Democrats Threaten to Stop Senate Business if GOP Changes Rules on Judges

[Scooter24]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats served notice Tuesday that they will slow or stop most Senate business if Republicans unilaterally change the rules to assure confirmation of President Bush's controversial court appointments.

Any such change would mark "an unprecedented abuse of power," Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., wrote Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.

Reid, the Democratic leader, exempted military and national security legislation from the threat, and said Democrats would not block passage of measures needed to assure continuation of critical government services.

"To shut down the Senate would be irresponsible and partisan," Frist said in swift rebuttal. "The solution is simple: return to 200 years of tradition and allow up or down votes on judges."

The exchange marked the latest development in a long-simmering struggle over Bush's court appointments. Democrats blocked votes on 10 nominees during the last Congress, attacking them as too conservative to warrant lifetime appointments.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB2JG7JC6E.html
------------
I apologize if this is a dupe. I couldn't find it anywhere else :)

[efhmc]

1. Sure hope they stick by this and that it works.

[Melodybe]

2. hello they did it, we should have done it in 2000

[niceypoo]

45. Its either do this or...

....bend over and grab their ankles

[Guckert]

3. I hope they back up their words with actions.

[dave29]

4. 200 years of tradition?

If they are so enamored with tradition, why are they changing all the rules?

[Kber]

22. It's a stupid statement by Frist

If I were Reid, I'd reply that I'm not so ready to turn the clock back to 1804 - when women could not vote, slavery was legal, and the Senate were still elected by the house members. Anyone want to add to the list?

Or, on reflection, has Frist unwittingly exposed the real GOP agenda?

[Coastie for Truth]

27. Where was the vivisectionist Frist when Santorum threw out

every one of Clinton's Pennsylvania nominees -- including a classmate of Thornburgh's and Hatch's, and also a pro-life Democrat (sitting District Judge, former federal prosecutor) to hold the seat for the "next election."

The vivisectionist gets me sick. Such a freakin hypocrite. Boycott Iams? Heck - boycott Frist.

[me b zola]

52. They are enamored only with power

eom

[RussBLib]

5. What tactics could they actually use?

With only 44 Dems and 1 Ind, what tactics could shut down the Senate? Anyone know?

Oops, just read the article, but this is about all it says...

The Senate's rules give strong rights to the minority and, in many cases, permit even an individual senator to interfere with the daily routine of committee meetings, floor debate and votes on legislation.

[hootinholler]

35. Ever watch CSPAN?

How many times do you hear the phrase Unanymous Consent? Well, it only takes one Senator to object and then the thing they wanted gets put to a vote and can be debated first. That's one way, and I don't know very much about the Senate rules. There has to be a boatload more ways, like suggesting the absense of a quorum, which requires a roll call.

-Hoot

[maxrandb]

50. I Think One Senator Can Also Require the Reading of an Entire

Bill or Amendment. Most of the time, they dispense with the reading.

Could you imagine having to read the entire 48 volume budget?

On second thought, that may not be such a bad idea

[jasop]

89. But the Rupukes newest tactic is the....

Vote to "not debate". I saw this twice recently on C-Span and I was outraged. How the hell can you vote to "not debate"?

[adwon]

6. I love that you can filibuster a change to Rule 22

[jefferson_dem]

34. Are you sure that is the case? I was under the impression that a simple

majority is all that's required to "change the rules." As i understand it, the Senate parliamentarian would be asked to judge the constitutionality of filibusters for judicial appointments. Then a simple majority of the Senate can move to override the judgment and still change the rules if necessary. But i may be totally wrong.

Of course, if the nuclear option is forced through, 60 votes will be required on every single measure EXCEPT THOSE JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS. It would be kind of fun to watch...never-ending challenges and obstructions in a body that generally operates under the "unamimous consent" rule.

[chaumont58]

37. I don't know, but if a simple majority could change rules,

then 51 votes would rule the Senate, period. A simple majority would set every rule to take effect on their simple majority.
I don't have a crystal ball that is properly working, so I don't know how this will end, but its going to be tough for either side to back down. I really think the repukes are stupid to let it get this far. Better to go to the electorate in 2006 and say we need some more senate victories to get over this hump. Maybe they have looked at prospects for 2006 and don't like what they see.
I went over to luccianne.com to see what is being said there, and there weren't many comments. The jist of what they are saying is that there will be a shutdown of government, and the repukes will win the PR campaign.
It is fascinating. I have been saying for years now, that the Dems are in an Eastern Front type struggle with the repukes: no quarter, take no prisoners and kill the wounded. The more often repukes do these crazy things, the more Dems will realize they are not dealing with honorable people.

