Talk:Nuclear option/Archive 1

message: This page doesn't make it clear what the technicality in the Senate rules is. As I understand it, a rule change generally takes a supermajority, so I take it this is an exception for judges. If not, the Republicans could certainly dismantle the filibuster altogether, which would make Reid's threats null and void, so I think it should be stated if that's the case.
WikiAce 22:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technicality should be clarified 

message: Especially the part where it says that Republicans told a "blatant lie".  External links only show democratic voice.
Brianreading 06:00, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure where "blatant lie" came from. I removed it. Also fixed the link to point to the yahoo article that actually contained the polling information. Not sure if yahoo changed their archives or someone used the wrong link. FuelWagon 13:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I also added links to Frist's home page and an article by a republican senator "calling dems bluff". Better? FuelWagon 13:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The majority of this article sounds a bit subjective 

message: The point of the opposition POV is that a republican president plus a republican majority in the senate allows the president to appoint partisan (republican) judges who only get approved by republican senators. This is why the nuclear option is opposed. Taking out "partisan" or removing the party affiliation of "republican" removes the entire reason why the nuclear option is being opposed. That is the Democrat's point of view for opposing it. There is no justification for weakening their argument. It is factual. the fact that it is partisan and republican is factual. And there is no justification for deleting those pieces of information.
:: My only substantive change has been to clarify the history of the use of the term, which, until fairly recently was used by both sides.--CSTAR 03:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that although that is the current situation (Republican President + Republican Senate), the roles can be reversed in the future. And no, I believe the nuclear option would weaken the Senate's check on the President, not eliminate it. A Republican Senate can still theoretically vote down a Republican President's nominee by a straight majority no vote for any or no reason, with or with out the minority party(ies) support, although in practice it is much less likely. Please advise on how to work that in in a NPOV fashion. Ngchen 03:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a current event, perhaps we can put the "current ongoing event" marker on the article. It seems that since the current distribution of republican president/republican senators/republican judges will be valid for at least another three years, so I see no reason to write it as if there were a hypothetical sitiation of democratic president/democrat majority in senate/democratic judges. The article starts out by firmly placing the term "nuclear option" into the year 2005. And as the term gets changed and rearranged over the years, "nuclear option" will refer to the time frame from 2004 to 2005 only, therefore, it ought to be written as a window into that section of time. Since the republicans already want to dub it the "constitutional option", I think it's safe to say that "nuclear option" is specific to Frist/Reid in 2005. FuelWagon 12:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition 

message: The vocabulary section should hardly go at the end. Indeed, the article is about a linguistic expression (read the first sentence); the facts about usage discussed in the vocabulary part are relevant, moreso than "recent events", particularly since much of the controvesry stems from the negative connotation of the terminology.--CSTAR 20:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vocabulary 

message: the new intro sucks, is longwinded, and is pretty pro-nuclear-option POV. FuelWagon 22:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. It is utterly incomprehensible starting at the first sentence--CSTAR 00:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: this rewrite is a piece of crap

message: That there is a controversy about the judical apointments is a fact. The phrase " the current nominees controversial enough to be filibustered by Senate Democrats" is POV. It implies that there is something wrong with the nominees, not the Democrats. Similarly to say "If the nuclear option is enacted now, it will prepare the Senate for a partisan judge to be nominated by Bush"  is POV. What constitutes a partisan judge? The Republicans claim existing judges are partisan.  
I happen to agree with the Democratic POV, but I would like to avoid the kind of edit wars that seem to afflict other controversies on Wikipedia. The best way to do that, in my opinion, is to keep the intro neutral and have sections where each side's position is fairly presented.  --agr 11:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh come on. That's bullshit. Brown and Owen are controversial. There is a laundry list of groups that have weighed in opposing their confirmation. That isn't something that happens with every nominee. Calling them controversial isn't POV if its fact. There is a firestorm of controversy around their confirmation. This is whitewashing reality. FuelWagon 05:07, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep the intro NPOV

message: Speaking of strawmen:
The paragraph on the Religious Right supporting the nuclear option -- and specifically, the moronic quote comparing Democratic judges unfavorably with Al Qaeda and the Nazis -- isn't really "support" for the Republican position in any meaningful sense, as it tends only to discredit the person who said it.  I'm not sure who posted that quote, but it really has nothing to do with the legitimate arguments based on history, the law, etc.  I moved it to the end of the "support" section to de-emphasize it, but maybe it should be eliminated entirely? Hbomb1947 23:07, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a quote direct from Pat Robertson. If you want, I'll rewrite it and put it in the opposition section. Democrats point to that as evidence that Republicans want right-wing-nut-job Judges endorsed by the 700 club. And since Pat compares "liberal" judges to Al Queda, it's belongs. You sure are trigger happy to remove quotes, hbomb. FuelWagon 00:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd be happy to have it moved to the opposition section, since opponents (disingenuously and inaccurately) claim that, as FuelWagon so dispassionately put it, "Republicans want right-wing-nut-job Judges endorsed by the 700 club." Hbomb1947 04:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See, I'm clear about what my position is. I'm clear I have a point of view. And I'm clear about admitting it. I'm not hiding it. You, on the other hand, want to present you pov bullshit as "oh, I'm just trying make this article neutral". You've watered down every statement that supports the democrat pov, you've removed quotes from cited articles, and you want to remove damning (you called it moronic) quotes from Robertson as "not related". You're POV bias is clear and you're trying to position yourself as a neutral editor. Give me a break. hey, if robertson thinks "liberal judges are worse than al queda" don't you think that's a bit of a right wing nut job attitude? Or are you such a right wing nut job that it sounds reasonable? FuelWagon 13:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And therein lies your problem: an inability to filter out your own point of view when contributing to a dispassionate scholarly article.  Yes, I have my own point of view, as does any human being who hasn't lived in a cave; but that doesn't entitle me or you or anyone else to present our views as unadulterated fact.  Your false accusation that I have "removed quotes from cited articles" has already been debunked.  When a statement is reprinted without quotation marks, then it is merely an assertion of fact with a citation to the article in which it appeared.  And such an assertion is properly edited where it presents as a conclusion what is actually a debatable issue.  Finally, the fact that wackos on either side of the debate may hold a certain belief, does not mean that the mainstream members of the party hold that view.  But then, with your spouting of a moveon.org phrase like "right wing nut job," it's not clear to me that you are actually capable of being receptive to any of these appeals to reason. Hbomb1947 15:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hbomb, you're only kidding yourself here. you are transparent. You have not "filtered" your own point of view from this article, you have inserted it. "The Hill" reports that the CSR report "leaves little doubt" that the nuclear option is unprecedented. No republicans contested this statement. YOU contested this statement. Frist didn't come out and say the report said something else and that The Hill is putting their spin on things. YOU DID. Unless you can find one of the players involved in teh dispute actually disputing The Hill's claim, you are simply inserting your personal POV. call it whatever bullshit you want, but your attempts to change "leaves little doubt" to "might possibly perhaps have a sliver of truth to it" comes from no one but yourself and is therefore your personal POV. FuelWagon 19:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ludicrous quote from Christian conservatives 

message: I changed this heading to "Attempts at compromise," as I feel it more accurately reflects the content of the section (none of the nominations was truly "uncontested," as they were all filibustered at some point).  I'm also the guy who added discussion of the Republican offer, and of the Republican objections to the Democrats' offer (I apologize, I keep forgetting to log in; I didn't mean to be anonymous).  I certainly encourage anyone to add Democrats' objections to Frist's offer. Hbomb1947 15:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncontested nominations

message: I've tightened up the Democrat's opposition to the nuclear option. I think it now contains all the points against the nuclear option. Some folks have attempted to take stuff out of the opposition section in an attempt to water it down. If you want duplicate sections, fine. But don't try to gut the opposition argument on the grounds of "balance". FuelWagon 18:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Opposition Rewrite

message: this diff is friggen hilarious. Is that you Hbomb? You're telling me that a "vast majority" is a neutral way of saying 6 out of 220 nominees? Funny stuff. FuelWagon 18:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vast Majority equals 6 out of 200=

message: It appears as though there has been some tampering with this article... does anyone have the former article saved? Captain Scotch 23:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tampering. 

message: Great job on this timely article! I learned a lot and am a bit annoyed by the major news outlets for letting each side blather on without checking the factual accuracy of what the partisans are saying. --mav 14:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice 

message: If anyone wants they can put more up on this fellow: Alan Frumin. He was appointed by Trent Lott when Lott was the majority leader... And, new rumors suggest that they may ignore his advice. See, I think you don't have to ask the Parliamentarian for his advice... and if you do ask, you can just as easily ignore him. They may have Cheney ignore Alan Frumin and just vote nuclear anyway. http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/4183.html   talks about it a bit.~~~~~~~~~~
Speaking as a professional parliamentarian, I'll note that the parliamentarian has no authority to issue rulings and the presiding officer is free to not seek and/or ignore his advice.  Frumin's wrong anyway. User-65.188.37.1
: 65.188.37.1 is correct. A parliamentarian is nice to have around to keep everyone happy on the minor day to day issues that crop up on the spot, so no one feels the chair is acting unfairly and the rulings are somewhat correct and consistent. But on the big issues, like the nuclear option, the parties have had the time to research and ask outside opinions, and ultimately it is the chair that makes the decision subject only to being overruled by the members themselves. Think of the Senate parliamentarian like your family doctor: he is great for the common ills you encounter, but when you contract a serious medical condition, you ignore your family doctor and go to the specialist in that disease. NoSeptember 21:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parliamentarian... who is he? How will they get around him? 

