A helluva lot. I wouldn't even know how to count them.

LOL like entitlements aren't for life.

The Constitution does not require that they be for life.

So what?

Got me there.

I know because there are many pieces of legislation that get taken up by Congress that effect people's lives permanantly.

Nah, Adios, you didn't really get me.

I don't think it matters much that Congress legislates entitlement programs that become so popular that they end up with permanent status.

On the other hand, I do think it matters that the Constitution mandates for lifetime appointment of judges.

But I guess this depends on how much one likes Democracy in the first place.

I'd also note (not sure if I did earlier) that the Constitution makes no provision for filibusters, and that one could argue that the creation of a supermajority rule is, in fact, unconstitutional.

Now take out all the votes that would have gone that way with any appointment by that president-

Oh, and then take any vote that doesn't COMPLETELY OVERHAUL A MULTI TRILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY.

So if a fillibuster is unconstitutional then the point you make about the validity of fillibustering of judicial appointments is bogus. Got it.

No, I was making two separate points really.

Originally, my point was that, as a matter of policy, I think one could argue that the filibuster is more justifiable in the context of judicial appointments.

Then, I moved on to make the separate point that filibusters are arguably unconstitutional in all cases (including judicial appointments).

The filibuster or lack thereof doesn't mean much if Dems continue to forgo playing hardball. The Dems need a Silvio Dante.

I don't think any judge is as permanent as an entitlement program

And I can easily make an argument that it's not. Let's say that Republicans had 45 Senators and decided to fillibuster Sotomayor, how is that justifiable? I guess your point is that all judicial appointments that Bush made, that Democrats fillibustered were justified because the Democrats found them to be unacceptable. Why were they unacceptable? Were they all unqualified to hold the positions that they were nominated for? Tell me why the Pricilla Owen appointment was fillibustered by the Dems?

Which makes point one irrelevant. Looks like to me that you're a favor of a fillibuster when it suits the Democrat party agenda and opposed when it doesn't.

Do you jump to this accusation because of poor reading skills, or because you're predisposed to assume bad faith by me?

I believe that I was careful to say that one could make an argument that filibusters are more justifiable in the context of judicial appointments, and later said that one could make an argument that the filibusters are always unconstitutional.

Now, if someone had pressed me for my own position on this entire topic, I'd probably just say that the filibuster should be modified because it has now become such an abused tool as to render the Senate dysfunctional. I doubt that a constitutional challenge would ever go anywhere, mostly because the Supreme Court probably would refuse to intervene. And I don't think that any modification of the filibuster (by the Senate) should attempt to be tailored to any particular context, such as judicial appointments (although I do think that a reasonable argument does exist for that approach too).

Actually, I take back that comment criticizing Adios of poor reading skills/assumptions of bad faith. That comment went over the line.

Plus it wasnt exactly biting or accurate. His "mistake" wasnt really poor reading skills, it was poor "being a super nit" skills. You are technically correct, when you say "One could make the argument that X is worse than Y!" and then you go on to make that argument, it isnt logically necessary that you do, in fact, hold that position or support the logic of that argument. Its possible you are just doing it for ****s and giggles. So yeah, it is somewhat "jumping to a conclusion."

But it doesnt betray a lack of reading skills.

Yes, but I over-reacted because it's not the first time I've been misinterpreted here. I believe that I couch my opinions more carefully than many people here, often using phrases like "one could argue that." This is quite purposeful, and meant to indicate either that I have not made my mind up about the point or am unsure in some way. But it's not just for giggles or to cover myself: I'm trying to get reactions for my own edification and for general discussion purposes.

I guess this gets missed at times because the default approach here is to express certainty and advocate something in particular.

Indeed, I began this thread quite explicitly just asking for opinions about the filibuster, without endorsing any point of view.

Anyway, I agree my comment to Adios was unfair.

just for fun.

I'd argue that Adios apparent inability to follow parallel lines of argument(when it suits his attempt to claim partisan hypocracy) is unfair.

It's as easy as:

Your party in control: filibuster bad
Your party out of control: filibuster good

Democrats would just vote the filibuster back in once they lose their power... if they got rid of the filibuster now...

i don't like republicans... but democrats are just sliiiiiiiimy bastards... Pelosi, frank, reid, schumer, dodd, obama .... EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

I saw some neato graphs, giving me an excuse to bump this thread:



and....

Well, this is true, but it was a different system. When people say that you need 60 votes to overturn a filibuster, or 67 under the old rules, they mean that you need those votes to invoke cloture, which ends debate. Under the current system, debate stays open until 60 votes are cast to invoke cloture whether or not anyone is actually speaking on the floor. Under the old system, someone actually needed to be speaking on the floor, because Senate rules allow every Senator a chance to speak once during a legislative day, unless they could actually pull together the 67 votes to force the Senator to yield the floor and allow for a role call vote.

It's more complicated than that. The main reason they don't want to go back to the old rules is because the majority party would have to keep enough people in or around the senate to be able to keep quorum. The old system didn't just force the talkers to stay on the floor. It forced everyone to stay there.