[zann725]

38. Who says the 'Repukes will win the PR campaign?"

Enough people are becoming increasingly dismayed, and outright outraged by Shrubco's Fascist tactics at getting their own way 100% of the time thus far.

The "under-dog" always catches the public fascination and support. Remember "Smarty Jones" last year? I say the Dems need to 'run' with this one. I for one would love to see a Filibuster in action.

Please Harry...just one for starters!!

[chaumont58]

56. The l-dotters thought they might win the PR campaign

L-dotters are deluded to begin with. Still, a lot of people voted for chimpie. And, I thoughly believe in the truest statement I have ever read. H L Mencken's:

"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."

I think it ought to replace In God We Trust on the currency.

[maxrandb]

51. It's Why the Senate is Made the Way it is.

I think it was Senator Byrd that pointed out that 51 Senators (if they all came from small states) might only represent 15% of the entire US population.

That's why it is not a straight majority rule body.

[Laurab]

7. Irresponsible and partisan?

I guess Frist knows what he's talking about there. And unilaterally changing the rules to assure confirmation would be what, Mr. Frist?

I hope they do it, too. They HAVE to do it. What else is going to stop these people? I've seen enough "unprecedented abuses of power" during the past 4+ years to last me a lifetime.

[Robbien]

8. Every bill passed so far has stabbed the middle class in the back

It would be great to shut down the senate and stop the passage of any further givaways to the rich.

[goodboy]

9. Of course the majority wants an "up or down" vote...tell me, how many

of Clinton's appointments were blocked by pukes versus how many of the murdering giggle monkey's?

[Career Prole]

10. They've got my full support.

Just as the Texas Dems did when they headed for the hills over redistricting.
Ya gotta do what ya gotta do.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

11. Fine with me.

[seafan]

12. Harry Reid: "He thinks he is King George, not President George."

Just now on AAR with Ed Schultz, talking about * trying to cram his judge picks down the Dems' throats with intent to strip away the right of filibuster.

Reid's a scrapper, that's for sure!

[Frances]

15. This is why I support the Dem party

Do I agree with Reid on all issues? No Way!

Do I get really, really angry with the Dem party at times? Yes

But do I see any other way to hold back King George? No

[LSparkle]

19. He showed lots of spine

Maybe he's still smarting over his vote for the bankruptcy bill and realizes he'd better quit caving. (He DID vote for that bill, didn't he?)

[shance]

13. Now we are seeing some leadership! STOP the destruction!!

How typical Republicans like Bill Frist seem to forget they shut down Congress with Newt and his gang, and for all the wrong reasons.

Now that we should be shutting it down when leaders are trying to pass horrific, "irresponsible" legislation Frist calls it partisan.

If doing the right thing is called partisan, lets do it.

[mod mom]

14. This is the way to fight-there is no compromising with this bunch nt

[annabanana]

16. THEY are the ones throwing a spanner into the works!

The "nucular" option is a living meme... and it will be used by the media if it comes to that. We have to see to it that they remember that Democrats APPROVED 200 of bush's appointments... and that these last 10 are the dregs.. completely unsuitable...

Their unsuitability must be HIGH PROFILE folks.. What do we know about these bad apples? I know that one, at least, spent the last few years practicing law without a license.

[Toucano]

17. Give 'em hell, Harry!

Rock on!

[struggle4progress]

30. You betcha! eom

[Blue to the bone]

18. Yeah, let's shut it down!!!

Look what that did for Newt!

[Yupster]

31. In practicality, you can't shut down the senate

As soon as you announce you won't let any legislation be voted on without months of delay, the other side will put up a necessary bill that you have to vote for. Then you make an exception and say you'll let this one through but you'll shut down the senate tomorrow. Tomorrow there's another vital thing that needs voting on and pretty soon the effort is over and you're right back to the situation you had before where you're delaying stuff you don't like and passing stuff you do like.

I just don't see how it works in practice.

[bluestateguy]

20. Maybe that would stop Social Security "reform" too

though this Administration is doing a good job of that all by themselves.

[annabanana]

21. won't be necessary for SS

they are digging their own grave on that one

[UCLA Dem]

23. repukes love to dish it out , but hate swallowing their own medicine.

[xchrom]

24. striiiiike!

or whatever it is reid would do.
just do it!

[CityDem]

25. It's about time for Reid to grow a set of balls

He caved on the bankruptcy bill and tort reform and I don't have a lot of confidence in his ability to stop this procedural change. If the repubs can approve judges with a simple majority, we are screwed.

[tuvor]

26. Sounds like there should be a rule against changing the rules. n/t

[bush_is_wacko]

28. Why the hell can't * be removed from office along with every damn

person on his administration and about half of his party!? There is NO Constitution or Congress or anything resembling the original intent of those that formed this country! On days like this I wish we were a third world country so a more powerful country could offer us some military help!

I know I can still live my life and let the government go about it's business but how much longer is EVEN that going to be possible. I think bubble-boy and dick-head would love to rule this country like the old leaders of Afghanistan and Iraq! Maybe they went to war because they were jealous!

Anyone know where a particularly loudmouthed middle aged woman can buy a birka and a muzzle in this country so I can save myself from stoning when all hell breaks loose?

Honestly, I don't see what good this is going to do. Democrats have accomplished exactly NOTHING since the Clinton impeachment and it appears to me that the thuglican toehold is not going anywhere!

[BigBearJohn]

29. Thank GOD they came up with SOMETHING

[lonestarnot]

32. I want to see them stick together on this. It is just too important NOT

to, and effects of this manipulation will be very very long-lasting.

[BoogDoc7]

33. My take...

Frankly, I think that no judicial candidate - from either side - should undergo a filibuster. It bypasses the Constitution, and has no real legal precedent other than senate "rules." - Which have been changed back and forth by both sides of the aisle (Reid once stated himself that all judges should have an up-or-down vote). Ends really aren't justifying the means here. The Constitution has defined areas for super-majorities, and this isn't one of them.

[Justitia]

39. Really? Even though one party owns ALL branches of gov't and

these are LIFETIME appts???

I can see a need for extended debate - easily.

BTW, exactly HOW does it "bypass the Constitution"?

As you stated yourself, this is not an area the Constitution has any definition on. The Constitution clearly states the houses of Congress make their own rules, and the filibuster has been one for 200 yrs now.

Sorry that it's so inconvenient for the party that OWNS our gov't currently.

[BoogDoc7]

44. It's because...

The Constitution is explicit in areas that DO require super-majorities in the Senate. If it didn't, then there might be an argument for filibustering judges. If it doesn't say it, it doesn't intend it to be there. I think that the Constitution has been added to FAR too much by the judiciary.

Does this cause problems in other areas? Certainly - but that is why we have legislators, not judges.

[Justitia]

48. So, you disagree the Constitution says the houses make their own rules?

The filibuster is only one of MANY rules, which the houses have made for themselves. Should we discard ALL of them, since they are NOT in the Constitution? If not, your argument has no consistency.

BTW, what does the Constitution say about vote requirements for legislation, since you say this is their Constitutional function (please provide support for your answer)?

I just love "strict Constructionists" when they pop into DU ;-)

[renaissanceguy]

46. That's not what Madison would've said.

Read his Federalist papers. He made it explicit that the president needs the "advice and consent" of the Senate when making his appointments. Not HALF of the Senate.

[BoogDoc7]

47. Which places it...

In the realm of majority vote, simply because were it to need a super-majority, then it would have been spelled out in the Constitution. Also, had it been intended to be ANYTHING else, than it would have been something OTHER than a simple majority from the BEGINNING.

[Justitia]

49. Where in the Constitution is "majority vote" for appts?

You are assuming much.

I only see where the Constitution says the Houses of Congress make their own rules.

[maxrandb]

53. It's Because the Senate was Designed to Protect the Minority

It's why FDR was not able to stuff the judiciary when Democrats controlled all branches of government.

The Senate is meant to be the "adult" body. If simple majorities are all it takes, then 51 Senators, representing 15% of the entire US Population could run rough-shod all over the place.

Let the House fight like children. The Senate is supposed to be a "deliberative" body, not a simple "winner take all" rubber stamp.

Where in the Constitution does it reference "unanimous consent"? It doesn't. It's a rule that the Senate created, because without it, nothing would get done.

If Democrats demand that every single word of every single bill be read aloud in the Senate chamber, is that obstructionist?, or are they simply being "strict constructionist"?

[BoogDoc7]

57. Unfortunately...

"Protecting the minority" means that the will of the majority is sometimes subverted, and that's not how democracy is supposed to work. Besides which, many of the judges would probably get more votes if given an up-or-down opportunity, thus getting a LARGER majority.

[maxrandb]

60. You're Exactly Right

"Protecting the minority means the will of the majority is sometimes subverted"

That's exactly why, now..

-Woman have the right to vote
-Blacks have the right to vote
-Segregation is ended
-The military has been de-segregated

and on and on. There are myriad examples of when the "will of the majority" is subverted.

and, Your kind like to point out that we don't have a "Democracy", we have a "representative Republic". Unfortunately, the Senate is not apportioned the same way the House is. Each state, no matter how populous, has 2 Senators. If your all about the "will of the majority", then why don't we do this. We'll apportion Senators. That way CA and NY will get 15 Senators each, and Montana won't get any.

If you go down this road, there is going to be hell to pay. I'm not talking about shutting down the Senate, I'm talking about outright Civil War.

How long do you expect 59 million Americans to accept that they have no representation?

If it gets the point accross that we are not going to have extreme policies shoved down our throats, then SHUT THE EFFING THING DOWN!

The Republicans will pay a heavy price to this. When Grandma doesn't get her Social Security Check, or you can't find a cop when you need them, it will be because of 10!!! Count 'em 10 out of 200 Judges.

Nobody likes a spoiled brat.

[rivertext]

36. MoveOn says call Sen. on Wed. March16

For 200 years Senate rules have required federal judges to win bipartisan support. The minority party can filibuster prejudiced or unqualified judges. Now the Republicans are threatening to "go Nuclear" (that's their phrase) and ban filibusters of judicial appointments. Then Bush can appoint his most extreme right-wing fanatics and corporate lobbyists to the highest courts on a straight party line vote.

MoveOn.org is sponsoring a national call-in today, Wednesday March 16th, to stop this threat to our environment and our civil liberties.

:: If just 51 Senators vote against the "nuclear option" we can defeat it and protect the Supreme Court and the Bill of Rights. ::

Flyers with for each state in the union that have your Senators contact info and everything you need to know are located here:

http://www.moveonpac.org/team/0316/flyer.html

Please call your Senators TODAY and just say to whoever answers the phone:

"I urge Senator ____ to oppose the 'nuclear option' and keep the courts fair by requiring that judges should have broad support in the Senate. Thank you."

[Ian David]

42. Can the Democrats simply walk-out of congress so there's no quorum?

[rfkrfk]

40. what if Repukes suspend the rules, for only one day ?

to allow for votes on a number of judges.
For how long, if at all, does
Reid attempt to stall business?

[Ian David]

41. This is what I've been telling my congress-critters since Nov. 2nd

Filibuster and delay on every single bill for at least the next two years.

I suggested they even filibuster on the stupid non-binding trivial things like, "This is a resolution to declare today National Maple Syrup Day," and things like, "A Resolution to Wish John Kerry a Happy Birthday."

The more time they spend on each bill, the less time they will have to vote on any other bills or judges.

The less time they have, the fewer bills they will be able to pass before the mid-term elections.

The fewer bills they pass, the less damage the Rethugnicans can do.

Can they obstruct and filibuster on votes to call for a quorum count or on motions for things like adjourning late?

Can you see them debating for six hours whether or not congress should stay in session for two more hours?

[mmonk]

43. The filibuster

A representative democracy's last stand. Thank you Senator Reid. This is the most important fight of our lifetime.

[slackmaster]

54. I see no down side to this at all

The less the Senate does, the less trouble it causes.

:toast:

[Justitia]

55. particularly THIS Senate, besides, there is a way around it

for the Repubs, it's NOT like they have NO CHOICE.

It is totally within their decision power to exercise the "nuclear option". They just need to be prepared for the "nuclear winter" that will follow.

So, they have their finger on the button, they can always push it and then slam through any damn thing they want.

Of course, they will have to live with the "nuclear fallout" of that decision. And they are pissing me off enough that I almost wish they would do it and insure their own destruction.

Careful boys, some things can't be undone......

[napi21]

58. Is it possible we could suffer like the Pubs did during Clinton?

Remember when they shut down the Gov't during the Clinton Admin. and they suffered a lot because they were seen as the bad guys?

I'd like to see them do this too, but if it shuts down the gov't...SS checks, welfare checks, $$ for the war etc, could we suffer like they did?

[Justitia]

59. No, Reid said he would not stop ongoing concerns such as those

However, any NEW business would grind to a halt.

BTW, the public tends to hold the majority party at fault when diplomacy fails, as they are holding all the important cards (the repubs in both cases, then and now). It looks like an enormous abuse of power, which it is.

[napi21]

61. That's great news, but how would they fund ongoing concerns?

AS I understand it, there would not be ANY votes in the Senate, thus no apropriations. Am I not understanding?

Again, I hope you're right! I would love to see this arrogance blow up the whole Pub Party!!! I'm just not that confident in public opinion.

[Justitia]

63. No, Reid said he will allow all essential votes like those.

Basically, he will behave biz as usual on that stuff.

When NEW stuff is on the daily agenda, he will block any of it moving at all using procedure and not using tools like "unanimous consent".

[maxrandb]

62. Suffer More Than We Are Now!!??

I don't think that's possible.

The corporations already own enough Blue Dog Democrats to push anything through that they want. The Bamkruptcy Bill, ANWAR Drilling, 81.5 Billion for Iraq. Sounds to me like it should have been shut down a long time ago.

We either have the balls to shut it down, or we roll over and impliment Georgies entire agenda.

If you don't shut it down when they pull this then you can look forward to

-Permanent Tax Cuts for the top 1%
-Raping of Social Security
-Destruction of all Labor Unions
-Ban on all types of reproductive choice
-Creationism in school
-Oil Drilling in every prestine area in America
-Clear-cutting of the Giant Sequoia's
-Jailing of American Citizens without due process

and on and on.

[sarcasmo]

64. They love to change the rules. Does anyone really think an 08 election

will happen? King Chimp in 07 will either declare Martial Law or do away with the two term limit for President. I still think Martial Law will be the way the King stays in power. I had always thought Martial Law would happen with a terror attack, but now I am having the vision of a fuel crisis and riots that create the need for Martial Law.

[Moderator]

65. kick to combine

[rodeodance]

66. Senate Work May Come to Halt If GOP Bars Judicial Filibusters (Reid)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38361-2005Mar15.html

Senate Work May Come to Halt If GOP Bars Judicial Filibusters

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 16, 2005; Page A04

Senate Democrats formally threatened yesterday to bring the chamber to a virtual standstill if Republicans carry out a plan to change Senate rules and bar filibusters of judicial nominations. The comments, which Republicans quickly denounced, signal that the two parties remain on a collision course whose outcome could be so explosive that it is generally called the "nuclear option."

Democrats have made similar threats in recent interviews and speeches, but yesterday's actions -- including a letter to GOP leaders and a mass gathering on the Capitol's east steps -- marked their biggest effort yet to show solidarity on an issue that many expect to reach a climax next month.......

Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) unveiled his two-page letter to Frist at a Capitol steps photo opportunity, surrounded by most of his party colleagues. Noting that countless Senate procedures and shortcuts require all 100 senators' consent, Reid's letter said that if Republicans remove the right to filibuster judges, "the majority should not expect to receive cooperation from the minority in the conduct of Senate business." He said Democrats would cooperate on legislation "supporting our troops" and keeping the government running, but otherwise would refuse to facilitate actions "even on routine matters."......

[blogbear]

67. where's my red telephone?

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BrainRants]

69. It'a a mistake if we play defense and let them frame it as obstructionist

Instead, we should be on OFFENSE framing it as a power grab and an abuse of power that goes against over 200 years of historical precendent contrary to the government checks and balances our founding fathers built into the system.

We haven't figured out that an opposition party can play offense yet...when we do, look out!

[ixion]

71. absolutely

dems need to start playing the opposition and stop playing the GOP lapdog role.

[The Stranger]

78. You don't understand, do you?

The media has been coopted. All of it. It will pronounce the administration line no matter what.

[Mountainman]

70. Bull shit! We want our Dems to obstruct repuke legislation that hurts us

that's why we voted for them. If they didn't obstruct Bush's agenda we would never vote for any of them again.

[mom cat]

76. Damned right you are. I also want them to obstruct the odious.

[KoKo]

72. Was their "gathering on the Capitol steps" even shown on the Cables?

Bring it on! They are showing "balls" like the Texas Dems did when they left because the Repugs refused to allow them to have a voice.

Either they fight the Repugs or we won't vote for them again!

[papau]

73. Senate Work May Come to Halt If GOP Bars Judicial Filibusters

So who thinks Lott's one-page, three-paragraph "compromise" of guaranteeing an up-or-down vote on all judicial nominees, which meets the current GOP demand, in exchange for Republicans admiting their role in denying a vote to 60 Clinton administration nominees, has a chance? Meanwhile I like the new Moveon ad:script: "Rubber Stamp"

For 200 years, the U.S. Senate has had the same confirmation process for judges....Now Dick Cheney is threatening to do something no Vice-President has had the arrogance to do: ignore tradition and overturn the rules...turning the Senate into a rubber stamp for corporate judges.These judges are biased in favor of big business and against people like you. Just who made Dick Cheney "king."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38361-2005Mar15.html

Senate Work May Come to Halt If GOP Bars Judicial Filibusters
(Democrats would cooperate on legislation "supporting our troops" and keeping the government running, but otherwise would refuse to facilitate actions "even on routine matters.")

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 16, 2005; Page A04


Senate Democrats formally threatened yesterday to bring the chamber to a virtual standstill if Republicans carry out a plan to change Senate rules and bar filibusters of judicial nominations. The comments, which Republicans quickly denounced, signal that the two parties remain on a collision course whose outcome could be so explosive that it is generally called the "nuclear option."

Democrats have made similar threats in recent interviews and speeches, but yesterday's actions -- including a letter to GOP leaders and a mass gathering on the Capitol's east steps -- marked their biggest effort yet to show solidarity on an issue that many expect to reach a climax next month.

Democrats have infuriated Republicans by using stalling tactics, or filibusters, to prevent 10 of President Bush's appellate court nominees from reaching a confirmation vote on the Senate floor. Democrats note that 204 Bush nominees have been confirmed and say the 10 in question are so conservative that they fall outside the political mainstream. Republicans reject the charge, and Bush has renominated seven of the stalled appointees.

Senate rules require 60 of the 100 members to agree to halt a filibuster and bring a question to a simple-majority vote. Republicans, who hold 55 seats, say Democrats have abused the process to block a succession of nominees who deserve a vote on confirmation. Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) repeatedly has threatened to pursue a parliamentary ruling that would ban filibusters of judicial nominations, but not legislation. Senators from both parties say it is unclear whether Frist has the 51 votes he would need to sustain such a ruling and trigger the nuclear option.<snip>

[Voltaire99]

74. Empty threat

All the GOP would have to do is tie every piece of business to "supporting our troops," whatever the hell that means, and Reid would roll over like Daschle before him.

I'll believe it when I see it. Eunuchs are not known for swelling a scene. ;-)

[Tansy_Gold]

75. Let them bring it to a halt.

So far, EVERYTHING this GOP owned congress has done has been awful, terrible, disgusting, foul.

So stop it. Stop it all. Stop it now. At least it can't get any worse.

And stop apologizing for "obstructing." Take fucking pride in it. "Yes, we're obstructing the government, because THIS government is EVIL. Why wouldn't we want to obstruct a government that rapes and pillages and despoils and kills and gloats?"

BRING IT TO A GRINDING HALT. It's the least they can do.


Tansy Gold, obstructionist

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

77. I'm fine with obstructionism.

IMHO, Dems won't lose the support of dems, and may even attract nonaffiliated voters.

[moondust]

79. Good.

Every day the Senate does NOTHING is a day that Republicans are not legislating new ways to destroy the world for fun and profit.

[Azathoth]

80. Reid better not be bluffing

because the GOP certainly isn't. They've managed to seize power for the time being, and they're climbing all over each other to see who can best abuse and exploit their newfound majority. Attempting to eliminate fillibusters is just the next logical step for them.

[olddad56]

81. Real work in the Senate came to a halt in January of 2001.

[Deja Q]

82. I must agree. Things are way out of hand; this it not just urination.

This is pure defication on how our government was founded.

The Dems leaving is symbolic, if not an eye-opener to those of us little people out there who still care about politics.

[designforce]

83. Close it down!

Close it down...force debate...show these republicans that the senate has a function, not just a rubber stamp for the destructive policies this administration wants to push through!

If we don't stand up now, then I for one will be leaving the party as I am truly at the end of my rope....

Time to put up or shut up!!!!!!

Make them suffer, thats what I want to see. Shut it down.....and tell Frist to take a hike.....

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr Fate]

86. Bush has a credibility problem, not DEMS.

Fuck off, bimbo.

[Amfortas]

85. Kick

[struggle4progress]

87. kick

[kaitykaity]

88. I'm starting to like this Reid guy.

It's always the quiet ones you gotta watch
out for.

:evilgrin: