Talking Points: Socialist, Racist, Fill in The Blank(ist)

We know Judge Sonia Sotomayor is a Socialist.  Proved that right here on Cube.  But, did you know she’s a racist?

Sotomayor’s a card-carrying, cross-burning, tar and feathering,  hooded Hispanic female in the Klu Klux Klan who must be stopped.  Like, the time has come and shit.  Execute Order 66.

It’s filibuster time.

Republicans.  It’s everything you never wanted in a party.  And less.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

16 Responses to “Talking Points: Socialist, Racist, Fill in The Blank(ist)”

  1. Splash Says:

    I’m sorry, Cube, but what exactly is a filibuster again? It has been so long since one was even possible that I just can’t remember what they actually are. Seems the libbies use to use them to block court appointments they didn’t like, but it is just a faded pair of mammaries now.

    • Cube Says:

      First, I was kidding on the filibuster thing Splash, but, if you click on the link, you will see the buzz about it from The Hill.

      Nowadays, there are just threats of filibusters which were enough to keep some justices at bay. As far as Bush and the Supreme Court, only with Meryers was a clear squish. That was bipartisan. Roberts (who is far more conservative than he held himself out to be) breezed through. Alito had a tough confirmation, but, made it through. Borque was bounced b/c he was arrogant and made statements that disqualified him. Borque is brilliant. Big mouth. Way too extreme. Predisposed to rule certain ways with confirmed statements.

      A filibuster is when one senator holds up a vote. He or she has to keep on talking but when one knee hits the floor it’s over. If there are 60 votes, there is a filibuster proof majority. Cots have been brought in recently to threaten it. The Republicans don’t really have enough votes. Plus, no good reasons to filibuster.

      I don’t see yourself articulating one reason Splasherooo. Not one. Something, libby, something. Filibuster, something. She’s really smart. Republicans need some cool people in the party. That’s a problem. No one can play the game — like Reagan for example. People aren’t retarded. Socialism? Racism? With a Hispanic Woman? It’s dumb and insulting to those with a brain. Even you’d admit that.

      Here’s the funny thing. Republicans have made no inroads over the past 40 years in changing the law or really moving the Court to the right. The one “good” thing Bush did was get two conservatives there who are young.

      Later.

  2. Michelle Says:

    July 17, 2007, Senate Democratic leadership allowed a filibuster, on debate about a variety of amendments to the 2008 defense authorization bill H.R. 1585, the Defense Authorization bill, specifically the Levin-Reed amendment S.AMDT.2087 to H.R.1585. The filibuster had been threatened by Republican leadership to prompt a cloture vote.

  3. Peggy Says:

    According to an ABC news report: Senate Democrats strategically “targeted outspoken conservatives who were potential Supreme Court picks….their successes in filibustering women, Hispanics, and African Americans in 2003 undermined Bush’s plans to replace [retiring U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor] with another woman or a minority.”

    Seems the Dems are as fond of the filibuster as the Republicans, even more so when it comes to Federal Court appointments. Around 2002 or 2003 they conducted several filibusters on conservative women’s nominations to the various Appellate Courts. One name that specifically comes to mind is Priscilla Owens.

    By the way, Cube, a procedural filibuster can be used per Senate Rule 22 so no one has to stand and talk continually. The filibustering Senator need only indicate they are conducting a filibuster to prevent the Senate from going to other business until a motion is withdrawn or they have the votes for cloture. The Senate Majority Leader can decide if he/she will allow this or require an actual filibuster.

    • Cube Says:

      Am I correct though for an “actual filibuster” (without a waiver) the one knee to the floor rule is still there? I know procedurally it never happens anymore, but, that rule’s not gonzo is it?

      Also, who was it (I think the Dems) who brought in cots a bit ago. Maybe that is what Michelle was referring to.

      I’d like to see an actual filibuster with the cots and taking turns.

  4. Louis IX KingofFrawnce Says:

    hahahaha—
    y’all remembe when the repubs introduced the idea of a bill that would make filibusters interdict…………hahahahha
    yea, someone reminded them that one day they’d want/need a filibuster,
    so they shut up.

    • Peggy Says:

      Hi, Louis,

      Sure do remember. The so=called “nuclear option”. That was one the responses they proposed to the Dems filibusters. Think it started up because of the many filibusters of Judicial nominees. They tried to put the nominees outside the reach of a filibuster. Took the famous (or infamous) gang of 14 to stop that.

  5. Peggy Says:

    Of course they do, Louis. It’s “Hail, Hail.” You might have heard of it. Some of the lyrics go like this – “hail, hail the gang’s all here. What the hell do I care, long as I get my share” etc, etc.

    Or maybe I’m just older than y’all and have a better memory.

  6. Splash Says:

    Man, Cube, did you get your nuts caught in your zipper or what? I know you were joking so was I, sort of. I thought throwing in “faded mammaries was a clue to the humor I intended. My point was filibuster is merely a buzz word for the next 2 years. This is why The Big O says health Care Reform is now or never. Filibuster has no meat, no teeth and zero significance unless The Big O strays from the Pelosi Path. So, as a joke it was pretty funny.

    Actually I was referring to the dozens of lower court bench warmers held up by the most successful long term filibuster in recent history. I’m sure there have been others. It lead to the threat of the Nuclear Option when it finally came time for W to name a justice. And you are right, to effectively use the Supreme Court as a political weapon one has to think long term so, in a sense, W has outfoxed The Big O here. Sotomayer will probably retire before either Roberts or Alito.