message: In light of the compromise, it might be time to trim this article some. I'd suggest cutting the Republican oppposition and protest sections down to a sentence or two for starters. --agr 11:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a hard time believing that Frist is going to simply shrug his shoulders and say "Oh, never mind." My guess is he and the Pat Robertson types will use lobbying efforts to attempt to change some of the 7/7 senators minds. The 14 will have to hold up to that for the compromise to stand. We're basically talking about whether or not Frist can find a way to salvage his run for president in 2008. And I don't think he's just gonna roll over quietly. The other piece is this whole thing will probably re-explode as soon as Rehnquist steps down. The 700 Club wants to stuff the court with a bible thumper who will ban abortion and let them teach creationism in schools after morning prayers. THEY aren't just going to roll over on this one either, not when their leader firmly believes that a Democratic judge is worse than AlQueda, Nazis, and civil war. FuelWagon 13:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This compromise just puts off an eventual vote on the nuclear option until there is a disagreement among the 14 who made the compromise as to whether a particular nominee falls into the "extraordinary circumstances" category.  That could happen at any point in the next year and a half.  NoSeptember 13:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to trim?

message: Fuelwagon, it's not deemphasizing the effect on the Supreme Court to take out "directly impact." For one thing, the use of two verbs suggests that there are somehow different effects on each kind of nominee, which is not the case. For another, it makes the sentence read more quickly, allowing the reader to get to the point: that Rehnquist may soon step down. Bbpen 19:38, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I removed the lead in about the other types of judges. This simplifies the sentence greatly and gets straight to teh point that Rehnquist may step down soon. FuelWagon 20:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmmm. Now you've removed the only mention in the article that there are two types of federal judgeships at issue, not counting SCOTUS. You've also used four words -- "have a direct impact on" -- instead of the more direct "affect". I think you're too worried that people will somehow miss the import. Bbpen 21:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bbpen, I don't know why you insist on changing that paragraph, but this one at least works for me.  FuelWagon 23:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: OK, great. Now let's work on the second sentence of the paragraph to deemphasize Rehnquist's illness and emphasize its consequences -- you should love that. Bbpen 00:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine. FuelWagon 00:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Bbpen, don't mark your modifications as "minor edit" unless you're fixing typos or something equally benign. FuelWagon 02:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Ah, yes, forgot to untick the checkbox. Don't forget to describe your edits in the edit summary box. Bbpen 02:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: strive for simplicity

message: FuelWagon and Simon are currently both blocked for 3RR because of the addition and removal of the word "Republican." I'd normally have protected the page instead of blocking, but as one of you reported the other, and he was blocked, the other violator had to be blocked too, as we have to handle these things equitably. So that it doesn't start up again, please get hold of a source that will help you decide what's correct. In the sentence: "Rather than require the President to nominate Judges who get broad support from both parties in the Senate ... opponents claim the nuclear option would allow the President to nominate partisan Judges supported only by 50 Republican Senators plus the Vice President": it seems to me that the word "Republican" should not be there, because any 50 senators would do, whether or not, as a matter of fact, they would tend to be Republican. If that's wrong, FuelWagon should probably produce a source showing that the word "Republican" should be there. Bear in mind that we're not allowed to add our own arguments, analysis, or opinions: see Wikipedia:No original research. I hope this helps some. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:16, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
:I told Simon here that this is language from Al Gore. I've now added a URL to his speech in the 60% section. And I embedded a note in that section which contains some excerpts from that speech to show these are his words, his tone, his point of view, his reasoning for opposing the nuclear option. If this is insufficient, we can beat a dead horse, and I'll dig around for some more quotes tomorrow. But my point being that this is a basic position of many democratic leaders opposing the nuclear option. FuelWagon 04:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose the following compromise language: "opponents claim the nuclear option would allow the President to nominate Judges supported by only 50 Senators plus the Vice President." This ignores one part of my objection (viz., that both supporters and opponents both agree on the effect), but has at least the virtue of being factually correct (i.e., that 50 Senators of either party could confirm a judge). Are there objections to this? Simon Dodd 17:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: N.b., I have replaced the SectNPOV label, as this issue is clearly not yet resolved, and it seems appropriate to so label it. Nor does your quote from Al Gore's speech change the facts; if you have a direct quote from Al Gore, why not place it in the main text, in full quotation marks, and appropriately accredit the remark to Al Gore? Simon Dodd 17:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apropos. I have re-written the text such that it is factually correct, and includes FuelWagon's much-cherished Al Gore's quote, to make it clear that it is "his words, his tone, his point of view, his reasoning for opposing the nuclear option". Simon Dodd 17:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Just so we're all clear, then: there is no modification to the language in the 60% section acceptable to you; you will continue to revert any changes? You are not willing to compromise in the slightest on the language? Is the next step to be arbitration?Simon Dodd 18:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a bifurcation, in case you're wondering. The thing is that you've already conceded that the text represents the view of opponents such as Al Gore and you used that as an excuse to rewrite the section, insert a bunch of Gore's quotes, and weaken it. Now you're attempting to bifurcate the issue and present it in the form of "I won't allow ANY modifications". No. You attempted to rewrite wikipedia rules, use it as an excuse to weaken the section, and I took your changes out because of that. Your edits haven't made this section better, they've made the opposition position weaker. As long as you continue to weaken that section, invent new wikipedia rules, bifurcate on the talk page, and the like, yeah, I expect I'll be reverting your edits. If there is something about that section that is factually inaccurate, I don't have a problem changing it. But it appears to concisely represent a major opposition viewpoint. FuelWagon 18:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: FW: "If there is something about that section that is factually inaccurate, I don't have a problem changing it". What I keep trying to explain to you is that it IS factually inaccurate to say that it matters which party a Senator is from in counting what their vote is worth. The nuclear option is about 50 Senators drawn from either party being able to confirm a President's nominees. Your theory does not take into account the longer-term implications (which is precisely ) and it presumes (incorrectly) that Senators do, will and must vote down the party line. Maybe you're contending that it isn't YOUR opinion that it is factually inaccurate and partisan - it's Al Gore's. Yet, when I tried to make that explicit by placing the quotation YOU provided in support of your statement into the text, you reverted it out. It seems to me that you're making Al Gore's view a sock puppet for your own. Simon Dodd 19:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You just mangled the section again. from a functional point of view, the only meaningful change you made was change "opponents" to "democrats". But in doing so, you managed to nearly double the amount of text. I kept your "opponents"->"democrats" change and reduced it down to about half the words you had. And for all your arguments about "facts", you consistently ignore the fact that opponents such as Gore and Reid and others oppose the nuclear option for the reasons given in that section. And you're attempt to insert quotes was simply you changing the rules of wikipedia for your own ends. Major Democratic leaders expressed the views in the 60% section, that is fact. And the embedded quotes are proof positive. FuelWagon 19:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. I didn't know "mangled" meant "used a wording other than that preferred by FuelWagon". I was trying to insert quotes that YOU provided to back up YOUR version of why the section should say what it did. In any instance, the quotes are gone, and there is now another alternative wording proposed, along with a change in the section to make it clear that the 50% and 60% sections are intended to show two sides of the debate. I think this is helpfull, and supports your previous contention that the 60% section is supposed to be reserved for Democrat views. Why in the world it should be is beyond me, but at least now it's clear that it is. Does even this meet with your approval?Simon Dodd 20:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: There is another viewpoint that I think needs to be strengthend, and that is the viewpoint of the moderates, teh Gang of 14, etc. The article currently words their deal as a "compromise", but I think the moderates actually view it as a "victory". They viewed the issue in a more longer-term scope of protecting the minority, whichever party they might be in. McCain, as far as I know, never argued that this was a Republican power grab, he argued that the senate tradition of broad support from both parties is an important, central component of the design of the Senate. That it didn't matter who was in power, republican, democrat, whatever, that the minority party must be given a voice and that a bipartisan agreement is a win-win situation, not simply a "compromise". FuelWagon 18:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: For those concerned, I was asked to have a look at this page, and the reverts that are going on.  That said, I will chide some of the more partisan voices by saying, my 16 yr old son used this very page back in the spring while working on a school paper.  Wikipedia is for them, not us.  'Nuff said.  I ask the partisans to cool their jets.  Alot of these issues can be cleared with structure and semantics.--ghost 18:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked him to cool his jets, but unfortunately, Fuel Wagon seems to believe that his policy preferences alter the voting requirements in the United States Senate. I've proposed several versions of compromise language to try to resolve this problem, and each time, he insists on reverting my fact-based language to his preferred (and partisan) text. It is becoming fairly clear that FuelWagon is determined that this article will reflect his viewpoint, only his viewpoint, and nobody else's viewpoint unless that viewpoint is....HIS viewpoint. I'm awaiting confirmation of this from him before sending it to arbitration, which is the next step. Simon Dodd 18:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You've asked me to cool my jets? I see you've modified the 60% section AGAIN. What is your problem? You reorded the sentence, but the only FUNCTIONAL difference is that you changed "opponents" to "democrat opponents". Is that what this is all about? Give me a break. Oh, and once again, you took a single sentence that concisely summed up the opposition point of view and turned it into three sentences of gobbedly gook. all to change "opponents" to "democrats". nice. FuelWagon 19:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, because you continually revert the 60% section back to YOUR version of the text, which is partisan and factually inaccurate. This is about making the text a valuable and factually accurate resource, rather than your personal mouthpiece. On what basis should your version of the text be the sole allowable version? I have proposed numerous compromise texts, any of which would be an improvement, and each time you have rejected them and simply reverted to your preferred version. At no point have you demonstrated the slightest inclination to compromise, so I fully support Ghost's suggestion of arbitration. You're being absurd. Simon Dodd 19:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: FW asked me to come here.  I am one of those moderates, and I do see the "compromise" as a victory.  One that is as much for you, as me.  Now that that's out of the way, what will it take for you both to knock it off?  I think FW will if asked.  Can you say the same?  Because, if you can't, I'll stop wasting all our time and escalate it now.--ghost 18:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It will take the 60% section being non-partisan and factually accurate. I propose my previous edit as a compromise version; it's still not ideal, but it at least omits the most egregious factual errors. I fully support escalation, as the facts in this matter are clear to everyone but FW. Simon Dodd 19:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: FW, before I revert again, please explain what your objection is to making the phrasing of the 60% section run parallel to the 50% section, per your revert.Simon Dodd 19:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Simon, I'll address your concerns in two steps: 1) I'll talk to FW off-page.  I'm sure that, if asked, he'll refrain from making changes except in the most extreme circumstances.  But to do that, he'll ask agree to do the same. 2) I'll personally review the sections in question, with an eye to remove partisanship of any kind.  I'm sure that if you both can ease off for 24hrs, it will reflect well on all of us.--ghost 20:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: BTW, am I the only that sees the irony in this proposal?--ghost 20:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not the only one who sees the irony in the proposal. But I don't think FW will back off. I've just made another edit to improve the section, and although it does nothing to change the tone of the article, nothing to damage the flow of the article, and is factually correct, I suspect FW is going to revert it again, because it doesn't comport with how he wants this article to read. So then I'll propose another alternative wording, and I'm sure he will revert that again, without making any indictation in the direction of a compromise. What indication has he shown that he will "refrain from making changes"? He has not done so thusfar. After he was banned under 3rr previously, he simply returned and is doing exactly the same thing now. The first step in resolving this conflict is that FW has to be willing to allow alternative text that he didn't write, and I've seen no indication that he will accept this. Simon Dodd 20:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Have faith in your brother-editor, my friend.  I think it might surprise you.  Let's give each other a few minutes to sort things out.--ghost 20:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: "After he was banned under 3rr previously, he simply returned and is doing exactly the same thing now." Do you think, perhaps, it would be more informative to also report to ghost that the above sentence describes you as much as me? Or do you think casting yourself as the neutral innocent here, and ignoring the fact that you got a 3RR block the same time as me, is somehow forwarding this discussion towards a "good faith" result? I'm just curious how much you honestly view yourself as the white hat here, and how much you are consciously aware that you're trying to blow smoke up someone's backend. Your **** stinks just as much as everyone else. FuelWagon 02:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's easy: because you were in the wrong, and I was right. There were factual problems with your language, which I corrected. At no point did you manage to prove otherwise. You objected to numerous alternative and compromise versions of the text, on no basis which I can see other than that the language was no longer your preferred language. I'm waiting on Ghost's alternative version to be finished, and thusfar, his text addresses most of my concerns, using language very similar to some of my proposals. I assume you won't be reverting his edits, though, which leads me to the conclusion that your refusal to allow my edits is mindless partisanship (particularly mindless, given that both of us were opposed to the nuclear option), which has no place on Wikipedia, IMO. Simon Dodd 14:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, the 3RR rule didn't seem to excuse your behaviour as "right" and mine as "wrong". It's clear you've painted yourself in a white hat, with a white outfit, and a white horse to boot. You're the lone ranger, riding in to save articles from partisan editors, and screw them all if they don't agree with you. Well, at least I know what kind of perfumed ***hole I'm dealing with. And no, there were no factual problems with my edits. It clearly stated the view of main opposition leaders such as Harry Reid, Al Gore, and the like. No matter how many times you say it isn't a fact, it doesn't change the truth. This is gonna be real fun, I can tell. A self-declared knight in shining armor, who can do no wrong. I better put on my hip boots, cause its getting deep in here fast. FuelWagon 14:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Republican or not

