Filibuster or Bust

[Bonnie]

Filibuster or Bust
By David Holman
Published 3/17/2005 12:05:36 AM
WASHINGTON -- How desperate are Democratic senators these days? Desperate enough to place old boy Robert Byrd in the front row at a key gathering, and let him carry on as frantic one-man amen chorus in response to the event's speakers. Move over MoveOn.org, hosts of yesterday's rally against the Bush judicial nominations at the Washington Court Hotel in Northwest. None of you guys can shake a fist and shriek like the silver fox from West Virginia.

Many big guns were dragged out to blast from the podium: Minority Leader Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Byrd, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Chuck Schumer, and Hillary Clinton. Each in turn denounced potential challenges to their promised filibusters of federal judicial nominees. Buoyed by an enthusiastic crowd still sore about an "unjust war" and the Ohio presidential vote, the senators outlined their vision.

Reid insisted that reports of his desire to shut down the Senate over the judges "couldn't be... further from the truth." He was referring to his Tuesday press conference, where he announced that Democrats would block Senate business if judicial nominees are afforded an up-or-down vote, also known as the "constitutional" or "nuclear" option. Reid told the crowd he would rather act on health care, education, the deficit, and energy policy, but unfortunately he has to confront the president's "arrogance of power."

So he is, in other words, prepared to shut the Senate down. He seemed unconcerned that such a move would hurt the Democrats as it did the Republicans in the winter of 1996. He thinks he can peel off Republicans from the majority. As he told the MoveOn activists, "we cannot win this battle... on our own." He urged them to work on winning over "Republicans of good will."

After Reid, the senators stuck to a fairly basic script: denounce "ideologue" judges "out of the mainstream," profess a newfound respect for the Constitution and 200 years of history, and claim that obstructing duly-elected, majority-representing bodies is a principled defense of the minority.

A couple of the senators preemptively apologized for inconsistency. No, not Byrd, who tried filibustering the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and four times "nuked" filibusters himself. Barbara Boxer admitted that when she was young and foolish, a freshman senator in 1994, she "thought it was a good idea to get rid of the filibuster." She wasn't specific, but she may have had in mind her plea for an up-or-down vote on Clinton's surgeon general nominee, Henry Foster. But she apparently forget similar demands she made as late as 2000.

Dick Durbin must have understood the irony of encouraging obstruction before an organization formed to encourage the Senate to "move on" past impeachment. So he recast MoveOn's history, portraying its beginning as a response to "government focused on petty politics." And now, he said, with People for the American Way's Ralph Neas standing just offstage, monitoring his minions, MoveOn is making "sure the country doesn't sell out to special interest groups."

Even weaker was the Democrats' effort to paint their filibustering as a defense of tradition and history. True, it played well for the crowd and cameras yesterday. But once substance is taken into consideration the strategy fizzles. Bob Byrd can wave his copy of the Constitution and claim it's "under attack," but he can't cite where Article II's "advice and consent" requires a super-majority. "Opponents of the filibuster see no need to rely on Jefferson," among others, Byrd said, even though Thomas Jefferson was in Paris at the time.

more
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7901

 

[SmarterThanYou]

It's ridiculous to hear such an outcry about ONLY 95% of your judges being approved.

If the so-called 'nuclear' option is used both parties will regret it dearly. yes, that includes you republicans.

 

[5stringJeff]

It's ridiculous to hear such an outcry about ONLY 95% of your judges being approved.

If the so-called 'nuclear' option is used both parties will regret it dearly. yes, that includes you republicans.

Frankly, I think it will allow the Senate to be less obstructionist, for both parties. Of course, since the Dems won't control the Senate anytime soon, it works to the GOP's favor.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Frankly, I think it will allow the Senate to be less obstructionist, for both parties. Of course, since the Dems won't control the Senate anytime soon, it works to the GOP's favor.

obstructionist? should it have always been 51 votes rules?

of course, but how will the GOP react when the dems DO regain control(you know they eventually will.....that ole pendulum effect)?

heres something for thought though....

after 95% of bush's nominees have been approved there is such a HUGE political push for these 10 nominees that have been considered 'ultra conservative(not a term I would use, I like 'extremists') whats going to happen IF/WHEN these nominees are put on the bench? I have some strange feeling that we'll see a huge rift develop between economic classes because of it.

 

[Bonnie]

There, however, is no constitutional framework that says that senators should not have the right to unlimited debate. But, the filibuster which permits a small minority and even one Senator to stop a piece of legislation, was not intended by the framers at all. In fact, it has been argued by some that because the Constitution does lay down the times when a supermajority is needed, (e.g. 2/3 vote for convicting an impeached president and for signing treaties), therefore, only a majority should be needed to pass any legislation. This is further backed up by the Supreme Court Decision in United States v. Ballin, 1892. In this case, Justice David Brewer, speaking for the majority says, “the general rule of all parliamentary bodies is that when a majority is present, the act of the majority of the quorum is the act of the body. This has been the rule for all time, except so far as in any given case, the terms of the organic act under which the body is assembled have prescribed specific limitations. ”


http://www.juntosociety.com/government/filibuster.htm

Point is it's not constitutional for either side to be doing this. Having a straight up or down majority vote on nominees is what the framers intended.

 

[Bonnie]

Smarter Than You...these 10 nominees that have been considered 'ultra conservative(not a term I would use, I like 'extremists')

"considered extremeist" by whom and from your point of view what laws have they upheld that you find extreme?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

"considered extremeist" by whom and from your point of view what laws have they upheld that you find extreme?

I've stated my position on a few of these and why I feel these shouldn't even be nominated. I've provided what I thought were decent points from these nominees rulings and/or dissents to show why I felt that way. What I got were changes of topic, reversals of argument, and spin to redefine something to basically say its bad for democrat/liberal judges to be that way but perfect for republican/conservative judges to be that way. I'm frankly tired of wasting my time on putting up the same things and having them 'pooh poohed' away because most people can't get past the liberal/conservative argument. Feel free to look up old posts by me concerning them if you want to see the info.

 

[Bonnie]

I will do that, thanks.

 

[5stringJeff]

obstructionist? should it have always been 51 votes rules?

IMO, yes. Isn't that the whole concept of majority?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

IMO, yes. Isn't that the whole concept of majority?

concept? yes, 51 is a majority, however, in instances where something affects the entire nation for years to come a simple majority of 1 vote more should not even be considered. I also don't believe thats what the framers of this country wanted either. The so called 'super majority' was there to prevent what is actually being considered today. The power of a majority overruling the rights of a minority.

The only reason that the nuclear option is now an option is that its strictly become republican vs. democrat. I'll tell you right now that as an independent, i'm furious at both parties because of this. I'm even more frustrated because my rights at a fair and impartial judiciary are being circumvented by a political party squabble and those that are siding with either side.

 

[Bonnie]

concept? yes, 51 is a majority, however, in instances where something affects the entire nation for years to come a simple majority of 1 vote more should not even be considered. I also don't believe thats what the framers of this country wanted either. The so called 'super majority' was there to prevent what is actually being considered today. The power of a majority overruling the rights of a minority.

The only reason that the nuclear option is now an option is that its strictly become republican vs. democrat. I'll tell you right now that as an independent, i'm furious at both parties because of this. I'm even more frustrated because my rights at a fair and impartial judiciary are being circumvented by a political party squabble and those that are siding with either side.

As it stands now the Dems won't even allow a vote. Super majority means 60 votes right, or am I mistaken on that?

 

[5stringJeff]

concept? yes, 51 is a majority, however, in instances where something affects the entire nation for years to come a simple majority of 1 vote more should not even be considered. I also don't believe thats what the framers of this country wanted either. The so called 'super majority' was there to prevent what is actually being considered today. The power of a majority overruling the rights of a minority.

As to the issue of majority vs. supermajority, it is not written in the Constitution that there must be a supermajority in the Senate in order to pass bills. And since pretty much every bill passed through Congress affects us for years to come, then am I to assume that you want a supermajority for all bills?
As far as overrulling the rights of the minority, how are anyone's rights being overruled by the selection of judges (of any political bent) by a majority of Senators?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

As it stands now the Dems won't even allow a vote. Super majority means 60 votes right, or am I mistaken on that?

according to senate rules it takes 60 votes to move from debate, but only 51 for confirmation. someone tell me if thats correct or not.

 

[musicman]

I've stated my position on a few of these and why I feel these shouldn't even be nominated. I've provided what I thought were decent points from these nominees rulings and/or dissents to show why I felt that way. What I got were changes of topic, reversals of argument, and spin to redefine something to basically say its bad for democrat/liberal judges to be that way but perfect for republican/conservative judges to be that way.

Well, for my part, I merely argued - respectfully, I hope - that while you certainly proved that Justice Owen has her detractors, the assertion that she legislates from the bench is probably fairly subjective.

I'm frankly tired of wasting my time on putting up the same things and having them 'pooh poohed' away because most people can't get past the liberal/conservative argument.

I don't think we'd be wise to dismiss the liberal/conservative argument argument out of hand, do you? These appointments have, as you've pointed out, long-term consequences. Moreover, liberal judges have done our country demonstrable harm.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

As to the issue of majority vs. supermajority, it is not written in the Constitution that there must be a supermajority in the Senate in order to pass bills. And since pretty much every bill passed through Congress affects us for years to come, then am I to assume that you want a supermajority for all bills?
As far as overrulling the rights of the minority, how are anyone's rights being overruled by the selection of judges (of any political bent) by a majority of Senators?

This is not true. Legislation is passed and only affects us for as long as that particular set of politicians are in power. If the power balance changes, legislation can be re-written. These judicial slots are lifetime appointments and thats way different. In fact, this was one of the arguments used by republicans to prevent clinton nominees from being considered. The minority rights are being overruled because the majority is now wanting to stack a bench in their favor to provide them with rulings as to how they see things......for the lifetime of that judge. If the bench were currently being stacked with liberal judges instead of conservative judges, would you feel that your rights were being considered?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Well, for my part, I merely argued - respectfully, I hope - that while you certainly proved that Justice Owen has her detractors, the assertion that she legislates from the bench is probably fairly subjective.

Nobody was disrespectful to me. I hope thats not how it came across. In your estimation then, wouldn't anyones accusation of legislating from the bench be pure subjection?

I don't think we'd be wise to dismiss the liberal/conservative argument argument out of hand, do you? These appointments have, as you've pointed out, long-term consequences. Moreover, liberal judges have done our country demonstrable harm.

Not discounting your opinion, but is it wise then to ignore what could possibly be judicial activism from the opposite side or would we be better off coming to agreements on judges as a tradition in the senate has?

 

[musicman]

In your estimation then, wouldn't anyones accusation of legislating from the bench be pure subjection?

Not really - not when the practical effect of legislating is actually taking place. I consider Roe v. Wade, Affirmative Action, and a consistently flawed interpretation of the XIV Amendment which allows the federal judiciary to interfere in matters of religion, to be examples of - not only bad law, but of usurpation of the constitutional separation of powers - i.e., legislating from the bench. And all of these I place at liberalism's doorstep.

Not discounting your opinion, but is it wise then to ignore what could possibly be judicial activism from the opposite side or would we be better off coming to agreements on judges as a tradition in the senate has?

It might be a partisan pipe-dream on my part, but it seems to me that anyone who truly adheres to the principles of conservatism is interested in putting the brakes on judicial activism, and restoring the balance of powers. How that actually plays out remains to be seen, of course - but we can scarcely do worse than we've done in the recent past.

 

[5stringJeff]

If the bench were currently being stacked with liberal judges instead of conservative judges, would you feel that your rights were being considered?

That's been going on for the last 30-40 years... in fact, the reason the Democrats are so upset over all this is that the GOP is wanting to appoint judges who do not share the Dem's partisan opinions, as the judges of the last few decades have.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

That's been going on for the last 30-40 years... in fact, the reason the Democrats are so upset over all this is that the GOP is wanting to appoint judges who do not share the Dem's partisan opinions, as the judges of the last few decades have.

wait. in the last 4 years over 200 judges were confirmed. Thats more than the 8 years of clinton and the 4 years of Bush 41 combined. So in the last 16 years the courts have been stacked in favor of conservatives.

 

[Annie]

wait. in the last 4 years over 200 judges were confirmed. Thats more than the 8 years of clinton and the 4 years of Bush 41 combined. So in the last 16 years the courts have been stacked in favor of conservatives.

Not exactly true. Here's some data:

http://dalythoughts.com/index.php?p=2983