Filibuster Busters
 

Anyone want to talk about what's going on in the Senate right now?

Opinions on the filibuster?

Should it stay or should it go now? (Say it to the tune of the Clash song...) :)

I believe it is a vital part of the senate process, a way to prevent the majority from running over the minority when the minority feels the majority may be completely wrong..... its one of the checks of the legislative and political process and a way to prevent a possibly corrupt majority(not meant to imply the current administration or anyone in power currently is corrupt) from railroading bad laws and bad decisions thru the process. And that is a good thing that should not be removed from the system.

"...if it goes there will be trouble, if it stays there will be double..."

sorry, got lost in the moment.

As a centrist, I'm all for the filibuster.

Come on and let me know. Should I stay or should I go?

I think it's a political move. If the Dems were the majority, the GOP would want it kept in place. I have a feeling that if the filibuster is voted away now, a GOP minority will want to bring it back in the future.

I love The Clash.

and odds are teh GOP would get little more then a big FU from the Dems

The majority always forgets they're only one election away from being the minority. Shortsighted fools.


GC, I love The Clash, too. My user title is from Rock The Casbah.




If I go there will be trouble...

Isn't fillibuster a funny word?



If I stay it will be double.

The filibuster is not going away. What is going away is the use of the practice to prevent up or down votes on nominations, not legislation. This is the first time that a filibuster has been used to prevent a nomination from coming to an up or down vote.

To quote a Federalist Paper, written by Thomas Jefferson -
"It will be the office of the President to nominate, and, with the advice
and consent of the Senate, to appoint. There will, of course, be no
exertion of choice on the part of the Senate. They may defeat one choice of
the Executive, and oblige him to make another; but they cannot themselves
choose, they can only ratify or reject the choice of the President."

It seems pretty clear that the intention of advise and consent is to ratify or reject. They are not to have a choice in whom is brought up for nomination. By refusing to bring up for a vote, they are in effect, making a choice in whom is brought up for confirmation - or rather who is not brought up for confirmation.

I am amused by all the "sanctity of the senate" crap being spewed forth. Harry Reid referred to this as "illegal". Huh? First of all, never has a filibuster been used to prevent confirmation votes, but the Constitution says it is up to the Senate to make their own rules. The dems have changed them in the past (in fact, I vaguely remember in the 70s there was a 67 vote majority required to break any filibuster. They reduced it to 60.

It's funny that the republicans never seem to want to mention the other 200 judical appointments by Bush that did get through. They never want to mention the 30 other vacancies in the courts that Bush has had no interest in filling. They surely don't mention the 70 judges that they blocked from an up and down vote during the Clinton administration. And they don't like talking about the fact that Frist voted in favor of using a filibuster against Judge Richard Paez, then tried to lie about it later. (It was nice to see him squirm on that question.)

If you look though, at the level of court we're talking, being the highest appellate courts, Carter got 100% through, Reagan 96, Bush Sr. 95, and Clinton 86%. GW Bush has gotten 53% of the higher court nominees through. A clear difference.

Not sure where you are getting your numbers. According to the NY Times:

Appellate Court

Carter - 93%
Reagan - 89%
Bush 1 - 76%
Clinton - 59%
Bush 2 - 53%

District Court

Carter - 93%
Reagan - 92%
Bush 1 - 77%
Clinton - 81%
Bush 2 - 87%

Apparently Rick Santorum compared Democrats to Hitler today. I'm looking for the official transcript. Nice.

Does Godwin's Law apply to the Senate?

This guy really needs to go. :rolleyes:

well, if you think about it, a filibuster of a judicial nominee is obviously a distaste for that certain nominee that is strong enough to use such measures in an attempt to maintain a check on the power of one party over another, something that was argued for extensively during the constitutional convention. It seems and feels obvious to me that the minority should have the opportunity to voice and innact this vote of no-confidence in the choice of the executive. It's not like a filibuster is not breakable, its just in this case it is because the nominations are so distastful in the minds and hearts of a group of people that believe giving consent to these persons with the ideals they hold are bad for america. just my $1.50.

I know, I am missing a few commas and possibly some other punctuation above, just don't feel like putting them in.

MBC - I have read so many different numbers on the subject I don't know which to site. I went to look again for the numbers I had listed previously and I have found many differing statistics. All show Bush, overall, at the lowest judicial confirmation rate of any modern President. I would also add that the length of time it is taking to get his nominations confirmed is almost twice as long as Clintons took - and Clintons took too long as well.

Some interesting quotes I found while looking around -

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) Previously Said He Would Fight Any Filibuster. "I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate should do its duty." (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 6/18/98, p. S6521)

In 1998, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Said: "We Owe It To Americans Across The Country To Give These Nominees A Vote. If Our Republican Colleagues Don't Like Them, Vote Against Them. But Give Them A Vote." (Sen. Edward Kennedy, Congressional Record, 2/3/98, p. S295)

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) Said Government Does Not Fulfill Its "Constitutional Mandate" When Judicial Nominees Do Not Receive A Vote. "The basic issue of holding up judgeships is the issue before us, not the qualifications of judges, which we can always debate. The problem is it takes so long for us to debate those qualifications. It is an example of Government not fulfilling its constitutional mandate because the President nominates, and we are charged with voting on the nominees." (Sen. Charles Schumer, Congressional Record, 3/7/00, p. S1211)

Interesting how things change. I have also read about Paez and how his was held up during the Clinton administration - equally wrong, IMO. The Constitution is clear, and even these three senators saw that prior to bush being elected. Schumer stated that not voting was failing to fulfill their constitutional mandate. I wonder if he would say the same thing now. I wonder if Leahy feels he isn't performing his duty now. I wonder if Kennedy feels it is owed to the American people to give these nominees a vote.

I wish.:rolleyes:

I heard Robert Bork on some radio show a while back, and he said it would be a huge tactical mistake for Repubs to pull the nuclear option- it would backfire mightily on them.

I've always thought of a filibuster as a political version of a temper tantrum.

One thing that's had me confused is that it sure looks like they're getting a lot done on the Senate floor during these filibusters, and we haven't been hearing about what obscure book they're reading from to keep the filibuster going, and how long Senator X spoke, etc.

Oh yea, that's right, they aren't REALLY filibustering as I was taught (in the dark ages) a filibuster was supposed to be. If you're going to filibuster, DO IT - but don't change the rules so it's not so hard on you to do!

Hear, Hear!!!

The filibuster was supposed to be hard to do. That way it would only be done when the strenght of the convictions of the minority was so strong that they were willing to go thru with it.

That is because, at least to my understanding, that there has been no filibuster yet. There has only been a threat of one, up to this point. Again though, I could be wrong. Last I had read, there was a compromise in the works.

Here is an interesting article that explains the changes in the filibuster over the course of time.

To those trying to follow this story...

Keep in mind the New York Times is counting Bush's nominees twice in arriving at their figures, since Bush re-nominated his failed nominees in another session.

The authors of the New York Times study explain their method thusly...

Their full explanation can be found here

Gathering their statistics in this manner insures that Mr. Bush's record with Congress looks worse than it actually is.

Carry on

This is true. In all fairness it is the Republicans that are letting the Dems do this. Maybe instead of getting rid of the fillibuster for judicial nominees they should just make the dems actually and for true really fillibuster.

Be careful what you wish for, SJ. They might get up there and read Hillary's "It Takes a Village" book, or Bill's autobiography.:evil:

Rick Santorum on 5/19/05:

Now, Rick Santorum on 3/5/05:

How soon we forget...

NOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!


(I just saw Ep III :D )

Oh....I agree. Senator Byrd is frequently excused for his rhetoric and offensive comments. Honestly, I wasn't even aware that Byrd had made some sort of Nazi comparison. I was aware that he used the "N" word more than once being interviewed, but that was simply because he was tired, not because he was a member of the KKK or radically opposed the any civil rights legislation. Lott gets demoted for simply praising someone with a less than acceptable past, but Byrd - no, doesn't matter.

Yes....we forget all too easily.

Shudder.

Well, this is what Byrd actually said that prompted the response from Santorum.

I'm not so sure that Byrd was that far off the mark.

Santorum retracted his statement:

quote:
U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum said he didn't mean to compare Democrats to Adolf Hitler while defending the GOP's fight to ban judicial filibusters in Washington.

http://www.nbc6.net/news/4512783/detail.html

So what you are then saying is that comparisons to Hitler are OK if the politics behind the statement agree with your politics? If you see a connection and a similarity, it's OK then? I would suppose there are those who would suggest that Frist isn't that far off.

I'm surprised at you, MBC.

I like this gem from GOP Senator Cornyn who sounds like he's advocating violence against judges...

SENATOR JOHN CORNYN: "I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been on the news and I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in - engage in violence." [Senate Floor, 4/4/05]

:rolleyes: Violent criminals are comitting violent crimes against judges who make decissions that affect their lives? Clearly it must be because of the judges' political views.

We can play the stupid politicians quote game all day - one of my personal favoites was when Sheila Jackson Lee asked if the Mars Observer could point the camera to the location where "the astronauts planted the American flag."

Fail to see the point when we are discussing the use of the filibuster, but that's OK.

Well, for starters, Frist's comparison makes no sense to me. Perhaps you can explain it. So far, I haven't seen anyone decipher it.

Second, I'm no fan of Senator Byrd and not enamored with anyone that chooses to use the Nazis to bolster their argument. I think it is hyperbole that is best not brought up. All I am saying is that it is not hard to see some similarities of the scenario Byrd describes and what is going on, IMO. And I also believe it is important to note that he was quoting a historian, these weren't his ideas being put forth. Regardless, at least his statement has a point to it, whether you agree with it or not. For the life of me, I have no idea what Frist's point was other than to be inflammatory.

In fairness, Sheila Jackson Lees comment, while stupid, wasn't political. So I'll go with something political and scary.

"All you need to do is have a member go upstairs and look at his confidential report from the FBI, and I think we would all agree that there is a problem there." Se. Harry Reid, D NV

It is against senate rules - and maybe even illegal, but I am not sure - for anyone not on the judiciary committee to examine an FBI file of a nominee. Discussing it an FBI file is grounds for expulsion from the Senate. An FBI file contains everything ever said about you in an official capacity with no attempt at proof - it's just there.

I really want a senator free to look through the FBI files of whomever he wishes and discussing it publically.

It is a mystery, no doubt. But I have a theory.

He is comparing Hitler's arrogance to the arrogance of the democratic senators. Hitler believed the Germans were superior, that his way was the superior way, that what he thought were the superior thoughts. So any attempt to liberate France and fight back was an affront to him, as he was superior.

I think what Frist is saying is that the dems are the same way. Their way is best. How dare the republicans challange them or change the rules. The dems don't want a vote - who are the republicans to say we should have one?

That's about the best I can make of it.

You always do. That's one of the reasons I'm so fond of you and your posts. Seriously.


Santorum

All those white boy senators in suits look the same to me. :)

Plausable, I suppose, but a tad hypocritical. These rules didn't seem so bad to the Republicans when they were the minority. Also, the dems most likely at the time had the same power to change the rules and yet, they didn't. And for that reason, it isn't the democrats that seem arrogant to me at all.

Rather, it is the the republican party who feels that they should be able to appoint the most ultra right-wing people that they can find, people whose records are downright scary, without any opposition at all from the democratic party. They are actually offended that people would even question them. Surely they know what is best for this country and everyone should just trust them. Now that, my friend, is arrogance.

We can discuss all night the arrogance of politicians. They all are. I suppose it comes down to whose arrogance is more in line with what you hope to see happens.

Honestly, I'm not sure either party is in line with what I hope see happens. There are pros and cons to both sides and if you think I'm a democrat, you are mistaken. I know I come off that way by siding with them but then again, this isn't the same republican party from days past. I saw a lot more fiscal responsibility when the democrats were in power. I also didn't see them trying to shove religious beliefs down everyones throats. I see the pubs discarding states rights, increasing the size of government, and leading us to a place where we invade countries, hold detainees indefinately, and try to change the constitution to exclude a group of people. As long as the republicans continue down that path, I have no choice but to speak out against them. Still doesn't mean I think the dems are the answer to everything.

This country really needs a viable third party, if you ask me.

Sorry, Scaeagles. I'm always a little cranky in the A.M.:evil:

I hate santorum. Gets all over the sheets.

Oh, you are certainly correct that this is not the republican party of the past. I am not happy with the current direction the party is heading, and it is primarily because of spending. This is not the party of Reagan any longer, and that is distressing to me.

