On Filibusters

[Annie]

I think they have a place, though not in judicial appointments. From the following, it's easy enough to see how they've been abused. There are links, that will cause sadness for what America was, unless you are WJ, then you can bemoan what US used to mean:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004689.php

You Mean The Filibuster Isn't The Center Of The Republic?

The Senate will debate whether to apologize for its role in blocking federal intervention in the quaint Southern tradition of lynching, in part by using the filibuster to block legislation making such vigilante murders a federal civil-rights offense. The Washington Post digs into its archives to reprint part of an 1894 report of the lynching of Stephen Williams, accused of "manhandling" a white woman -- the usual but hardly the only excuse for such murders -- and then notes that the Senate had three explicit opportunities to stop the practice:

At the time, there was no federal law against lynching, and most states refused to prosecute white men for killing black people. The U.S. House of Representatives, responding to pleas from presidents and civil rights groups, three times agreed to make the crime a federal offense. Each time, though, the measure died in the Senate at the hands of powerful southern lawmakers using the filibuster.

The Senate is set to correct that wrong Monday, when its members will vote on a resolution to apologize for the failure to enact an anti-lynching law first proposed 105 years ago. ...

Mob killings were often carnival-like events, attended by men, women and children who were not afraid of facing legal consequences, said Lawrence Guyot, 66, a Washington educator and civil rights activist.

Refreshments were sold. Trains made special trips to lynching sites. Schools and businesses closed to give people a chance to attend. Newspapers ran ads announcing locations and times. Corpses were displayed for days. Victims' ears, fingers and toes were taken as souvenirs, as well as parts of the ropes that hanged them.

"Lynching was the socially acceptable way to demonstrate control," Guyot said. "It sent a message that not only did this happen to this person, but if you as a black person thought about stepping outside of our racial code, it can happen to you. We want it to be public. We want everybody to see it. We want the body to stay up there as long as possible and all the gory details to be known."

Much of America, though, was revolted by the practice.

Some white writers, notably Mark Twain, railed against it. Two leading civil rights groups, the NAACP and B'nai B'rith's Anti-Defamation League, sprang up in part to counter lynching. Black journalist Ida B. Wells-Barnett devoted her career to ending lynching. Seven presidents, starting with Benjamin Harrison in 1891, argued for making it a federal offense.

None of this swayed the Senate, where southern lawmakers insisted that a federal law would intrude on states' rights. One debate tied up the Senate for a total of six weeks in 1937 and 1938, and supporters were never able to break the filibuster.
​

That's what made the recent debate over the use of the filibuster such a tragic joke. Having Senator Robert Byrd, a former KKK recruiter, get up in the well of the Senate and lecture the GOP and the nation that ending the filibuster presented a danger to the Republic amounted to historical revisionism of the worst kind. While Harry Reid talked about Mr. Smith Goes To Washington (one of Frank Capra's worst and most idiotically idealistic films), the real, non-Hollywood Senate used the filibuster to ensure and to tacitly endorse the racial control that lynching provided. It isn't too far of a stretch to call it Southern terrorism.

Thanks to racists like Byrd, that tradition of filibustering continues today. In fact, Byrd (who isn't even mentioned in this article) filibustered the original Civil Rights Act in 1964, eating up 14 hours of debate before his own caucus finally put an end to his embarrassing display. It is a practice that allows the entire democratic process of the United States to be held hostage by a minority, even if it now requires a larger minority than before the rule changes which eliminated the need for continuous speechmaking.

Forget Capra films and Jimmy Stewart railing from a Hollywood set about corruption. This is the true legacy and historical purpose of the filibuster. Shame on those Senators who lined up next to Robert Byrd and proclaimed that protecting this rule from modification amounted to "saving the Republic". That ghoulish statement offended the ghosts of the people who met death at the hands of mobs while the Senate found itself held hostage to racist sympathizers who used that procedure to stop a nation from putting an end to that outrageous and disgusting practice.

The Senate has the right to set its own rules, including the filibuster for its internal processes, including legislation. That doesn't make the practice glorious or righteous. If the Senate wanted to truly make amends for its transgressions, it would eliminate the procedure that kept the nooses in play for decades without fear of prosecution.

ADDENDUM and BUMP: I'm putting this on top for the morning. The more I think about this story, the more incensed I become. The Gang of Fourteen stood in front of the American people and proclaimed that rescuing the filibuster amount to "saving the Republic", and the other thirteen stood there and endorsed that point of view from Robert Byrd, of all people.

What I would like to know is what lives the Senate saved through the filibuster? What overarching principle has the filibuster ever protected that would counter the cost of the innumerable victims of lynching that the filibuster allowed? The only principle the filibuster has ever protected, as far as I see, is naked partisanship and in the case of lynching, racial oppression and terror. And yet, these same modern-day Senators stood with a man who used the filibuster to keep blacks from voting and justified its use against confirming judges to the appellate court. That includes one nominee, Janice Rogers Brown, whose family suffered under the threat and terror of lynching because of the same filibuster the Democrats used to keep her from her bench assignment. That isn't ironic; it's morally depraved.

The despicable nature of that ploy has yet to be fully argued. Perhaps this latest effort to give the proper historical perspective to the filibuster will awaken the American people to its true use in our history to extend terror and oppression, and finally force the Senate to disavow the antidemocratic procedure that has been stained with the blood of hundreds, if not thousands, of victims that the Senate could have saved.

UPDATE: Two bloggers believe that I go too far. Decision '08 lets me off the hook easy; the Commissar doesn't. Read both; you decide.
Posted by Captain Ed at 10:54 AM