Posted on 01/18/2007 9:18:13 AM PST by Graybeard58
The New York Times last week declared itself against the filibuster, a procedure by which the minority party in the U.S. Senate may block the tyranny of the majority. Last week, the Times called filibuster an "arcane rule" after Republicans threatened to use it to thwart the new Democratic majority, which the Times enthusiastically supports.
That's odd. A year ago when Republicans were running the Senate, the Times called out the Democrats for not using the filibuster to block Samuel Alito Jr.'s Supreme Court nomination. In March 2005, in objecting to another batch of GOP judicial nominees, the Times called the filibuster "a time-honored Senate procedure that prevents a bare majority of senators from running roughshod." Five months earlier, it said the filibuster is "one of the best-known checks and balances in government."
When Bill Clinton was in the White House and the Democrats controlled Congress, however, the Times complained about the "endless string of filibusters to frustrate the will of the majority" on judicial appointments. The filibuster, it declared, "has become the tool of the sore loser." Yet in 1987 and 1991, the Times said the Democrats would be winners if they filibustered the Supreme Court nominations of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, respectively.
But in 1968, it opposed the filibuster by Republicans and "Dixiecrats" against reliably liberal Justice Abe Fortas' nomination to be chief justice, believing the rule was being wielded by "Southern bigots." (He later resigned rather than face impeachment over financial improprieties.)
After flipping and flopping for 40 years, the Times is against the filibuster again because it might obstruct its far-left-wing agenda. Not to worry: One day, the Republicans will reclaim the Senate, and the Gray Lady once again will look favorably upon the filibuster.
Ping to a Republican-American Editorial.
If you want on or off this ping list, let me know.
Ping to a Republican-American Editorial.
If you want on or off this ping list, let me know.
As soon as Reid is sure he can get 51 votes to do so, he will change that 60-vote rule back to the old simple majority rule.
Who was it that negotiated that 60-vote rule anyway? Oh yeh, Tom Daschle and Trent Lott.
It is genetic. Liberals are always for something before they are against it.
Gasp! You think Reid will adopt the "nuclear option?" Oh my, to think that anyone would actually do something like that! (Smirk)
I say can the filibuster rule. Let us take our meds for 2 years. Make the Filibuster issue a 60 minimum to revamp and then work hard to retake both houses and the presidency in 08.
Gail Collins was the editor in charge of this page last year. She was replaced on January 1 with a new guy.
I think the nuclear option only works if the President of the Senate (Dick Cheney) is on board.
ahhhhhhhh ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!
these Demoslobs will get rid of filibuster, just like the rePubes should have gotten rid of it and the Prez would have gotten his Justices etc.
The rePubes in Congress were (and probably still are) despicable.
the 109th Congress....their motto???? "No Scrote, None Of The Time"
I don't know how the Times reporters can look themselves in the mirror. No principles whatsoever. Their changing positions on filibusters can be described in no other manner than childish.
Sometimes these leftist pukes are so funny, it kills me.
Media Schadenfreude and Media Shenanigans PING
The New York Times last week declared itself against the filibuster, a procedure by which the minority party in the U.S. Senate may block the tyranny of the majority. Last week, the Times called filibuster an "arcane rule" after Republicans threatened to use it to thwart the new Democratic majority, which the Times enthusiastically supports.
That's odd. A year ago when Republicans were running the Senate, the Times called out the Democrats for not using the filibuster to block Samuel Alito Jr.'s Supreme Court nomination. In March 2005, in objecting to another batch of GOP judicial nominees, the Times called the filibuster "a time-honored Senate procedure that prevents a bare majority of senators from running roughshod." Five months earlier, it said the filibuster is "one of the best-known checks and balances in government."
Scrote when they cash their checks and have facetime on the networks.
Socialists are for power. By any means necessary. Tie one hand behind your back at your own peril.
the times and jahn carry, birds of a feather
The editorials have been consistentaly conservative for the years that I have been reading and posting them.
Geez...I'm glad I'm sitting down for this one. The NY Times appears to be partisan. Who knew?? /sarcasm
The problem is that the only people who will hear or believe this already know the NYT is heavily biased.
I'm sorry for the confusion, I meant that the two NYT editorials were written by two different editors.
But they just loved Bill Clinton. Harumph!
After I replied, I realized that's probably what you meant.
Do you have a problem taking me off your ping list?
Do you wish to be taken off the list?
Great post, BTW - I love twisting the tail of the Times. :-)
Yes.
Done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.