Fiscal responsibility.....while I think the President has a lot to do with this, and I think Bush has not led in this fashion as he should, fiscal responsibility was not something that I credit to Clinton, but I actually credit it to Newt Gingrich. When the republicans took the house in 1994, that was when it started. All spending and budget bills begin in the house. Sadly, we do not have any budget hawks in the house in ositions of leadership, and bush has not been willing to push in that direction.

I still don't understand the "shove religious beliefs down everyones throats" thing. If you are referring to ballot initiatives on gay marriage, those pass with typically 70%, so it isn't republicans alone. Clinton signed the "defense of marriage act".

States rights - somewhat. Interestingly, the push to abolish certain federal agencies - such as the department of education - and moving those responsibilities to the states is opposed by dems. I think this goes both ways.

The invade countries - we know where I stand on that. It was completely legal due to the violation of the gulf war I cease fire.

I realize that you don't think the dems are the answer to everything, and I don't think the reps are, either. Unfortunately, a third party is just not going to happen.

It's not just about gay marriage though. It's also the congress feeling they were above the law with Terry Shaivo. It's because of the abstinance-only approach. It's because of the faith-based initiatives. It's because of the attempts to limit stem-cell research. Religion is the reason for each of these policies, regardless of whether logic or law, or in the case of marriage, decency, gets in the way.

Interesting that this wasn't the justification given. Also interesting that the reasons given fell apart like a house of cards.

And putting aside the word "legal" for a moment, do you think it was the right thing to do? Do you think that the loss of 1600 American soldiers (and rising) and the tens of thousands of innocent civilian deaths were worth the capture of a dictator? Do you think it was worth the costs? I would sincerely like to hear your justifications, not for it being legal but for it being the right thing to do. Because, I am having a real hard time correlating this war with a "culture of life" that Bush says is so important to him.

Well, not for a long time at least. I never said that it would happen, only that it needs to happen.

I do.

While the spin has been to put the blame on the intelligence community of the USA, it is fact that the intelligence agencies of Egypt, Russia, and England (and others, I believe) all told us the same thing. It is a fact that Saddam had used them in the past. It is a fact that he had offered safe harbor to Osama. It is a fact that he had repeatedly violated cease fire agreements on unfettered inpections.

In the post 9/11 world, when you have someone who has used WMD, refuses to abide by a cease fire agreement, is making overtures to terrorists who attacked us, and many intelligence agencies confirmed what our intelligence agencies said with regard to WMD, it was the right thing to do.

I report my arguments of old not in the interest of rehashing debate on the point, but solely because I was asked. I realize many disagree. My opinion is based on the facts that I have listed.

Loss of our soldiers is a sad thing. Loss of innocent civilians is a sad thing. I again point out that only 20% or so of the population of our original 13 colonies wanted independence from England, but it was the right thing to do. Many died. Soldiers and innocent civilians. Doing what is right often has a high price associateds with it.

Edited to add: You point out that "this wasn't the reason given" as justification for the invasion. In fact, the violations of the cease fire were at the forefront. We continued to give Saddam opportunity after opportunity to abide by the agreement and give complete and unfettered access to inspect wherever we wanted without warning, as was stipulated in the cease fire. He would not. This is what 17 (or so) UN resolutions dealt with. Because of those violations, we could not verify or disprove what the intellegence reports of so many countries told us.

Fair enough, and I appreciate your answer. I don't agree with it but I do like hearing your opinion on it. I don't think we need to debate it further in this thread, as it was already enough of a hijack on my part.

My hope at this point is that the discontent among many republicans is growing to the point that they will eventually make their voice heard a bit louder. The war is becoming less popular, so is the administration and its policies. Maybe this will ultimately lead to less extremism and division. Until then, fights that occur in the senate like the current filibuster argument are just going to get worse as neither side wants to concede anything. I know you aren't a fan of moderation but I think a little cooperation by both sides (and in my humble opinion, more so on the other side) is sorely needed.

To quote the brilliant Lady Thatcher -

"Consensus is the absence of leadership."

I'm in favor of some good ol' fashioned filly bustin'

Bronc bustin' too!

A deal in the works?

Heh, "extraordinary circumstances". See you at the Rehnquist retirement party, Mr. Filibuster.