Since there was some interest in the original post, I'm posting this as a
follow-up that may interest some - maybe not. Sorry there's nothing about
woodworking and the post is not meant to start a flame war or a discussion
on politics. Some may want to forward this to their own states Attorney
General's Office and see if they can't be prodded into doing the same.

I mentioned in a response that the NYS Attorney Generals Office was being
very aggressive (Eliot Spitzer) about internet abuse and just today (28 Apr
05) this article from AP appeared. Take note of the laws he's using to go
after this particular company.

Bob S.

........From AP.................

ALBANY, N.Y.(AP) New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer on Thursday sued a
major Internet marketer, claiming the company installed "spyware" and
"adware" that secretly install nuisance pop-up advertisements which can slow
and crash personal computers.

Shares of the company, Intermix Media Inc. of Los Angeles, fell 55 cents, or
11 percent, to $4.25 in midday trading on the American Stock Exchange.

Spitzer said the suit combats the redirecting of home computer users to
unwanted Web sites and its own Web site that includes ads, the adding of
unnecessary toolbar items and the delivery of unwanted ads that pop up on
computer screens. After a six-month investigation Spitzer concluded the
company installed a wide range of advertising software on countless personal
computers nationwide.

"Spyware and adware are more than an annoyance," Spitzer said. "These
fraudulent programs foul machines, undermine productivity and in many cases
frustrate consumers' efforts to remove them from their computers. These
issues can serve to be a hindrance to the growth of e-commerce."

An Intermix spokesman didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

Spitzer's civil suit accuses Intermix of violating state General Business
Law provisions against false advertising and deceptive business practices.
He also accuses them of trespass under New York common law.

The company is accused of downloading ads and software that directs ads to a
computer based on the user's activities. Spitzer's investigators said the
downloads then attach to computers, often slowing their operation and
crashing the computers as well as interfering with use of the computer
through pop-up ads. Often the downloads were made without notice when a user
visited a Web site, played a game or accepted a screen saver. Sometimes the
user was asked permission through an often vague reference in a lengthy
licensing agreement which could be misleading or inaccurate, investigators
said.

Spitzer, after taking on Wall Street and the insurance industry, is taking a
harder look at Internet companies he feels are stunting the growth of
Internet commerce, or e-commerce.

"We are looking across the industry at these practices because it really
does go to the core of e-commerce," said Kenneth Dreifach, chief of
Spitzer's Internet Bureau, "Increasingly, people don't feel in control."

The advertisers, which include Fortune 500 companies, aren't targeted.

The programs sometimes omitted "un-install" applications and couldn't be
removed by most computers' add/remove function, Spitzer said.

More than 3.7 million downloads were made to New Yorkers alone and although
there is no national estimate, Spitzer seeks a nationwide resolution of the
case.

"When dealing with these types of online practices, effectively you're
talking about a nationwide resolution because it's very difficult if not
impossible to isolate your practices based on a state," said Assistant
Attorney General Justin Brookman.

Dreifach said negotiations with the company didn't result in a settlement.
And more cases are possible.

"One of Internet users' biggest frustrations today is unwanted software that
sneaks onto computers without their owner's consent and cannot be
uninstalled," Ari Schwartz, the Associate Director Center for Democracy and
Technology, "The practices alleged in this case are widespread on the
Internet."

___

On the Net:

http://www.oag.state.ny.us

http://www.intermix.com



.....................and now back to the wRECk............

In article , "BobS" wrote:

I mentioned in a response that the NYS Attorney Generals Office was being
very aggressive (Eliot Spitzer) about internet abuse and just today (28 Apr
05) this article from AP appeared. Take note of the laws he's using to go
after this particular company.

Especially this one:

He also accuses them of trespass under New York common law.

That could prove to be a pretty big hammer.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

In article ,
says...
In article , "BobS" wrote:


Take note of the laws he's using to go
after this particular company.

Especially this one:

He also accuses them of trespass under New York common law.