    The difficulty Republicans have with moving the court to the right is that seldom does a liberal prez nominate a liberal justice that then unexpectedly moves to the right; the reverse has happened to Republican presidents on several occasions. Kennedy and especially Souter are prime recent examples.

    Actually the biggest problem Republicans have with giving the court a more conservative personna is that Republicans are not Conservative the are Moderates. Thus we end up with Souter from Bush1 and, as I recall, there wasn’t much opposition from libbies to Souter’s nomination.

    Picking THIS battle is Republican foolishness that doesn’t surprise me at all. They are making a big stink for a show before their favorite constituency, the Religious Right. There is not one Democrat who will cross the aisle on this making it a guaranteed loss and a complete waste of time. Call for a vote, put her on the bench and move on.

    But I do take exception to a couple things you said. First that a filibuster takes one senator. If that senator doesn’t have the 40 votes behind him/her he will be talking all of 5 minutes if he/she even takes the podium at all. Thus, without any Dem help filibuster threats are empty words. The pussification of the Republican party has made their ability to stand against liberalism all but impossible and until Pelosi’s agenda is completely in place, Democrats that stray stand on a pretty thin ledge of crumbling rock.

    Second, that minorities cannot be prejudice. Anyone who hates anyone and works purposely to their disadvantage because of their ‘category’ is deserving of the brand. In the arena of getting even, this is no exception and that is what affirmative action is all about. I agree that minorities have been mistreated and abused in the past and even still today, but swinging the pendulum even a little in the opposite direction and claiming it is not racism is pure denial, no where near the answer and will never make the disgruntled happy.

    I see your point on the the “Racism from a latin woman?”, but that is what makes it such a brilliant chess move (an Obama trait). There are plenty of white males that fully support and believe in reverse racism so what makes you think a Latin woman can’t.

    BTW, I agree that Roberts turned out to be more Conservative than he let on, but Sotomayer will be more activist than she will let on. That is the way the game is played. Ultimately, with the exception of extreme cases, like Meyers and Bork, the president generally gets his/her man, which is why I didn’t “articulate one reason”. I have none. She is qualified as a judge. I don’t like legislating from the bench as I believe it is an unconstitutional way to amend the Constitution. But The Big O doesn’t seem to think so and he is the President; I’m pretty sure that, constitutionally, it is his choice to make. I further believe that “advise and consent” has been taken to far by both parties.

    Incidentally, libbie is a term of endearment – ;->)

  7. Splash Says:

    Michelle Says:
    May 29, 2009 at 8:22 pm | Reply

    July 17, 2007, Senate Democratic leadership allowed a filibuster, on debate about a variety of amendments to the 2008 defense authorization bill H.R. 1585, the Defense Authorization bill, specifically the Levin-Reed amendment S.AMDT.2087 to H.R.1585. The filibuster had been threatened by Republican leadership to prompt a cloture vote.
    _____________________

    Hi Michelle –

    You have to admit, that first two years under Pelosi was a clusterfuck, but her senate did not allow a filibuster. The new liberal majority in her senate did not have the votes to stop a filibuster like they do now. Libbies could have played their cards a whole lot better pre The Big O. Instead they made W look like one of the strongest lame duck presidents I can recall. Until the very end he got almost everything he wanted, especially on defense items like the ones you mentioned. It really had Pelosi’s panties in a wad.

    But now she is president so everything will be okay.

  8. Splash Says:

    Cube Says:
    May 30, 2009 at 11:21 am | Reply

    Am I correct though for an “actual filibuster” (without a waiver) the one knee to the floor rule is still there? I know procedurally it never happens anymore, but, that rule’s not gonzo is it?

    Also, who was it (I think the Dems) who brought in cots a bit ago. Maybe that is what Michelle was referring to.

    I’d like to see an actual filibuster with the cots and taking turns.
    ______________________________

    I thought the cots were brought into the House floor during the sit in over drill here drill now. And Queen Pelosi turned out the lights and sent them all to bed without any supper.

    I think the senate got lazy on the continual talking thang although I have seen both Senators and House Reps on C-Span at the podium speaking to nearly empty chambers, so I can’t be sure what that was all about.

  9. Peggy Says:

    Hi, Cube,

    I’ll qualify this by saying I’m trying to retrieve 50 year old memories from a High School Civics class. I think the classic filibuster requires the initiating Senator to stay in the Chamber and on his feet. But, he/she can temporarily cede the floor to a cooperating Senator for procedural motions and to introduce/require votes on any and all amendments, logical or not, that they want to introduce which I guess gives him a chance to rest his voice and gather his thoughts. He/she can also require frequent quorum calls so other Senators must remain within earshot of the chamber. If memory serves, the filibuster ends when he/she can no longer stand and/or talk or the Senate musters a 3/5’s vote (used to be 3/4) for cloture. So there could be a knee to the floor thing that signifies he can’t stand up anymore. The only one I actually remember was Strom Thurmond, who filibustered on his own for somewhere around 24 to 25 hours back in the 1960’s to try to stop a vote on the Civil Rights Act. I don’t remember what actually ended that one. There were rumors that he actually wore diapers (kind of like today’s astronauts) during the filibuster and had limited his intake of liquid for several days prior to the action to prepare for the filibuster. Even though it was for all the wrong reasons and probably one of the most bigoted actions by a U.S. Senator in the history of our country, it was still an incredible physical feat.

  10. Cube Says:

    Thanks for all the comments. There’s not gonna be a filibuster, but, if there is, I want the old school way.

    Splash, your tax cut is coming on the show.

    Lots of music. Drinking. Different material.

  11. Splash Says:

    Cube, Sorry I missed the show. Did I get my tax cut or did I have to be present to win?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: