasons.
 
allknowledgeisone said:
The vote on the Nuclear Option is expected to happen next week, and there are only a few Senators left who are considered undecided ...

Alaska
Sen. Lisa Murkowski
DC Office: 202-224-6665
Juneau: 907-586-7400

Arkansas - please call both senators
Sen. Blanche Lincoln
DC Office: (202) 224-4843
Little Rock: 501-375-2993

Sen. Mark Pryor
DC Office: 202-224-2353
Little Rock: 501-324-6336

Delaware
Sen. Joseph Biden
DC Office: 202-224-5042
Wilmington: 302-573-6345

Florida
Sen. Bill Nelson
DC Office: 202-224-5274
Tallahassee: 850-942-8415

Louisiana
Sen. Mary Landrieu
DC Office: 202-224-5824
Baton Rouge: 225-389-0395

Maine - please call both senators
Sen. Olympia Snowe
DC Office: 202-224-5344
Augusta: 207-622-8292

Sen. Susan Collins
DC Office: 202-224-2523
Augusta: 207-622-8414

Montana
Sen. Max Baucus
DC Office: 202-224-2651
Helena: 406-449-5480

Nebraska - please call both senators
Sen. Chuck Hagel
DC Office: 202-224-4224
Lincoln: 402-476-1400

Sen. Ben Nelson
DC Office: 202-224-6551
Lincoln: 402-441-4600

North Dakota - please call both senators
Sen. Kent Conrad
DC Office: (202) 224-2043
Bismarck: 701-258-4648

Sen. Byron Dorgan
DC Office: (202) 224-2551
Bismarck: 701-250-4618

Ohio
Sen. Mike DeWine
DC Office: 202-224-2315
Columbus: 614-469-5186

Oregon
Sen. Gordon Smith
DC Office: 202-224-3753
Eugene: 541-465-6750

Pennsylvania
Sen. Arlen Specter
DC Office: (202) 224-4254
Harrisburg: 717-782-3951

Rhode Island
Sen. LinI coln Chafee
DC Office: 202-224-2921
Providence: 401-453-5294>

South Dakota
Sen. Tim Johnson
DC Office: 202-224-5842
Sioux Falls: 605-332-8896

Virginia
Sen. John Warner
DC Office: 202- 224-2023
Roanoke: (540) 857-2676
Click to expand...
Bump
 
Senate Leaders Break Off Talks on Judicial Nominees
The Senate minority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, broke off talks on Monday with his Republican counterpart on efforts to head off a showdown on judicial nominations, saying he could not consent to Republican demands.

"The negotiations are over," Mr. Reid said as he left the office of the majority leader, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee. "I have tried to compromise, and they want all or nothing, and I can't do that. It will have to be decided on the Senate floor, hopefully this week."

Mr. Reid's declaration means that the best chance of skirting a showdown may rest with a bipartisan group of senators outside the leadership. They are trying to reach a compromise among themselves to forestall a change in Senate rules because of Democratic filibusters against federal appeals court nominees.
Click to expand...
 
varwoche said:
1. The senate is designed to protect the rights of the minority.

2. Many things don't come to an up/down vote for a wide variety of procedural reasons.
Click to expand...

1. Incorrect. The senate works in conjunction with the House to create bills for Presidential approval. The Constitution was designed to protect the rights of the minority.

2. Correct, but those procedural reasons are all in the form of inaction. A fillibuster is the exact opposite.



Screw the fillibuster. Politicos have all those other "procedural reasons", as you say. If it makes it to the floor, it should be voted on.
 
Kill the filibuster.

If your party is so out of touch nationwide with the electorate that it has lost both the presidency and both houses of congress, then it's the height of arrogance to claim that the majority party is somehow "out of the mainstream." If you were in the mainstream, you would control congress and the presidency.

And this will still be true twenty years from now, when the Democrats hold the presidency and both houses of congress.
 
If these judicial nomonees are so bad why not make a case directly to the american people?

Once again, it appears to me that the Democrats are stepping on their own dick.
 
BPSCG said:
You mean they have only one...? :eek: :confused:
Click to expand...

Possibly, but I think its clear there isn't a full set of balls among them, at least not since Moynihan died.
 
Are you conservatives calling for the end of fillibusters entirely, or for just judicial nominations?
 
rhoadp said:
Are you conservatives calling for the end of fillibusters entirely, or for just judicial nominations?
Click to expand...
I generally hold to the principle that a bad idea is a bad idea, period, and a good idea is a good idea, period (note, I said generally). If term limits is a good idea for the president, why is it a bad idea for congress?

My inclination would be to abolish it altogether, and I wonder if this country would be significantly different if there had never been any such thing.

