Why Not Filibuster Alberto "Ashcroft II" Gonzalez?

[DistressedAmerican]

I think the split vote to send the Gonzalez nomination to the floor suggests some Dems may stand up to this one. Why not make a stand here? What have we got to lose? I say give this guy hell! Don't stop grilling him until he is well done.

[DistressedAmerican]

1. Many of the folks that were soft on Rice

are gunning for Gonzalez! It surprises me there is so little interest in this guy. We've been looking for the dems to stand up to SOMETHING Bush does. Here's a VERY good target.
DA

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/26/senate.gonzales.ap/index.html

Snip:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Senate Judiciary Committee divided along partisan lines advanced Alberto Gonzales' nomination as attorney general to the full Senate Wednesday despite Democratic complaints that he is too close to President Bush to be effective as the nation's top law enforcement official.

"It's hard to be a straight shooter when you're a blind loyalist," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York.

[genius]

60. The Democrats at DU want Gonzales filibustered.

The problem is that there are a great many freepers here who are discouraging us from filibustering. They laugh about it outside of here because they think we will listen when they try to convince us to support Bush by failing to filibuster when we need to.

With Rice we didn't have the votes. If there is an international disaster, Harry Reid will hopefully realize that that disaster is on his head and feel some remorse.

Gonzales is worse than Rice. Do you want your kids being tortured? Do you want your brother or sister tortured? This is the question every decent American must act and if they don't want their family tortured, they must demand a filibuster.

[DistressedAmerican]

65. Well stated...

and might I add a new graphic to spice things up a bit.

Remember our worries about Ashcroft? We didn't stop him when we had a chance. Look what a monster we created. Are we going to make that mistake again?

Just picture this guy as AG:


UNACCEPTABLE!

[dsc]

2. because it would set a precedent that would bite us in the ass

when a Democrat took power.

[DistressedAmerican]

3. So we shouldn't fight them for fear that

they would fight us in the future. I do not think there is anything we could do that would make the repugs nastier competition. What do you suggest we do them just roll over for the next 4 years?

They cried wolf. It's about time for us to call Bullshit!

[genius]

63. But Republican infiltrators want us to fear a filibuster more than torture

Look at the names of those who want a filibuster and those who don't. You you really think any real Democrat would want to see their family tortured? Do you think any real Democrat would not call for a filibuster?

The worst part is that elsewhere these guys are laughing about how stupid we are to buy into their suggestions that we not filibuster.

[gottaB]

4. That wouldn't be a bad precedent--

Gonzales is a singularly rotten choice for AG. If a Democratic Pres made such a terrible choice, I should thank the opposition for advising against it, and standing firm if need be.

The Republicans are pointing at the Dems saying "partisan," but it is Republican decision-making that is excessively partisan. They can't defend Gonzales on any grounds except partisanship. I've listened to them. They have excuses, but they are not convincing. In the end they just point fingers and say "partisan." Ha. So be it then.


On Edit: Pronoun ambiguity. Replaced "their" with "Republican" for clarity.

[DistressedAmerican]

5. Wrap me in the flag of an obstructionist if you want.

These are OUR elected reps. The dems voted for them yet they cozy up to lying, immoral creeps. All of these folks that make pretty speeches about accountability then vote to confirm are half-stepping to the detriment of the nation.

Case in point one of my own favorites, Joe Joe Biden. He stood up and made a speech about how those that voted against "were doing a service to the nation". I can only presume that his own vote to confirm was by that logic, a disservice to the nation.

[gottaB]

6. seems logical to me

In the matter of Gonzales, the virtues of playing niceynice--I readily concede that there are a few--are outweighed by the disservice that would be done to the nation were he to be confirmed. We the people are about to get a big black eye. Who's going to say that we shouldn't put up our dukes?

[DistressedAmerican]

8. As much as I hated Rice moving up,

This guy is the very core of the wrongs and war crimes of this administration. If I were holding an American war crimes tribunal this guy would be sitting right up there along with the rest. Is that who we want to head up the Department of Justice. I actually think he may end up being WORSE than Ashcroft. He really IS worth the fight to stop.

[goddess40]

7. who are you kidding -the republicans will never honor that

haven't we learned that yet. We have to do the right thing and not worry about trying to appease the fascist. Remember for the right wing the ends always justify the means.

The Dem's have to stop letting the right dictate the rules because time and time again the right changes the rules mid-game to suit their agenda.

[w4rma]

13. Repukes will make up their own precident, regardless. Gonzales should

be filibustered. And I think Dems may win this fight. They may be able to do it without a filibuster, but they also may go ahead and filibuster since this guy is so dangerous.

[AntiCoup2K4]

30. That argument is a fallacy.

Here's an example - Asscrotch was relatively easily confirmed last time. We all knew he was a right wing neanderthal bonehead, but - AT THAT TIME - he hadn't done anything especially criminal. Therefore, opposition to him would have been for purely partisan reasons, and that indeed would be turned around the next time our guy was in the White House. So as much as we may despise the Frank Sinatra of Fascism, there wasn't a compelling reason to block his nomination.

Rice and Gonzalez are WAR CRIMINALS. That's a big difference. The Republicans shouldn't be voting for them either, but they're sheep, for the most part. By no means should any Democrat vote for them.

[DistressedAmerican]

31. Votes for Ashcroft, the Patriot Act, AND the War in Iraq!

All of them bit us on the ass and that is a really short list.

No more holding our fire. 4 years of ceaefire was plenty! Open Fire!

[dsc]

37. Voting against would be fine

but the filibuster is another matter. If we use that to stop Gonzales there is nothing to stop them from doing the same to us. I sure wouldn't want a President Gore to have to name cabinet members that would placate a staunch minority of Republicans.

[DistressedAmerican]

38. Why are you SO afraid of their retribution.

They do not play nice as long as we do. You have been sold a fat bill of repug intimidation. If the party is full of people that share your view, I hope the bible was right and the meek do inherit. All I have seen is the meek getting the shit kicked out of them.

[dsc]

48. None of Clinton's cabinet nominees were filibustered

and there were plenty of contraversial ones. It just isn't done. To take one example of a prime candidate of his for filibuster Roberta Achenburg. I would hate for Gore to be blocked from naming any openly gay cabinet members due to 40 knuckle dragging Senators being able to filibuster them all.

[gottaB]

51. Was the attack on Lani Guinier SOP?

The Republicans were never faced with the need to filibuster. They merely raised a stink and intimidated enough Dems to make the effort pointless, leading the President to withdraw his nominations. What evidence is there that a respect for norms of Senatorial conduct would have halted the Republicans?

The Democrats have raised grave concerns about Judge Gonzales, far more significant than any of the objections that were raised over Clinton's cabinet nominees. If the Republicans refuse en bloc to extend the courtesy of admitting reason into their deliberations and faithfully carrying out their responsibilities, it will be up to the Democrats to take cognizance of that fact and proceed accordingly.

[ElectroPrincess]

49. Hello? If we don't start countermeasures and fight like hell ...

democrats may NOT EVER represent an majority in one of the three Branches of our Government.

Dammit, I hope and pray that our Democratic Senators filibuster Gonzales. If ever there was a noble cause (the torture promoter) this is it!

Have we become so desensitized in America? Are we now numb to the horrific shunning of international law by the Bush Administration? My father used to brag that the Germans during WWII would beg to be captured by USA Soldiers because they believed us to be much more *HUMANE* than the Russians.

Have we lost our humanity and moral compass?

IMO the most important issue of OUR time is whether or not we allow a man who promotes torture to rise to the level of USA's chief law enforcement officer.

[salin]

52. Have to agree... but I would like to see strong opposition

and a strong opposition vote (short of fillibuster) against confirmation. That seems to be the only way that real media coverage is given to the very real issues surrounding him. Enough stories and they will begin to prick at the public psyche (i.e., issues that penetrate the public discourse and over time become to be viewed as "common knowledge"). This way, when the administration continues its overstretch policies, abuse of power, and pursuit of other damaging policies - with the AG at a very visible helm... the public will begin to "remember" the issues surrounding his confirmation.

At this point, I think that there is a real possibility that the administration - pushing its arrogant and offensive policies with NO restraint - might not just in the end turn the majority of the country against this particular administration - but against the whole party. I honestly believe that there is a possibility (again due to arrogance, overreach and horrendous policies that it appears the admin will push) that the 2006 elections will begin a long trend that favors democrats. Thus, we have to start playing strategically for this end. Get issues INTO the media long enough to prick the public psyche. Don't overstretch to the point where it bites us in the future when we do regain power. Loud and strong opposition is important. Hardball on issues we can win (like the fight against hollowing out Social Security). Strategy, strategy, strategy!

[genius]

61. I hope your family is first. For their sakes, I hope you care when it

happens. You could have asked your Senators to save your family. But, it seems clear you don't care what happens to them.

[John_H]

9. I know the run-the-country-like-I- would-or-die crowd always prefers

game cube-like instant gratification over big picture thinking, but Karl Rove is praying the dems are stupid enough to filibuster Gonzalez. It would give the rethugs just the opportunity they want to eliminate the filibuster, which would be the biggest step toward dictatorship in the history of America.

"We need an attorney general to fight terra, to keep our streets safe, to uphold the law," they would scream and the whores would go right along with it. All it takes to end the filibuster is an announcement by crash cart, and the dems will not be able to filibuster anything until they regain the senate.

That means unchecked unstoppable power for EVERY chimp initiative from supreme court judges to Social Security. Besides, Chimp would just wait--after getting a couple months of free press wacks on the dems, he'd appoint Gonzalez during the next recess. Then will have to vote anyway.

I know it would make many DUers feel as giddy as a Karl Rove in a room full of Naders, but a filibuster would be dumb, dumb, dumb.

[gottaB]

12. RE: nuclear option. Don't negotiate with terrorists

Going nuclear would be dumb, dumb, dumb. Being intimidated by the threat of it would be dumber, dumber, dumber.

I do not consider myself part of any "run-the-country-I-like-or-die" crowd. Gonzales is a wretched nominee, and I have yet to hear a coherent argument to convince me otherwise. The fact that Bush nominated him is not a sufficient reason to confirm him. Ahem.

[DistressedAmerican]

29. Here's my basic argument.

We can not vote for this war, confirm promotions to VERY critical posts for architects of the war and criticize its failures with credibility.

Let me temper my rhetoric a tad. I'll concede that there may come down the pipeline a nominee or piece of legislation that that we could agree on. However few are on the horizon as I see it. There is social security, various nominations for the cabinet and bench, and who knows what else.

However, We should look at our past actions a bit. I feel strongly that democratic votes for the confirmation of Ashcroft and for the war in particular are perfect examples of how OUR fear of a backlash has locked us into embarrassing and difficult to defend positions Re: our own voting records and worse yet VERY bad public policy.

That is how they got Kerry. For it on the voting record and against it in print. Hard to look like you have a vision when you vote for the very things you are criticizing.

As far as Gonzalez the nominee my only comment is this (pre election graphic but, just as true as the day I made it):



Gonzalez OK'd this. We can not OK him. Simple. Rice lied to Congress and the people to get us into this miserable failure of a war. We should not have confirmed her. Also simple.

[w4rma]

14. You heard the saying "use it or lose it"?

If Dems don't use it, then they've effectively lost it.

Besides Republicans can't really kill the filibuster because it would be filibustered. At least not without convincing Democrats that they can.

[John_H]

32. That, sadly, hasn't been true since the 70's. The "president" (VP) can

rule from the chair that the fillbuster violates the constitution.

[DistressedAmerican]

33. Some background on this claim?

You have my attention.

[Walt Starr]

35. Not so

To claim that would violate the rules. It's a conundrum that Trent Lott suggested they use, but it would be challenged in Court and owuld be deemed unconstitutiojnal because the Senate is consititutionally required to follow it's rules and may only change those rules under the rules which requires a two thirds vote.

[depakid]

28. Rove is actually hoping the exact opposite

he's hoping for more cowardly, sell out dems to just roll over and send a torturer to become attorney general WITHOUT A FIGHT.

Dems actually have an opportunity to make a major stand here with all that's decent, honorable and righteous on their side. They have an opportunity to say to the American people- Is this what you want to be?

Do you want to be just like Sadaam? Is this your vision of freedom.

You are so totally wrong on this john_H that it's beyond my comprehension.

If ever there was a battle to fight- and one with no downside whatsoever, it's this one. This one has emotional appeal that ANYONE can understand. This is the PERFECT wedge issue. It's the best way I can imagine to get average Americans to understand the abstract debate over filibustering right wing extremist judges.

Even the media whores can't outspin this one- provided that the Dems show some political courage and fortitude....

[John_H]

34. Right in principle but still wrong.

Rove may win either way--the way he outsmarted the dems on the SOS and AG nominations is the 100 ton elephant that nobody on DU wants to talk about.