message: For those concerned, there's a code word bounced around on this issue that has a link.  Up or down vote.  It's currently a stub, with a nice link to C-SPAN.  Enjoy.--ghost 16:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Up or down vote

message: This table's rather well done.  But it has little to Nuclear option itself, other than to beat the reader over the head about confirmation stats.  Perhaps it would be better in the References section.  Thoughts?--ghost 06:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added this chart to Federal judicial appointment history.  The 1986 vote to elevate Rehnquist to Chief Justice should be included also, and the date of his original confirmation is currently wrong in this chart.NoSeptember           08:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added this chart also, to Supreme Court of the United States, which would also seem a natural home for it. Simon Dodd 14:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I was the guy who created the original table. It backs up the opposition point of view that the vast majority of the Supreme Court were nominated nearly unanimously. Previously, the article simply mentioned that Thomas wouldn't have gotten confirmed if a 60 vote minimum was required, an argument from nuclear option supporters. When I found out the rest of the court was pretty much unanimously nominated, it seemed to balance the Thomas argument. I'd want to keep it in the article. FuelWagon 14:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, it also completely undercuts your argument that the nuclear option allows 50 Republican Senators to confirm a Republican president's nominee. The Thomas confirmation vote was close, yes - but it was supported by 11 Democrats and only 41 Republicans.  Oops, I guess Clarence Thomas wasn't confirmed because 50 Republican Senators didn't vote for him! Sorry, Clarence, you're out! (It is a very neat table, though; kudos) Simon Dodd 15:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Simon, careful with the rhetoric.  FW, I want supporting info/links for the 60vote POV.  Could we handle this with embedding links & redirects to Supreme Court history?  Kinda like I did with Filibuster history.  I'm trying to avoid reinventing the wheel for what should be a sub article, albiet a detailed one.--ghost 15:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: FW, I want supporting info/links for the 60vote POV. That would be impossible, because it is impossible to assume that because a Senator opposes a nominee that they will go so far as to vote aginst cloture, rather than simply voting against them. For example, note that Senators Snowe, Bingamen, Byrd, Carper, Chafee, Collins, Conrad, Inouye, Johnson, Landrieu, Liebermann, Pryor, and Nelson of Florida all voted for cloture on Judge Pryor's nomination (), only to vote against his confirmation, minutes later (). No 60 vote standard exists, other than that created by the need to invoke cloture on a filibuster. No filibuster, no supermajority requirement - which, of course, is the point of the nuclear option. It's possible that Justice Thomas' nomination would have been foiled by a filibuster, but none took place. Thus, no cloture vote was ever taken on Justice Thomas' nomination, and therefore it is moot whether or not there were the votes to invoke cloture on the nomination. Anything else is therefore speculation.Simon Dodd 16:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's understandable that you may've misunderstood the shorthand of that statement, because it clashes deeply with your POV.  The "60vote" POV is based around the assumption that the filibuster should be availible for all Senate business.  Even is it's never used.  In that way, a filibuster becomes a sort of 'nuclear option' of it's own.  And two divergent groups are forced to come to agreement due to the MAD doctrine.  This is the POV that sees the filibuster as the last, best hope of the minority, regardless of who that might be.  If have trouble putting yourself in those shoes, that's fine.  But give them a try.  The writings of Sen. Byrd might help.  Then you could write for the enemy.--ghost 16:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Supreme Court confirmation table

message: In the new Advice and consent section:
# I question the whether there were in fact 40 blocked Circuit court nominees of Clinton.  There were not that many vacancies at the end of his term.  This figure may include nominees blocked, later withdrawn and replaced with a later confirmed nominee (seat is still filled even though the earlier nominee is counted as being blocked).  Or the figure could just be wrong, people twist numbers in speeches, which is where this information comes from.  Accuracy should be reviewed in any case.
# A discussion of vacancies at the end of the Clinton term should be coupled with a discussion of vacancies at the end of the GHW Bush term.  From what I remember, these numbers are about the same.  Clinton ended up appointing about the number of vacancies created in his term -- the vacancies he left in 2001 being offset by the open seats he inherited in 1993.  In '93 and '94 when the Democrats controlled the Senate a very large number of confirmations were done. 
* When the data from Federal judicial appointment history is done, I will provide the exact figures.  This is all historical stuff and I know some of you don't feel this history is relevant.  The nuclear option is the current field of battle, but other fields have been used in the judge fight in the past (For example, the 1978, 1984, and 1990 expansion of the circuits (new seats created) had associated agreements between the parties about how many judges the current President could fill and how many would be deferred to the next presidential term -- in 1984 they agreed that Reagan could not fill many of the new seats in his first term, in hopes of a Mondale victory in the election)  These past agreements/battles are now largely forgotten, but at the time were quite hot, as is the nuclear option now. NoSeptember           17:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: History is absolutely relevant, as long as we don't write a dissertation.  BTW, I've seen no mention of FDR's efforts to expand the Supreme Court.  Is a brief statement + link appropriate?  Where?--ghost 17:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the problems with this article is the definition of its focus.  Is it about a parliamentary procedure?  Or is it about a fight over judicial nominations?  We have a bit of both mixed in and it just keeps expanding.  So my guess is that the FDR stuff will come in when someone decides to add it (although it is discussed in the Supreme Court of the United States article so only a link would be needed) --  Oh, and don't forget the big fight with Andrew Johnson, when they actually reduced the size of the SCOTUS to prevent him from appointing anyone. :) :P NoSeptember           18:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I approach it from a parliamentary procedure point of view. I see no basis for differentiating between the use of the filibuster against legislation and the use of the filibuster against judicial nominees (both sides have claimed, at various times, that the Nuclear option relates only to Judicial nominees, but I confress that I am bewildered as to where this bright red line between judicial nominees - or any other kind of nominee - and other legislative business is to be found), and therefore the issue at hand is largely moot. It's a procedural question, IMO. Simon Dodd 19:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (nods head) It's a procedural question steeped in more in customs and practices than law.  That's why it's hard to find the "bright red line", because the Senators choose to keep it hidden in chambers.  Thus it is hairsplitting BS to those of us that aren't poli-sci nerds.  But it's BS that has the potential to tip the balence of power on a national level.  NoSeptember, you make a good point of "article creep".  I'm all for linking out, even splitting out, the excess prose.  Any suggestions?--ghost 19:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, smirk, a lot of Senate procedure is considered "hairsplitting BS" to those who those of you who aren't "poli-sci nerds". ;) Simon Dodd 20:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice and Consent 

message: ghost, I assume you're finished with your rewrite. I started moving some blocks around, trying to put some stuff in chronological order. This thing is looking really rough right now, and a little bit dry. Reading it, I don't get any sense that, at the time, this was considered something that could tear the country apart. anyway, I just pulled some blocks of text around and put them somewhere near chronological order. this is gonna need a lot of grooming to get to something smooth and readable. There's a lot of rough edges from all the cutting and pasting that went on. too tired to do anything tonight, though. going to bed.--FW
:Your reorder does smooth things, and it's certainly juicier.  My only concerns are that the detail offered in the relocated sections ('extremeist' judges, Political motivations, etc.) distracts from the storytelling flavor of the timeline format, by seeming to go off on tangents.  My instinct is to trim the sections, but I hate the idea of losing some of the facts.  Ideas?  Simon, you view?  I really like this storytelling build, guys.  It's getting better, and as we move into a more historical context, will present a better snapshot for those that follow.--ghost 02:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: reorder

message: Moved from section:
*Janice Rogers Brown. 
:Opposition: The Los Angeles Times calls Brown "A bad fit for a key court". Brown's alleged dogmatism and a style bordering on vituperation earned her only a qualified rather than well qualified rating from the American Bar Association. Some committee members found her unfit for the appeals court. The New York Times editorialized, "Brown's record as a judge is ... cause for alarm. She regularly stakes out extreme positions, often dissenting alone." People for the American Way President Ralph G. Neas described Janice Rogers Brown as the "far right's dream judge." .  Senate Minority leader Harry Reid said "She is a woman who wants to take us back to the Civil War days"  A list of over 100 organizations that oppose Brown's confirmation is given here. 
:Another view: Supporters counter that Brown has opposed racial profiling () and won election and then re-election (with 75% of the vote) to the Supreme Court of California.  Supporters also argue that Justice Brown's record of judicial decisions cannot support a characterization of her views as "extremist,"   and that her record evinces a sensitivity to civil rights.  In 2000, she followed the Supreme Court's lead in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta, striking down a San Jose city ordinance requiring government contractors to solicit bids from companies owned by women and minorities, demonstrating her opposition to affirmative action.  
*Justice Priscilla Owen. 
:Opposition: The Houston Chronicle characterized Owen as "one of the most conservative" justices on "Texas' Republican-dominated top court." Owen is part of a court that some have criticized for accepting campaign contributions from parties appearing before it—while its justices do not recuse themselves from those cases.(PDF file) The New York Times said Owen is "considered by legal analysts in Texas to be among the most conservative members of the Texas Supreme Court, which, in turn, is considered one of the nation's most conservative supreme courts." The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (representing 180 national organizations) calls Owen a "judicial activist with a disturbing willingness to effectively rewrite or disregard the law." A list of of 60 organizations that oppose Owen's confirmation is given here
:Another view: Greg Abbott, attorney general of Texas and a former justice on the Texas supreme court, disputes the above charge from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.  Justice Owen received a unanimous rating of "well qualified" from the American Bar Association.  In 2000, she was re-elected to the Texas Supreme Court with 84% of the vote.
Moved by --ghost 00:00, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ghost, the two nominees that were considered the most extremist, considered to be the main reason for filibustering in teh first place, were Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen. Taking out the section that shows the polar views on these two is like writing an article about "war of the worlds" and cutting out the part about the aliens. When I write narrative stuff, I get nailed for not quoting sources directly. But this is nothing but direct quotes and it gets cut anyway. I think it could be spliced into the narrative with a sentence or two of lead-in mentioning that these two were at the center of the debate, and then just go into all the quotes. This is an encyclopedia article, so I don't think it has to read quite as smoot as a bedtime story. FuelWagon 00:15, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there are a couple sentences that lead into the various quotes. They are still in the article. All the quotes have been removed. FuelWagon 00:17, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Extremist' judges

message: This diff shows blatant use of Weasel word phrase "most believed".
:"As Reid cited no specific law that would be violated, most believed he was just acting as a partisan activist rather than legal scholar."
Without a citation to support "most believed" the view that Reid was a "partisan activist", this also qualifies as violating No original research, since the view can be considered to be invented by the editor, as well as violating Neutral point of view. 
Furthermore this diff shows a massive POV rewrite of article, yet the explanation simply says something about a quote from "Robertson". FuelWagon 22:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 138.162.0.46

message: This diff shows a POV edit, including the addition of this new paragraph.
:The Senate has many ways to frustrate a Presidential appointment other than the filibuster; there is no Constitutional or legal requirement for the Senate to actually hold an up-or-down vote on judicial nominees. A group of Senators may tie up the vote in the Judiciary Committee indefinitely by various means, or actually vote it down; the vote can be tabled or otherwise delayed on the floor; holds can be obtained; and a filibuster can be conducted, among other tactics.
The word "frustrate" is an extremely POV way to represent the Senate's constitutional duty to advise and consent with the president. Also, in another paragraph, you changed a sentence to read:
:Thus the GOP will eventually need tools like the filibuster to block the appointment of an extremist judge for the Democratic party.
This is a POV edit to say "eventually", since it assumes that democrats must 'eventually' appoint an extremist judge. FuelWagon 22:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tempshill

message: This sentence added by you:
:Conversely, many Democrats and Republicans view McCains effort as an attempt to block support for Frist anticipating McCain will run in the 2008 GOP primaries also.
Needs a source to support it. Otherwise the accusation that McCain brokered a deal specifically to torpedo Frist's run for president in 2008 so that McCain could run for president (and that he did it for no other reason than that) is an extreme point of view without foundation. Also, the quantifier "many" seems questionable. FuelWagon 17:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 209.247.222.102

message: The following was added recently (not by me) to the list of nominees who were confirmed after the fillibuster compromise was reached, but was reverted:
:Richard A. Griffin was confirmed 95-0, and David W. McKeague was confirmed 96-0.
I'm not sure the circumstances, but I do believe they were somehow held up because of the fillibuster threat, although, as the votes would seem to indicate, there wasn't too much opposition.  Anyone know the details behind their cases, and should they be included in the article? Geoff.green 00:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The democrats were blocking Brown and Owen. It was a call for cloture on one of these two by Frist that triggered the showdown on the nuclear option. This then pushed McCain and the gang of 14 to come to their compromise. This compromise allowed the nominees being filibustered to be confirmed. Griffin and McKeague had nothing to do with it. And it isn't a question of Democrats blocking all nominees by Bush, it's a matter of them blocking the extremists. FuelWagon 00:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  So I assume it was that Griffin & McKeague weren't being blocked, but that Frist had decided to push Brown et al. ahead of them to bring the fillibuster threat to a head?  That's what seems logical to me at least. Geoff.green 01:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Frist focused on the most controversial nominees first. If he had focused on one of Bush's uncontroversial nominee, then Democrats would have simply confirmed the uncontroversial one. And claims of "Senate Obstructionism" would be blown out of the water. That's why they couldn't accept Reid's offer to confirm one of Bush's nominees as a sign of good faith. They demanded "all or nothing" as an attempt to push blame back on Democrats. So when Frist pushed for the nomination of Owens, he knew the Democrats would filibuster, and once that happened, he would have political justification to pull the nuclear option trigger to break the filibuster. FuelWagon 00:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard A. Griffin & David W. McKeague -- fillibustered?