By the same token, I note that the Dems are using it strictly against federal judges, from which pool future Supreme Court justices will someday emerge. This strikes me as a transparent attempt, having lost every other branch of the government, to control that one part that they haven't lost. "Even if we can't win the presidency, we can make sure the future Supreme Court is to our liking." They started this strategy of demonizing nominations they don't like with the Supreme Court nominations of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas (50% success rate), and are now trying to move it lower down the hierarchy.

Here's a strategy the Dems might try: Win back the presidency and/or congress. Then you can get whatever judges you want.

BTW: I thought a filibuster amounted to a senator (or group of senators) holding the debate floor and stopping all other Senate business. But that doesn't seem to be going on here; the Dems are simply threatening a filibuster. I don't understand why Frist doesn't call their bluff and treat the nation to the spectacle of watching the Democrats spending 57 days holding up the nation's business while trying to make their case.

So, rhoadp, the answer to your question is a firm, resounding, "I'm not sure..."
 
rhoadp said:
Are you conservatives calling for the end of fillibusters entirely, or for just judicial nominations?
Click to expand...

I am not a conservative but I think that the fillibuster argument is smoke. If the judicial nominees are that rancid surely the Democrats can make a clear case and make it publicly. Not allowing a vote sounds petulant in the absence of facts.

I hear them moaning about the fillibuster but no cogent argument why they want to fillibuster. If there is no groundswell of support for their position from either the citizens or their collegues then they are playing politics pure and simple.
 
rhoadp said:
Are you conservatives calling for the end of fillibusters entirely, or for just judicial nominations?
Click to expand...

I 'm a conservative/libertarian, but that being said, yes - end fillibusters entirely.
 
varwoche said:
The senate is designed to protect the rights of the minority.
Click to expand...
Kodiak said:
Incorrect. The senate works in conjunction with the House to create bills for Presidential approval. The Constitution was designed to protect the rights of the minority.
Click to expand...
Why are you bypassing how the congress is structured?

(For the benefit on non US readers, states are represented proportionately in the house, whereas each state has two senators.)
 
Honestly, I don't have a problem with this. But it's hard to believe the nut right is this short sighted. They are cutting off their nose to spite their face. When the tables are turned (and someday they will be), and there is a Democrat president and a Democrat majority, and the Republicans can't stop a judicial appointment, who do you think will be screaming the loudest?
 
BPSCG said:
By the same token, I note that the Dems are using it strictly against federal judges, from which pool future Supreme Court justices will someday emerge. This strikes me as a transparent attempt, having lost every other branch of the government, to control that one part that they haven't lost. "Even if we can't win the presidency, we can make sure the future Supreme Court is to our liking." They started this strategy of demonizing nominations they don't like with the Supreme Court nominations of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas (50% success rate), and are now trying to move it lower down the hierarchy.
Click to expand...
The particular judges who have been nominated are well out of the mainstream in their opinions, and their qualifications to be actual judges are seriously lacking. This is the nose under the camel's tent, however; Bush intends to nominate someone really obnoxious for the SC, probably, and doesn't want the mushroom clouds of the Nuclear Option whiffing around that person's robes during the confirmation.

Oh, and that you don't understand why the Senate is there to temper the tyrrany of the majority is revealing of why this is a problem. If 51 people decide to cook the other 49 for lunch, why should the other 49 show up for the cookout?

Here's a strategy the Dems might try: Win back the presidency and/or congress. Then you can get whatever judges you want.
Click to expand...
Here's a strategy Republicans might try -- compromise. It's when you give up something you don't want that much to get something you want more. The 44 Democrats (and 1 independent) in the Senate represent more actual people than the 55 Republicans. Something for you to ponder.
BTW: I thought a filibuster amounted to a senator (or group of senators) holding the debate floor and stopping all other Senate business. But that doesn't seem to be going on here; the Dems are simply threatening a filibuster. I don't understand why Frist doesn't call their bluff and treat the nation to the spectacle of watching the Democrats spending 57 days holding up the nation's business while trying to make their case.
Click to expand...
Because the propagandists running your party cannot tolerate even the mere perception that they are not completely getting their way on every single issue. Also, a filibuster would also include some unflattering press coverage of the actual justices being nominated, which would give the public time to form something they currently don't have: an informed opinion.
 
BPSCG said:
If your party is so out of touch nationwide with the electorate that it has lost both the presidency and both houses of congress, then it's the height of arrogance to claim that the majority party is somehow "out of the mainstream."
Click to expand...
Nobody posted "out of the mainstream" but you.

In any case, seeing as the filibuster rule protects miniority rights, and seeing as the party "out of the mainstream" is the minority party, you've not presented an argument other than to say it just shouldn't be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom