Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (680985)	4/29/2005 6:38:27 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Interesting, thanks. Re: "Forty-five percent (45%) of Americans believe that every Presidential nominee should receive an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate. ...When asked if Senate rules should be changed to give every nominee a vote, 56% say yes and 26% say no." Those numbers have probably been fairly consistent and stable over recent decades, (but possibly all the hot air and political blustering over the issue in recent months have caused some sort of 'blow-back' from the public: witness the more recent polling.) IMO, a lot of what's going on is that the minority party Dems want to get at least 8 years' worth of 'blocking' in, just like the Reps got during Clinton's two terms when a fairly large number of his court nominees never were allowed out of committee.... Seems like an obvious non-partisan resolution to the situation --- if one believes that restricting filibusters of judicial nominees is in the Senare's & or the nation's best interests --- would be to PASS new RESTRICTIONS on filibusters... but have the new rules only take effect after the 2008 elections. That way, BOTH PARTIES would have had an equivalent period of time under the old rules... and could move into the 2009 Congress lined-up equally at the starting gate, where the effects of the elections of 2006 & 2008 would determine what happens to the court nominations. The PEOPLE would get to decide, with THEIR OWN VOTES in the elections. Seems like the only people who would oppose a resolution of that sort would be partisans of one side or the other... or 'inside-the-beltway-type people' who don't believe in letting important matters be actually DECIDED by the American public.