Bookmark me or the Baron will pull my heart plug thingy.

Tuesday, May 17, 2005

Pwn3d by lil_hasset in the Fillibuster Debate

Over on the Brazilian Jiu Jitsu bulletin board I frequent there is a politics section. We debate. We argue. We name call. Usually I do well in these little arguments, but today I was PWN3D (I know it is childish to type "PWN3D." That is why I do it!)

Background. "CK" and "lil-hasset" were arguing about the filibuster and judicial nominees in a thread called "This says it all." lil_hasset said Frist was a hyprocrite because he claims he wants all judges to get an up or down vote even though republicans blocked Clinton's nominees in commitee.

I jumped in. Speaker is in normal type, comments made are bolded:
stopping people in committee, because u own congress, is not the same as using a fillibuster. in 1 case the majority is asserting its majority power, in the second case the minority is thwarting the majority. not the same. y let the judges out of the commitee when they'll just be voted down by the majority anyway?

This is just semantics, Frist's position is that every nominee deserves an up or down vote, period. Holding people in committee prevents an up or down vote. The bottom line is that the republicans avoided a full vote in the senate. The democrats are just doing the same. One of the reasons Bush was able to appoint so many judges was due to open spots that clinton wasn' able to fill b/c of the republican's tactics.

Your ponts about minority v. majority is irrelevant, the Senate is supposed to be about protecting the minority, hence the two seats per state rather than seats determined by population.

It isn't semantics at all. Frist is not for an up and down vote of every single nominee a president nominates, any more than he's for an up or down vote for any bill any congressman comes up with. That's crazy. Commitees decide what comes out of commitees for a vote. This is a culling process. If a commitee finds someone or some bill unworhty of a vote or finds a vote would be a waste of time the committee holds it or dumps it. SOP. And it makes sense because majorites in congress are reflected by majorities on commitees.

The filibuster is completely different.

At this point everybody thought I pwn3d the debate. In fact various right wing jiu jitsu guys declared I'd won and offered to bear my children and such. Which only made the following retort by lil-hasset all the more devestating!!!

This is ridiculous, follow the links, the judges were found fully qualified, and yet were still denied a vote.

I worked in the senate judiciary committee; I understand how the process works. The committee's role is to provide a recommendation to the Senate, not bottle up the process. And will all due respect CK, I stand by this.

If you follow the links, you will read about one example where a judge was denied a vote for four years. After he finally got it he was quickly confirmed. This wasn't about people who were unqualified being culled out. Read the links, some judges waited for years and NEVER GOT A HEARING; please explain to me how this is a "culling process."

You can try to spin this, but it is the same. The republicans didn’t allow a large number of Clinton’s nominees to get an up or down vote.

Besides, I think First has implied that every nominee should get an up or down vote. see below:


"If Senators believe a nominee is qualified, they should have the opportunity to vote for her. If they believe she is unqualified, they should have the opportunity to vote against her." (From Firist's website, implying the proper culling mechanism is a vote on the Senate floor)


“Republicans believe in the regular order of fair up and down votes and letting the Senate decide yes or no on judicial confirmations free from procedural gimmicks like the filibuster, and I hope Senator Reid and others knows our door is always open to reasonable proposals for fair up or down votes for judicial nominees.”

Finally, by your logic, democrats could've used the same tactics to hold up Bush's nominations in committe - BUT, the republicans changed the rules, making that much more difficult. See below.


"In large part because Hatch changed the rules of the Judiciary Committee. When Clinton was president and Hatch controlled the committee, a judicial nomination could be put on permanent hold if a single senator from the nominee's home state objected to its going forward. But in 2003, Hatch changed the rules to make it harder for a single Democrat to block a Bush nominee. Under Hatch's new formulation, "blue slips" couldn't stop a nomination unless both senators from the nominee's home state submitted one - and he wavered on whether he should consider himself bound by the "blue slips" at all."

There it is... One of the severest and bloodiest massacres in the history of jiu jitsu political debate. Lessons learned:
1. don't talk a big game when you don't know chit
2. don't assume your opponent is as ignorant about the subject as you are, and that you can therefore win with a couple rhetorical tricks and a confident demeanor
3. the quiet ones (quiet on a bulletin board should probably translate as "open to reason") are the one you really have to look out for
4. don't mess with lil_hasset.

I linked to a song to commemorate this PWN3GE: click here to hear it


Post a Comment

<< Home