But make no mistake about it: The real prize for the neocons is the supremecourt. When compared to the supreme court, the rethugs couldn't care less about Gonzolez. They would trade a hungred AG picks for stripping the dems of the right to filibuster supreme court nominees.

C'mon, pardner: Be smart about this. If you had to choose and dem senators DO actually have to chose) wouldn't you rather let alberto, who's going to be gone in 4 years, slide and kill a 20 year reign of wingnot terror on the supreme court.

[DistressedAmerican]

36. Tell he how it is mutually exclusive!

I still do not buy any claim that we have to hold our fire nw and then come out swinging later. We are on the ropes. We are getting our asses beat. Vote against these clowns AND the ones you suggest. It is not either/or.

We must oppose them or we may as well just be sitting at home on our couches.

[Eric J in MN]

41. If Albeto Gonzales become Attorney General, it can be a stepping

stone to the Supreme Court.

If they stop him now, he won't be nominated for the Supreme Court.

Filibuster.

[ElectroPrincess]

50. I can say with full confidence, right wing republicans are NOT

the type of people you compromise with ... They resent overtures of compromise. I work and live among right wing radicals and NEVER DOUBT the fact that the do NOT compromise.

Think of dealing with right wingers like they disrespect the Iraqi's during the run up to the invasion. "THESE PEOPLE only respect power and brute force." The forgoing is a truism of the mindset of right wingers.

I can envision KKKarl Rove giving out awards and giving daily stars with his talking points to fellow right wingers who deceive or destroy the efforts or reputation of ANY Democrat.

Wake up and smell the fervor of right wing fanatics and their hate mongering cheerleaders. If you compromise or even show any sign of weakness or complacency, they'll figuratively rip you apart from limb to limb.

We must fight like hell NOT find common ground. We (liberals and progressives) have no COMMON GROUND to discover between ourselves and the rabid right.

[DistressedAmerican]

53. We HAVE been compromising with them. It gets us screwed!

I do not fear their threats. Don't use for fear that we might loose it is redicoulous logic.

These are our reps. They were not elected to cozy up to Neo con, bible bumping, oil mad assholes.

We have every right (ney, obligation) to demand accountability of dems that do not demand accountability of the Repugs!

[Eric J in MN]

54. Yes. Stand up for human rights.

Let torture be the issue if the Republicans take away the filibuster.

Not the property rights issues of some of Bush's judicial nominees.

[DistressedAmerican]

55. I'd love to make them the prisoner abuse party.

Why do we want to be tainted with that mess. Fight it tooth and nail and either we filibuster it to death or (as some fear) we call their bluff and see if they really want to end the use of the filibuster over a torture apologist. I don't really think that even repug senators want to adopt that lable just to get a promotion through for a "Friend of George".

Either way, just let their policy positions stick to THEM for a change.

The Repugs are already afraid to stick their necks out for this 4 year lame duck. Let them have it while he is weakened Then keep right on punching into the SS debate.

[loyalsister]

47. Actually what he's hoping for

is that they will behave as much as like something he can call "bratty oppositional children" in the media- AGAINST custom. When it is obvious there is no point for the so-called "tantrum." He would love to hand the media a story like that. Something to try to erase last years facts. Why doesn't anyone get PR here? This would be suicidal when something important that has long lasting effects comes up.
They can always paint Bush as victim because as we always say- he's dumb. If we filibuster something like this wasting public money and turn it around so that they can say W'E'Re the "bullies. we have no credibility when a piece of legislation comes up that we can actually fight.
Beyond that, does anyone here honestly believe that he would appoint someone who doesn't have the exact same proclivities and beliefs to advise him specifically??????????????

[Eric J in MN]

40. Republicans will do it over judges anyway.

Let's write into history that Republicans eliminated the filibuster to make a torturer Attorney General.

[Walt Starr]

10. I would rather see Gonzales confirmed

with 44 Democrats and 1 Independent voting against. Gives the president the AG he wanted while demonstrating how bad that choice was.

[DistressedAmerican]

11. Why give the President the AG he wanted?

Please help me out. I'm not in favor of giving this guy a thing. Why would you want to take the symbolic measure but still give him the ability to put another civil rights scorning AG in the post. What do WE stand to gain by that?

[Walt Starr]

16. To reserve that argument for a future Democratic president

It's more important to make a symbolic gesture, then when the guy royally screws the pooch the Republicans will be unable to say , "well YOU voted to confirm Gonzales." but it still gives the Republicans the rope they need to hand themselves because every last damn one of them will vote to confirm.

[DistressedAmerican]

22. I'd prefer to head off the problem than try to make them

accountable later. As we have seen with this administration, that is pretty hard to do. Things are bad enough. We shouldn't let them get worse just to see the repugs squirm down the road. These are our rights were talking about here.

[First48H]

45. me too

no filibuster

[DistressedAmerican]

46. Sorry but, that is a hollow gesture without impact.

What is the real effect? Stop them cold.

[CWebster]

15. Kennedy is on C-Span2 now opposing Gonzales nt

[DistressedAmerican]

18. Thanks for the heads up.

Listening.

[gottaB]

19. Sessions dissimulated

See links in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x100846

and the WP editorial, A degrading policy.

[txaslftist]

17. Gonzales makes Ashcroft look liberal.

[CWebster]

20. SO Feingold can't support Gonzalez but he is A-Okay with Rice?

.

[DistressedAmerican]

21. Try to look on the bright side,

Maybe some of them have some balls on Gonzalez that they grew overnight.

[CWebster]

23. lol, yeah.

Did you hear him comment about how some of his supporters objected to his past policy?

[DistressedAmerican]

26. He's right about that one!

I hope more of them begin to remember to whom they are beholden. People talk about a backlash against the dems if we "obstruct". They better begin to fear the backlash from their own supporters if they let these folks get away with this like they did the Iraq war!

[CWebster]

25. You may be right

Schumer changed his tune too.

[DistressedAmerican]

27. Good for him. I'm a New Yorker and a voter.

Listening Hillary?

[Hippo_Tron]

39. Feingold supports senatorial courtesy, cept that Gonzalez is SO BAD

That he can't support him. BTW I don't think that the lone senator to oppose the patriot act would be the type of person who would've YEA on rice for political reasons.

[paineinthearse]

43. F*ck Senatorial courtesy, this is the Attorney General

The AG must be strong and independent enough to procesecute the President, if need be.

[Hippo_Tron]

68. That's what special prosecutors for

Attorney Generals never prosecute their own President.

[DistressedAmerican]

24. Calling Mr. Smith!

http://www.seedsofdoubt.com/distressedamerican/main.htm

[paineinthearse]

42. Let's start a draft Byrd movement

"As long as there is a forum in which questions can be asked by men and women who do not stand in awe of a chief executive and one can speak as long as one's feet will allow one to stand, the liberties of the American people will be secure."

[zann725]

44. I agree. I suggested the same to many of them re: Condi's appointment

But I guess they chose not. They ARE starting to 'stand up' though. We've influenced them a lot, and given them courage to find their voice again.

[PaganPreacher]

56. Maybe because filibustering is not an option.

A filibuster is a procedural action to prevent introducing a motion to end debate in the Senate. When bills are debated on, a Senator may filibuster to stop the process from moving on to the next step (voting).

The time for floor debate in confirmation of cabinet candidates is limited by the President of the Senate. If you recall the Rice confirmation, there was a limit for each senator, and a total time limit.

There is no option to a straight up-or-down vote, and it looks like Gonzalez has enough votes to be confirmed the first time around.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[DistressedAmerican]

57. How have they used it in the past to block nominees?

I'm doubtful of this claim. Is this really true? I have been looking and find no evidence that it is. Can anyone else enlighten us on this?

They have been used time and again to stop his court appointees during the past term. Even killed a supreme court nomination sent up by Nixon in 1968.

Here's some info I tracked down:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_(legislative_tactic)

"Filibusters do not occur in legislative bodies in which time for debate is strictly limited by procedural rules, such as the United States House of Representatives.

In current practice, Senate rules permit procedural filibusters, in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate majority leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he so chooses."

[PaganPreacher]

58. You are correct; I was wrong. I stand corrected.

I just read up on the Fortas nomination in 1968, of which I was not familiar.

While researching, I also found a Republican filibuster of Henry Foster for the Surgeon General post in 1995. I couldn't find any other examples.

I based my erroneous statement on a couple of sources which said that filibuster was used to stall legislation, but did not mention cabinet nominations.

I apologize for my error.



The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[DistressedAmerican]

59. No ruler needed.

Honest mistake. Hey, it made me do some homework. Never a bad thing as I sit here shooting off my mouth. Thanks for the feedback.

[paulk]

64. nine cabinet level appointees have been blocked by the Senate

most recently the republicans used it to block a Clinton appointee,Dr. Henry Foster as Surgeon General.

interesting FAQ here -
http://slate.msn.com/id/1006878/


this is a tough call - the threat of the nuclear option is very real - should the Democrats call the bluff? Not every Republican would support it - I expect there is some backroom dealing going on - it might be better to call the bluff over a Supreme Court nominee, where it would be plastered all over the news.

Another thing - most Americans are very reluctant to see the opposition party "obstructing" (that's how a hostile media will present this) in time of war.

The republicans will also play the race card, which is a consideration for Senators in states with large Latino populations.

[DistressedAmerican]

66. Thanks for that link.

Better armed.

As far as the "nukes" are concerned, if we are going to commit to doing it over the wrong Court nominee, there is no difference if we do it now or then. It will have been done.

Besides, I really do think they are bluffing. Why should they get stuck with dropping the nukes over some guy that is getting the job because he is a Bush mouthpiece? They owe him nothing at this point. More likely they would do it over a justice.

Look at it this way. Maybe they never do it and WE actually WIN for a change. Maybe we stop this guy but, they do it over a justice. Maybe they do it right away over this torture abetting weasel friend of George. What is the difference? If we do not use it because we think they'd push the button do we really even have it? What do we have to loose? Full steam ahead.

[paulk]

70. the one difference I can see between doing it "now or then"

is the media coverage. The media might ignore the whole Gonzales nomination and Democratic response. I don't watch the MSM much, so I don't know if they've been following this. We do know that a Supreme Court fight would get top billing - and I can understand a strategy of saving the filibuster until then, where the Republicans might be more reluctant to go nuclear.

Stopping Gonzales is the right thing to do - but the Democrats absolutely cannot afford to lose this one - they will need the support of every Democratic Senator if they decide to filibuster - and I'm not sure they would get it, for the reasons I posted above.

I'm sure the Dem. leadership has a better idea than we do as to whether a filibuster is feasable - so I'm willing to accept their judgemnt on this, whatever happens.

At the very least I hope every Democratic Senator votes against this nomination.

[El Fuego]

62. Because we want this administration to fail.

Only JUDICIAL nominees are important. Gonzalez will be gone in 4 years. Judges stick around forever.

[DistressedAmerican]

67. Freepers Creepers!

Ashcroft is gone. Patriot Act still here. Everything is important. Oppose them all. Stand up for what is freaking right.

[El Fuego]

69. A rightful version of the Bush Administration?

That's a contradiction in terms. If Gonzalez isn't confirmed, it will just be someone else who is as bad or worse.

Of course I don't support him, but I'm resigned to his eventual appointment with the senate being what it is. At least he makes a good target, someone we can hold up as a symbol of the Bush administration and say "See, they support torture!" Good press for us, which will help in 2006 and 2008. Sucks for America, but everything will suck for America with Bush in office. It's a given.

I ain't no creepy freeper creeper! :puke:

[DistressedAmerican]

71. Alright freeping allegation withdrawn...

Here's what I'm thinking. If we can block Gonzalez (which I think is a very viable option), you suggest that they will just send another creep. That may be true. But if you can block 'em once and let them know in no uncertain terms that you will do it every time they send up a radical right winger it becomes an issue that we can exploit from now until 2006.

I do not think we need to keep letting things deteriorate to make our point. 4 years of that didn't make our point. How about we try 4 years of strongly opposing their every move?

[El Fuego]

72. I'm all for opposing their every move.

I'm just worried about what they are going to do to the filibuster rule. Senate republicans are on the verge of changing the filibuster rule to a simple majority instead of a super-majority vote, on the grounds that a super-majority is unconstitutional.

There's also a school of thought for "choose your battles carefully." When Rehnquist croaks or Scalia retires, and bush picks a new right wing SC justice, THAT will be the battle of our lives. I am praying we still have the filibuster option when that happens.

[DistressedAmerican]

73. To Quote Blue Oyster Cult: Don't Fear the Reaper!

"on the verge of" and "threatening to" are two very different things. I really do nto think they have the balls. They do not want to kill that rule any more than WE want to see it dead.

If you really are all for opposing their every move, lets get going!