That could prove to be a pretty big hammer.

Agreed. But what bothers me is:

"The advertisers, which include Fortune 500 companies, aren't targeted."

They had to know the methods being used and were, by their actions,
condoning them. I think they should be included in any case brought,
but the political pressure against doing so may be too great.

lgb wrote in
:

In article ,
says...
In article , "BobS"
wrote:


Take note of the laws he's using to go
after this particular company.

Especially this one:

He also accuses them of trespass under New York common law.

That could prove to be a pretty big hammer.

Agreed. But what bothers me is:

"The advertisers, which include Fortune 500 companies, aren't
targeted."

They had to know the methods being used and were, by their actions,
condoning them. I think they should be included in any case brought,
but the political pressure against doing so may be too great.


Well, that may have been a tactical decision. IF you bring in the
advertisers, there are more targets to identify, more layers of agents
and agencies, more motives and actions to prove, and more money and
lawyers to face. IF you can prove a point with the agregious ISP, and
modify industry behavior, then you can choose to target those who ignore
the message.

The point of the law is as much to modify future behavior as to punish
for past transgressions.

The question in my mind is how to deal with off-shore, or cross-border
miscreants. (And that may only be a confession of my ignorance.)

Patriarch,
who believes a populist politician, even if self-serving, might be a
good thing once in a while.

In article ,
lgb wrote:
In article ,
says...
In article , "BobS"
wrote:


Take note of the laws he's using to go
after this particular company.

Especially this one:

He also accuses them of trespass under New York common law.

That could prove to be a pretty big hammer.

Agreed. But what bothers me is:

"The advertisers, which include Fortune 500 companies, aren't targeted."

They had to know the methods being used and were, by their actions,
condoning them. I think they should be included in any case brought,
but the political pressure against doing so may be too great.


There is a *BIG* question of being able to _prove_ -- as in 'acceptable
to a court of law' -- that an advertiser "knew" about the particular
technical facets of the perpetrators methods that give rise to the basis
of the suit.

As an A.G. you don't _file_ a suit unless you have a high-probability
expectation of winning. If you're trying to "discourage" certain behavior
by the suit, the "downside risk" of a loss *is* considerable. You've just
given the 'rest of the world' a road-map on how they _can_ do the thing you're
trying to discourage, without fear of prosecution.

There's little to be gained, _from_the_A.G.'s_perspective_, by dragging
the advertisers into the matter. There is a *difficult* burden of proof
standard to meet, and, assuming the actual perpetrator gets shut down, the
problem *is* solved -- without the additional time/effort of going after
the folks who may, or *may*not*, have been aware of sufficient operational
details to be legally culpable.

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 19:26:30 -0500, the inscrutable Patriarch
spake:

The point of the law is as much to modify future behavior as to punish
for past transgressions.

With air-conditioned cells, big-screen TV, lavish weight rooms, and
massive, multi-million dollar legal libraries? Why do you suppose many
criminals commit more crimes? It's nicer (to them) in jail than it is
trying to make a life on the streets.

I much prefer the AZ Sheriff's tent city idea. Criminals NEVER want to
go back there. http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/27/tough.sheriff/


--== May The Angst Be With You! ==--
-Yoda, on a bad day
--
http://diversify.com Ending Your Web Page Angst.

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 19:26:30 -0500, the inscrutable Patriarch
spake:

The point of the law is as much to modify future behavior as to punish
for past transgressions.

With air-conditioned cells, big-screen TV, lavish weight rooms, and
massive, multi-million dollar legal libraries? Why do you suppose many
criminals commit more crimes? It's nicer (to them) in jail than it is
trying to make a life on the streets.

I much prefer the AZ Sheriff's tent city idea. Criminals NEVER want to
go back there. http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/27/tough.sheriff/


Google on the terms "Pelican Bay", Larry.

We agree with regard to the Sherriff in Maricopa County, however.

Patriarch

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 12:43:14 -0500, the inscrutable Patriarch
spake:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 19:26:30 -0500, the inscrutable Patriarch
spake:

The point of the law is as much to modify future behavior as to punish
for past transgressions.

With air-conditioned cells, big-screen TV, lavish weight rooms, and
massive, multi-million dollar legal libraries? Why do you suppose many
criminals commit more crimes? It's nicer (to them) in jail than it is
trying to make a life on the streets.

I much prefer the AZ Sheriff's tent city idea. Criminals NEVER want to
go back there. http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/27/tough.sheriff/


Google on the terms "Pelican Bay", Larry.

So, how was the food there, Glen? gd&r
http://www.corr.ca.gov/InstitutionsD...rison_PBSP.asp
OK, now what? It's either 2 hours south of me or down in Flowda.


We agree with regard to the Sherriff in Maricopa County, however.

Bueno.


--== May The Angst Be With You! ==--
-Yoda, on a bad day
--
http://diversify.com Ending Your Web Page Angst.

Larry Jaques wrote in
news

Google on the terms "Pelican Bay", Larry.

So, how was the food there, Glen? gd&r
http://www.corr.ca.gov/InstitutionsD.../fac_prison_PB
SP.asp OK, now what? It's either 2 hours south of me or down in
Flowda.


The one in the upper corner of California. Certainly not a country club,
by any stretch. Seriously nasty place, socially speaking. Not that
spammers would be sent there, it being the place of choice for meth
druggies and their gang-mates. And that's just the warden and the guards.

Yet another dark spot on the escutcheon of the state. At least it's not
political prisoners, though.

Glenn

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 12:43:14 -0500, the inscrutable Patriarch
spake:

Larry Jaques wrote in
m:

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 19:26:30 -0500, the inscrutable Patriarch
spake:

The point of the law is as much to modify future behavior as to punish
for past transgressions.

With air-conditioned cells, big-screen TV, lavish weight rooms, and
massive, multi-million dollar legal libraries? Why do you suppose many
criminals commit more crimes? It's nicer (to them) in jail than it is
trying to make a life on the streets.

I much prefer the AZ Sheriff's tent city idea. Criminals NEVER want to
go back there. http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/27/tough.sheriff/


Google on the terms "Pelican Bay", Larry.

So, how was the food there, Glen? gd&r
http://www.corr.ca.gov/InstitutionsD...rison_PBSP.asp
OK, now what? It's either 2 hours south of me or down in Flowda.


We agree with regard to the Sherriff in Maricopa County, however.

Bueno.


now, if it wasn't the fact that lots of people seem to die in his jails at
the hands of the guards, he'd be a lot more appreciated here.

regards,
charlie
phx, az

--== May The Angst Be With You! ==--
-Yoda, on a bad day
--
http://diversify.com Ending Your Web Page Angst.

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:35:39 -0500, the inscrutable Patriarch
spake:

Larry Jaques wrote in
news

Google on the terms "Pelican Bay", Larry.

So, how was the food there, Glen? gd&r
http://www.corr.ca.gov/InstitutionsD.../fac_prison_PB
SP.asp OK, now what? It's either 2 hours south of me or down in
Flowda.


The one in the upper corner of California. Certainly not a country club,
by any stretch. Seriously nasty place, socially speaking. Not that
spammers would be sent there, it being the place of choice for meth
druggies and their gang-mates. And that's just the warden and the guards.

Spammers? They should be given a one-way ticket to Australia, a
bathing suit, a rubber pool raft, and a can of beer. Drop 'em off
at the Great Barrier Reef and let them paddle around long enough to
make themselves known to the Great Whites. This solves two problems.
First, it removes a whole lot of trouble from the Internet. Second, it
makes surfing and diving a lot safer in AU due to the nicely fed shark
population. And it's a whole lot cheaper than warehousing the ickday
eadhays in prisons for years.


Yet another dark spot on the escutcheon of the state. At least it's not
political prisoners, though.

Perhaps it should be, eh? Hmmm...Delay could be first, followed by a
majority of members from -both- parties in the House and Senate.


--== May The Angst Be With You! ==--
-Yoda, on a bad day
--
http://diversify.com Ending Your Web Page Angst.

"Charles Spitzer" wrote in
:

snip
We agree with regard to the Sherriff in Maricopa County, however.

Bueno.


now, if it wasn't the fact that lots of people seem to die in his
jails at the hands of the guards, he'd be a lot more appreciated here.

regards,
charlie
phx, az


That part seems not to be making the news I see. Hmmm. I'll have to ask a
few of my friends & family who are locals there. Thanks.

Patriarch

Larry Jaques wrote:

snip

I much prefer the AZ Sheriff's tent city idea. Criminals NEVER want to
go back there. http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/27/tough.sheriff/


This would also be an excellent plan for housing illegal aliens who
cross our border!

Glen

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:35:39 -0500, the inscrutable Patriarch
spake:

Larry Jaques wrote in
news

Google on the terms "Pelican Bay", Larry.

So, how was the food there, Glen? gd&r

http://www.corr.ca.gov/InstitutionsD.../fac_prison_PB
SP.asp OK, now what? It's either 2 hours south of me or down in
Flowda.


The one in the upper corner of California. Certainly not a country
club,
by any stretch. Seriously nasty place, socially speaking. Not that

spammers would be sent there, it being the place of choice for meth
druggies and their gang-mates. And that's just the warden and the
guards.

Spammers? They should be given a one-way ticket to Australia, a
bathing suit, a rubber pool raft, and a can of beer. Drop 'em off
at the Great Barrier Reef and let them paddle around long enough to
make themselves known to the Great Whites. This solves two problems.
First, it removes a whole lot of trouble from the Internet. Second,
it
makes surfing and diving a lot safer in AU due to the nicely fed
shark
population. And it's a whole lot cheaper than warehousing the ickday
eadhays in prisons for years.


Yet another dark spot on the escutcheon of the state. At least it's
not
political prisoners, though.

Perhaps it should be, eh? Hmmm...Delay could be first, followed by a
majority of members from -both- parties in the House and Senate.


Frist is much scarier than DeLay. DeLay is jsut a typical ethics-free
zone, AKA a politician. Frist is eager to modify the Constitution and
hundreds of years of tradition to satisfy his power lust.

On 1 May 2005 02:46:25 -0700, "Charlie Self" wrote:


Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:35:39 -0500, the inscrutable Patriarch
spake:

Larry Jaques wrote in
news

.... snip
eadhays in prisons for years.


Yet another dark spot on the escutcheon of the state. At least it's
not
political prisoners, though.

Perhaps it should be, eh? Hmmm...Delay could be first, followed by a
majority of members from -both- parties in the House and Senate.


Frist is much scarier than DeLay. DeLay is jsut a typical ethics-free
zone, AKA a politician.

Welcome back Charlie! Good to see you are your usual irrascible self (so
to speak)

Funny, Delay is taking heat for something that Harry Ried has practiced
even more so (vis a vis hiring family members) with nary a peep.

Frist is eager to modify the Constitution and
hundreds of years of tradition to satisfy his power lust.

Actually, Frist is attempting to restore the principles of the
Constitution and hundreds of years of tradition to *deny* the power lust of
the other side who are still attempting to run things despite being in the
minority. Never, ever, has the minority in the Senate filibustered the
confirmation of judges. That action is what has really set the
Constitution on it's ear -- effectively requiring a supermajority for that
which the Constitution requires only a majority. What's even funnier is the
fact that many of those who are decrying this so-called "abuse of the
minority" were, when they were the majority, seeking ways to end the
fillibuster in cases they cared about, and even denying the minority party
the right to be heard both in committee and on the floor. For example,
Senator Byrd, now decrying how this denies the right of the minority to be
heard (despite the fact that the filibuster actually shuts off debate), in
1977, using a simple majority vote, broke a filibuster. He repeatedly cut
off debate with parlimentiary maneuvers. In 1979, he led a move to let the
Chair (himself) decide what was wasn't germaine to a debate. When he was
in power, he declared, "the power and right of the majority of the Senate
to change the rules of the Senate at the beginning of a new Congress".
Further, Barbara Boxer also led efforts to end the filibuster, an action
see says now she did only because she was a "junior" Senator and didn't
know better -- yeah, right -- back then they were in power, now they
aren't.

Frankly, even the so-called "filibuster" is not close to it's traditional
meaning. Simply saying, "we are going to filibuster is now enough to stop
action on a bill rather than forcing the opposition to actually engage in
said slow-down of debate. If they really want to fillibuster, then they
should be required to stand at the podium and speak until they can't speak
no more.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 1 May 2005 02:46:25 -0700, "Charlie Self"
wrote:




Frist is eager to modify the Constitution and
hundreds of years of tradition to satisfy his power lust.

Actually, Frist is attempting to restore the principles of the
Constitution and hundreds of years of tradition to *deny* the power
lust of
the other side who are still attempting to run things despite being
in the
minority. Never, ever, has the minority in the Senate filibustered
the
confirmation of judges.

A damn lie:

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/...ppointment.htm

And lets keep in mind:

1) There has been NO filibustering of GWB's judicial nominees.
The threat of fillibuster has been sufficient thus far.

2) 95% of GWBs judicial nominess have been approved, the highest
such percentage in at least 30 years.

3) No preseident has ever had the chutspah, in his second term,
to renominated a whole slate of judges who were turned down
druing his first term.

... When he was
in power, he (Senator Byrd) declared, "the power and right of
the majority of the Senate
to change the rules of the Senate at the beginning of a new
Congress".

He didn't "declare that", the Constitution mandates it. If the present
Senate takes actions to modify its procedural rules to end fillbuster
that will be just as Constitutional as the procedural rules that
permit it.

--

FF

On 1 May 2005 14:15:18 -0700, wrote:


Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 1 May 2005 02:46:25 -0700, "Charlie Self"
wrote:




Frist is eager to modify the Constitution and
hundreds of years of tradition to satisfy his power lust.

Actually, Frist is attempting to restore the principles of the
Constitution and hundreds of years of tradition to *deny* the power
lust of
the other side who are still attempting to run things despite being
in the
minority. Never, ever, has the minority in the Senate filibustered
the
confirmation of judges.

A damn lie:

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/...ppointment.htm

I stand corrected on that part. However, based upon your research, what
was the requirement for cloture during that period of Senate history? Was
it majority or was it supermajority?


And lets keep in mind:

1) There has been NO filibustering of GWB's judicial nominees.
The threat of fillibuster has been sufficient thus far.


Seven of Bush's appellate nominees *have* been fillibustered by the
Senate Democrats.



2) 95% of GWBs judicial nominess have been approved, the highest
such percentage in at least 30 years.

3) No preseident has ever had the chutspah, in his second term,
to renominated a whole slate of judges who were turned down
druing his first term.


That, on your part is a @#$% lie. Those judges were *not* turned down,
they never had a fair hearing in the Senate, they were either filibustered
or held in committee by the then Daschle majority without a chance for a
fair Senate hearing. Several of the judges removed their names from
consideration after waiting in limbo for well over a year.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C2005 02%5CPOL20050216a.html

... When he was
in power, he (Senator Byrd) declared, "the power and right of
the majority of the Senate
to change the rules of the Senate at the beginning of a new
Congress".

He didn't "declare that", the Constitution mandates it. If the present
Senate takes actions to modify its procedural rules to end fillbuster
that will be just as Constitutional as the procedural rules that
permit it.

That's all well and good, and constitutionally correct. However, Byrd's
present position is that changing procedures now is warping the
constitution claiming that the majority wants to change the rules.

So which Senator Byrd is right, the one from 1979, or the one now?


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 1 May 2005 14:15:18 -0700, wrote:


Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 1 May 2005 02:46:25 -0700, "Charlie Self"
wrote:




Frist is eager to modify the Constitution and
hundreds of years of tradition to satisfy his power lust.

Actually, Frist is attempting to restore the principles of the
Constitution and hundreds of years of tradition to *deny* the
power
lust of
the other side who are still attempting to run things despite
being
in the
minority. Never, ever, has the minority in the Senate
filibustered
the
confirmation of judges.

A damn lie:


http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/...ppointment.htm

I stand corrected on that part. However, based upon your research,
what
was the requirement for cloture during that period of Senate history?
Was
it majority or was it supermajority?

IIRC sometime in the 1960's the Senate adopted a rule to allow
a vote of 60% of the Senate to invoke cloture. I don't know it
that is 60% of quorum of 60% of the full Senate. Prior to that,
there was no rule to force cloture.


And lets keep in mind:

1) There has been NO filibustering of GWB's judicial nominees.
The threat of fillibuster has been sufficient thus far.


Seven of Bush's appellate nominees *have* been fillibustered by the
Senate Democrats.


No, a filibuster was threatened, that was sufficient. A true
filibuster virtually shuts down the Senate so the threat alone
is usually enough. I dunno when the last time was that there
was an actual filibuster, maybe not since 1968.


2) 95% of GWBs judicial nominess have been approved, the highest
such percentage in at least 30 years.

3) No preseident has ever had the chutspah, in his second term,
to renominated a whole slate of judges who were turned down
druing his first term.


That, on your part is a @#$% lie. Those judges were *not* turned
down,
they never had a fair hearing in the Senate, they were either
filibustered
or held in committee by the then Daschle majority without a chance
for a
fair Senate hearing. Several of the judges removed their names from
consideration after waiting in limbo for well over a year.

Ok, Stopped rather than turned down. But as noted above there had
been no actual filibustering.

As to holding judiical nominees in limbo, think back to the
obstruction of the process during the Clinton years when nearly
30% of the positions in the Federal Judiicary became vacant
because the Republicans blocked nominees to the point of
bringing the entire process to a virtual standstill.



http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C2005 02%5CPOL20050216a.html

... When he was
in power, he (Senator Byrd) declared, "the power and right of
the majority of the Senate
to change the rules of the Senate at the beginning of a new
Congress".

He didn't "declare that", the Constitution mandates it. If the
present
Senate takes actions to modify its procedural rules to end
fillbuster
that will be just as Constitutional as the procedural rules that
permit it.

That's all well and good, and constitutionally correct. However,
Byrd's
present position is that changing procedures now is warping the
constitution claiming that the majority wants to change the rules.

So which Senator Byrd is right, the one from 1979, or the one now?

As noted:

If the present
Senate takes actions to modify its procedural rules to end fillbuster
that will be just as Constitutional as the procedural rules that
permit it.

I don't care to check to see if Burd ever made the statements you
attribute to him.

Meanwhile, consider:

In 2000 Bill Frist voted against cloture regarding the nomination
of Richard Paez to the ninth circuit.

"If they want to filibuster, mount a filibuster for an appellate
judge, I think that's appropriate, if they want to do it. It
normally is not done. But if that's what the Democrats want to
do, I think they're entitled to do it under the rules of the
Senate." 2001, Senator C. Boyden Gray on John McLaughlin's
"One on One"

According to the Congressional Research Service, cloture motions
were filed and cloture votes held on 14 appeals court nominations
from 1980 to 2000.

Not only has it happened, it has happened often.

Perhaps you should begin question the honesty of whomever it
is that assigns talking points to you.

I had thought that the Clintons set a standard for sheer dishonesty
in the face of fact that would be hard to beat. But the Bush
administration and its supporters have proven to be the Bob
Beamans of dishonesty established a record for bald-faced lying
that may (one hopes) never be surpassed.

--

FF

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 1 May 2005 14:15:18 -0700, wrote:


...

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/...ppointment.htm
...
what
was the requirement for cloture during that period of Senate history?
Was
it majority or was it supermajority?


Here's a longer explanation for the benefit of the reader whose
American Government class did not cover filibusters and/or who
have not seen _Mr Smith Goes to Washington_.

A filibuster is made possible by two procedural rules adopted by
the Senate a very long time ago, I dunno how long. First, a
Senator who has the floor may speak for as long as he/she
wishes. There is some provision for temporary interruption,
I'm pretty sure that the President or President Pro-Tempor
of the Senate may request that the Senator yield to another
speaker but a Senator who has the floor is under no obligation
to grant the request.

Secondly, the Senator who has the floor may designate the
next Senator who is to speak, e.g. by stating that he/she
yields to the Senior or Junior Senator from the State of Foo
(There is a rule in the Senate prohibiting Senators from
referring to their colleagues by name.)

No other business may come to the floor while a Senator
is speaking, thus a speaker can stop a motion (like a
bill) from coming to a vote for as long as he/she can
keep speaking. I think the late Strom Thurmond set the
record for one-man filibusters, somwhat in excess of
30 hours IIRC, in (unsuccessful) opposition to Civil
Rights legislation.

But a small number of Senators, by continuously speaking
and yielding only to each other, may hold up the Senate
indefinately.

Sometime during the 1960s the Senate adopted a new rule,
a rule that permitted the Senate to 'invoke cloture'
that is to set a time limit for debate or a deadline
for a vote so as to defeat filibusters. The standard
adopted for invoking cloture is 60%, whether 60% of
quorum or of the full Senate I do not know.

In effect, 40 Senators are enough to stop any measure
from passing the Senate even though only a simple
majority is required to pass most measures.

I gather from reading between the lines of the publicity
around the current issues that filibusters per se are
a thing of the past. Senators wishing to filibuster no
longer get up and speak for hours on end, they just make
their intent known and the opposition (actually, proponents
of the measure in question) accepts that. If 60 Senators
oppose the filibuster, they will vote to invoke cloture
and the measure will be passed. Otherwise it will be
tabled. It seems that today's Senators are too lazy to
do the hard work that is necessary for a real filibuster.

Both sides in the current debate make a lot of noise
about what is Constitutional or not, and both are
mostly full of crap. The Constitution allows the Senate
and the House to each make their own rules of procedure.
A new rule lowering the number of votes required to invoke
cloture, whether for any measure or specifically for
nominations to the judiciary would be just as Constitutional
as the older measure setting that number at 60%, or for
that matter, a measure setting it higher or eliminating
the cloture rule altogether.

One of the more obvious lies being told by Pat Robertson
a televangelist and con artist, about filibusters,
against judicial nominees is that the filibuster has
never been used to block the confirmation of a nominee
who has enjoyed the support of a majority of Senators.
Filibuster is ONLY used to block measures (whether
voting on judicial nominees, legislation or anything else)
that enjoy majority support. Opponents of a measure that
does NOT enjoy majority support are typically happy to see
it come the the floor for reasons that should be obvious.

Persons who promote misconceptions and outright lies about
filibuster or anything else in politics or other topic
or filed rely on the ignoranc eof their listener, reader,
or viewer. They hope that what they say will be uncritically
accepted by their audience typically relying on their
status as a self-declared authority figure.

So don't trust me either, check it out for yourself.

--

FF

On 1 May 2005 02:46:25 -0700, "Charlie Self"
wrote:

Frist is much scarier than DeLay. DeLay is jsut a typical ethics-free
zone, AKA a politician. Frist is eager to modify the Constitution and
hundreds of years of tradition to satisfy his power lust.


Scarier than that is the general tone of the policy that I would call
Bushido.



Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)