A slightly different take on the Filibuster of Judges

[ACPlayer]

It seems to me that in addition to reducing the braking effect that the minority can have on a run-away majority this so-called Nuclear Option seems to have the effect of continuing a slow but steady erosion of the balance of power between the exective and the legislative branches.

The executive is pushing the legistlature to change its rules so that the executive can achieve an objective it otherwise would not be able to. The legislature is complying.

In the war in Iraq resolution, one sees the same thing. The legislature basically abandoned its role and handed the power to make war to the Executive branch.

Why is the Legislature so willing to hand over more power to the Executive?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that in addition to reducing the braking effect that the minority can have on a run-away majority this so-called Nuclear Option seems to have the effect of continuing a slow but steady erosion of the balance of power between the exective and the legislative branches.

The executive is pushing the legistlature to change its rules so that the executive can achieve an objective it otherwise would not be able to. The legislature is complying.

Why is the Legislature so willing to hand over more power to the Executive?

[/ QUOTE ]


Because in this case the legislature has far overstepped their bounds. The Senate Democrats blatant obstructionism is highly irregular at best.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is the Legislature so willing to hand over more power to the Executive?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the current majority in Congress shares the same (or similar) policy goals as the executive. One man's 'handing over of power' is another man's 'teamwork'.

[[censored]]

I don't see what is different about this opinion?

[yaomama]

[ACPlayer]

I am actually interested in why the Legislature (of both parties) does not ask itself the question why should it change the rules to suit the demands of the executive.

I suspect that if the Prez was not pushing for this rule change it would not happen or even be an issue.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
I am actually interested in why the Legislature (of both parties) does not ask itself the question why should it change the rules to suit the demands of the executive.



[/ QUOTE ]

Well the "official" answer is that never in the history of the senate the minority filibustered judges who would be approved given the opportunity of the a vote. They feel that it is the legislature who is overstepping its bounds.

It should be obvious why a republican senate would go along with this.

Let's get real though this is has nothing to do with seperation of powers and everything to do with polictical idealologies. Do you really think if the roles were reversed each party would act as their opposing party is now?

[vulturesrow]

Name one Clinton nomination that got filibustered.

[[censored]]

Are you saying republicans stopped a vote from taking place, or that they the nominees did recieve a majority of the votes?

[yaomama]

[vulturesrow]

Wrong

[yaomama]

[vulturesrow]

He was not filibustered. Get your terminology straight.

[ACPlayer]

It does not have to get to a filibuster.

There are a couple of different points here. In Clinton's day the obstruction was in committee controlled by the Republicans.


Clinton's nominations (http://democrats.senate.gov/~dpc/pubs/107-2-285.html)

Secondly, the threat of a filibuster can prevent certain nominations from ever being offered.

Filibuster's act as a check on the majority. Not necessarily a bad thing, as the Gun Lobby is very aware of.

[ACPlayer]

Yes, but these guys were never allowed to have their nominations voted on by the full senate in an up and down vote.

Two different technical senate rules same end result.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
He was not filibustered. Get your terminology straight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop with the BS semantics. The Republicans still obstructed the confirmation processes.

The Democrats have been very fair to Bush's nominees. They are only blocking the extreme right-wingers like Janice Rogers Brown.

[adios]

The Republicans had a majority in the Senate during the Clinton administration from 1994 until the end. Therefore the Republicans have a majority in the Judiciary committee. When Clinton appointees didn't make it out of committee it's due to the fact the voting public elected a majority of Republicans in the Senate. During the Clinton administration, Senate rules where such that if a nominee didn't receive a recommendation by the majority of members on the appropriate committee, that nominee didn't get an up or down vote. I believe it was 2001 the Senate rules where changed slightly such that if there's a tie in a committee vote, it can proceed to the floor for an up or down vote. Also the committee chairman has a lot of power and the committee chairman come from the majority party in the Senate, a majority determined by the vote of the people. To illustrate, if a majority of the Foreign Relations committee (I think that's the right committee) votes NAY on Bolton, he won't get a vote on the Senate floor. Confirmation of Judicial appointments in in the realm of the Senate.

The fillibuster is designed to allow the minority party in the Senate to force comprimises more or less. The tradition in the Senate until Bush's tenure was that the fillibuster was not used for Judicial nominations. The Democrats broke that tradition during Bush's first term in office by employing the fillibuster for the first time in the nations history to block Judicial nominstions. The practice of defeating the Presidents Judicial nominee in committee is a long established precedent practiced by both partys. To equate the fillibuster with defeating the nominee in committee is sheer idiocy. One involves the minority party seeking to use a tool at it's disposal to force a comprimise more or less while the other is excercising it's rights as the majority party. One can argue that the fillibuster is appropriate for Judical nominees if one wants and that's worthy of debate. The Senate has ammended it's rules on fillibusters in the past and methinks another change is coming soon /images/graemlins/smile.gif. I know you know all this but I wanted to respond to the other posts at the same time.

[ACPlayer]

To equate the fillibuster with defeating the nominee in committee is sheer idiocy.

One rationale offered for the Nuclear Option is that Bush's nominations are entitled to an up or down vote in the Senate.

The underlying trend of Congress's of the same party simply going along with the Presidential requests is worrisome. Republican Congress' are typically more obsequious to Presidential Requests. Democrats are more willing to squable with each other.

[MMMMMM]

^

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
The Senate has ammended it's rules on fillibusters in the past and methinks another change is coming soon /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[/ QUOTE ]

Point of procedure, please. Why couldn't the Dems filibuster the changes to the filibuster rule under the current filibuster rule? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Point of procedure, please. Why couldn't the Dems filibuster the changes to the filibuster rule under the current filibuster rule?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be surprised if anyone can say with certainty whether or not Democrats can filibuster changes to the filibuster, but it's a good question nonetheless, so I'll take a crack:

I believe that, because changes to the Senate Rules isn't legislatiion/a nomination, there's no debate on the floor. And if there's no debate on the floor, there's no chance to filibuster.

Literally, one Senator has to come to the floor and call a point of order - questioning the constitutionality of the filibuster. Points of order, and appeals of the chair's resolution of them, are not debatable as a matter of Senate procedure under Clause 1 of Senate Rule XX. (http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule20.htm) There would be no debate and an up and down vote on the point of order would be taken immediately.

However, it's also been noted that Clause 4 of Senate Rule XIX (http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule19.htm) does leave the option for Senators to appeal points of order, and have that appeal debate on the Senate floor - thus opening the floor up to debate (and filibusters); in other words, Democrats could continue to filibuster a change in the Senate Rules regarding cloture of debates, if Clause 4 of Senate Rule XIX is read literally.

I think this is why it's referred to the 'nuclear option' in some circles. It won't be pretty and there's not much precedent here.

[CHiPS]

I agree with your comment about the Iraq War. The Constitution says that the Congress declares war. It does not say that the Congress should give the President the authority to declare war and transfer the decision to him. This prevents the Executive branch from taking the country to War. And it also prevents weaseling by Senators who say - I voted for the Resolution authorizing the President to use force but I didn't agree with the President's decision to use force.

In the case of the Fillibuster, yes the Senate needs to make its own rules. But since the President is making these Judicial nominations, he has the right I think to ASK the senate to change that rule. After all it is questionable whether or not it is constitutional to have a fillibuster at all.

[ACPlayer]

After all it is questionable whether or not it is constitutional to have a fillibuster at all.

Why is the filibuster potentially unconstitutional? Is this only judicial filibuster's or all filibusters? Seems like filibusters are actually a good thing in general.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is the filibuster potentially unconstitutional? Is this only judicial filibuster's or all filibusters? Seems like filibusters are actually a good thing in general.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, just because something is 'good' or creates desirable outcomes does not make it constitutional.

Second, in regards to your question about why the filibuster might be construed as unconstitutional, I want to first say that I think there is clear constitutional authority for the filibuster. The clear authorization for the filibuster derives from the Senate’s express constitutional power under Article I, Section V (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html) of the Constitution to create rules for its own proceedings.

But others argue that filibusters violate the Constitution for the following reasons:
- The Framers did not include it among the supermajority voting requirements they had expressly listed in the Constitution
- it violates majority rule in the Senate
- it impedes a president’s nominating authority
- a supermajority voting requirement to end debate on amending the cloture rule is an impermissible entrenchment that allows one Senate to bind the hands of a future one

Like I said, I personally read Article I, Section V of the constitution and consider the matter settled; but obviously others disagree, and perhaps legitimately.

[ACPlayer]

THanks for the info.

From what you have written I suspect, from a lay POV, that it is more likely constitutional. Also if there was any significant chance it was not someone would have taken it to court for judicial review.

Can Senate rules be reviewed by the courts for constitutional interpretation?

[CHiPS]

From a personal standpoint, I work in the corporate world. One thing I am vigilant about is avoiding time wasting meetings. There is no way I could stand it to sit and listen to Robert Byrd talk about his dog Billy or the History of the Roman Empire or read a book, just to avoid having a legitimate discussion or a vote. If he were doing that crap and I was there, I'd probably be logged in playing on Party Poker (but not betting with any campaign contributions of course).

[wmspringer]

There's also the fact that the senate was designed to protect the rights of the minority (by giving the small states an equal voice with the large states) and the fillibuster is completely within a spirit of that.

[trippin bily]

[ QUOTE ]
I am actually interested in why the Legislature (of both parties) does not ask itself the question why should it change the rules to suit the demands of the executive.

AC your argument is flawed in that they are not changing the rules but changing the rules BACK to what the constitution states.
There are 7 places the constitution that call for the use of a filabuster. Voting on judges is not one of them.
The dems changed the rule.Not all that long ago.
They like to call it the " nuclear " option because they can't be honest. I think the american people CLEARLY voted for the repubs ideas. Elected as a majority in all 3 branches of government and in a majority of governors the repubs are the choice of the people. The people have spoken. Whay should the LOSERS get to dictate the rules?
Even the ever contoversial Clarence Thomas got an up or down vote.
Can you honestly say that any of the judges the dems are holding up are really that far out there?
Can anyone even name ... off the top of your head... the name of one of these o so divisive judges or what outragious standpoint they have? I doubt it.

[ACPlayer]

I think you are missing the point I am trying to make.

It seems to me (and this is an opinion) that the Republican's in Congress are doing this, not so much because of constitutional issues (if any) -- they are using that argument, but becuase they want to see a Republican Prez's nominations confirmed by any means necessary. If they are doing this for this reason, they are in essence modifying the rules of the senate to benefit the executive branch.

The senators say, the nominations are entitled to an up or down vote in the full senate. I dont think this true, the nominations are subject to "advise and consent". This consent can be withheld, for reasons ranging from a single senator putting a hold on it in committe, a committe vote, cloture, or an up and down vote.

It would be dangerous if the Senators are prepared to give up power to the executive, including changing senate rules to serve the president. My OP was more about separation of powers than the filibuster itself.

For the record, I think the filibuster is a good idea as one of many checks and balances.

[trippin bily]

I got your point but can you or anyone else tell me what the " far right views of theses judges are " we have no problem running bolton through the public process. If the judges are so radical lets put emon tv and see and hear for ourselves.
The power grab here comes from the dems. None of these judges are radicals.

[OtisTheMarsupial]

[ QUOTE ]
Because the current majority in Congress shares the same (or similar) policy goals as the executive.

[/ QUOTE ]

yup
and thosee goals include [censoring] civil rights.

[ACPlayer]

I got your point

Do you agree? Is this a cause for concern? Are the republican senators putting their powers at risk for an idealogical or a party concern? Should a Senator's concern be for the constitutional importance of the Senate's independence from the executive rather than to the Party that they are elected to?

On this discussion, the views of the judges is irrelevant and a distraction. Perhaps you can start another thread.

[lehighguy]

I'll tackle this in two parts:
1) The filibuster should not be eliminated. It should also not be used as much as it is. It was meant to counter extreme measures. If congress tries to pass a law resegragating schools us the filibuster. But this judge thing is rediculous. Dems need to realize that if they don't start winning elections they won't even have 40 senators. Relying on the filibuster is ultimately detrimental, like cheating on a test to get desired results.

As for: "Why is the Legislature so willing to hand over more power to the Executive?"
The legislature is incompetent. It's incompetent because the way our democracy functions is broken. If you want an idea of how it happened I recommend "The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad". There are a number of changes over the last 50 years that have crippled our political system. Some are related to the actual rules by which we elect people, some is related to the changing nature of our economy and culture.

[lehighguy]

The topic isn't irrelevent because the Dems shouldn't be using the filibuster here. They are the ones endangering it by using it in an inappropriate situation.

If you give a kid a baseball bat so he can play baseball, and instead he runs around hitting other kids over the head with it, you have to take away the bat.

Now I don't know anything about these judges. I've been hoping I might find something in the paper on thier biographies or believes but I haven't. But if the over 50 senators support them I can't imagine how far of center they can be.

[ACPlayer]

I really dont see a problem if the dems have blocked 10 of about 250 nominees that have been sent up by the White House. If my numbers are right that is about 4 percent.

It appears that the Reps in Senate believe their job is to push through the nominees, pretty much at all costs and this is because the nominees are being sent by a republican WH.

I would suggest that if 100 percent of the WH nominees were accepted by the senate then the senate is not doing its advice and consent job but is instead doing a rubber stamping job -- now that would really be bad for the country.

[trippin bily]

You actually have to have a hearing to advise and consent. Simply refusing to get in the game is not advise and consent.
There is no advise ... there is only block... for purely politacal reasons.
i understand your point i just think you have the power grab part backwards.
It is the SENATES job to advise and consent.
Not just the part of the senate in the minority.
All of the Senate.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I really dont see a problem if the dems have blocked 10 of about 250 nominees that have been sent up by the White House. If my numbers are right that is about 4 percent.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, it's 10 out of 34 appellate nominees, which is the lowest since FDR.

And it's not about how many they've blocked, it's the fact that they're allowed to block them at all. If the senate wants to deny its consent on a particular judge, then they should do it by voting he/she down.

[ACPlayer]

The the statistics are damning for the dems.

However, I disagree with the last paragraph. The end of the last paragraph should be modified to add "... according to senate rules".

From what I know about your political views, I suspect that you are allowing your support for these particular set of judges to color your perspective on whether the changes to the rules being proposed are being done for the right reason or are in the best interest of the country. It is clear to me that the Republican senators are falling into this trap.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
From what I know about your political views, I suspect that you are allowing your support for these particular set of judges to color your perspective on whether the changes to the rules being proposed are being done for the right reason or are in the best interest of the country.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think so. I think that a committee should discuss the particular nominee at hand, then vote on that nominee, and if he/she passes, it should go up for a vote by the full senate. I don't think a supermajority should be required of judges, especially since it is not required in the Constitution.

I know the roles were reveresed during Clinton's term, but I don't think that makes the filibustering of judges right.

[masse75]

[ QUOTE ]
You actually have to have a hearing to advise and consent. Simply refusing to get in the game is not advise and consent.
There is no advise ... there is only block... for purely politacal reasons.
i understand your point i just think you have the power grab part backwards.
It is the SENATES job to advise and consent.
Not just the part of the senate in the minority.
All of the Senate.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK...how many Clinton nominees never made it to the "advise and consent" phase during his second term because the Republican majority never got their nominations out of committee?

Don't feed us this crap that the Repubs are all about the enforcing the Constitution. Both parties are whores and attempt to tilt the field when either IN power or OUT.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
OK...how many Clinton nominees...

[/ QUOTE ]
Doesn't matter. And if you still think it does, the percentage is higher than Bush's.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't feed us this crap that the Repubs are all about the enforcing the Constitution. Both parties are whores and attempt to tilt the field when either IN power or OUT.

[/ QUOTE ]
This doesn't make this obstructionism right.

[masse75]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK...how many Clinton nominees...

[/ QUOTE ]
Doesn't matter. And if you still think it does, the percentage is higher than Bush's.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't feed us this crap that the Repubs are all about the enforcing the Constitution. Both parties are whores and attempt to tilt the field when either IN power or OUT.

[/ QUOTE ]
This doesn't make this obstructionism right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, no [censored] it doesn't matter.

Obstructionism isn't right? In politics, anything is fair game.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Obstructionism isn't right? In politics, anything is fair game.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then don't whine when the bomb goes off...

[masse75]

?????

Think you've been spending too much time in the bunker.

[BCPVP]

bomb="nuclear option"

Might have been a little too subtle for you....

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
The Democrats broke that tradition [of not filibustering judicial nominatinos] during Bush's first term in office by employing the filibuster for the first time in the nations history to block Judicial nominstions.

[/ QUOTE ]
For those of you that believe in the mainstream media's so-called "liberal bias," the propagation of the "fact" in bold above is a good example of the right-wing echo chamber at work.

On April 4th, former White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray, who is currently the chairman of a conservative organization named "Committee For Justice" (hard to argue with a name like that!) whose goal seems to be to turn the federal and state judiciary hard to the right, stated at a press conference that the action taken by Democrats in fillibustering a judicial nominee was "unprecedented." This was, to use a technical term, bullshit. (Much factual information in this post is lifted from this FindLaw.com article by John W. Dean (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050408.html).

The Senate's own Congressional Research Service study (http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS20801.pdf) found that from 1949 to 2002 there have been 35 filibusters of judicial nominees; 17 of the filibusters were of judicial nominations.

One recent example of a Senatorial filibuster of a judicial nominee came in 1968, when Lyndon Johnson's nominee Abe Fortas was filibustered. Don't take my word for it--feel free to check out on the Senate's own website (http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Filibuster_Derails_Supreme_Court_Appointment.htm) detailing Fortas's Filibuster, titled "Filibuster Derails Supreme Court Appointment." (Gray argues that since Fortas withdrew his nomination the Republican Senators' action doesn't count as an actual "filibuster." However, Fortas withdrew himself from nomination because it was clear the White House lacked enough support to defeat the filibuster.

Bill Frist also cannot reasonably be described as genuinely outraged when he decries Democrats for refusing to allow an up or down vote on these extremist judicial candidates. Democratic Senators have blocked 10 of Bush's nominations so far throughout his two terms, while during Clinton's administration 65 nominations were blocked (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/25/opinion/main683182.shtml) using various under-the-radar procedural techniques.

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
The Senate's own Congressional Research Service study found that from 1949 to 2002 there have been 35 filibusters of judicial nominees; 17 of the filibusters were of judicial nominations.

[/ QUOTE ]
Too late for me to edit, but this sentence should read:

"The Senate's own Congressional Research Service study found that from 1949 to 2002 there have been 35 filibusters of presidential nominees; 17 of the filibusters were of judicial nominations."

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Democrats broke that tradition [of not filibustering judicial nominatinos] during Bush's first term in office by employing the filibuster for the first time in the nations history to block Judicial nominstions.

[/ QUOTE ]

For those of you that believe in the mainstream media's so-called "liberal bias," the propagation of the "fact" in bold above is a good example of the right-wing echo chamber at work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bdk, you have no idea what you’re talking about. It’s a proven fact that the Democrat’s are employing the filibuster for the first time against judicial nominations.

It’s also a proven fact the media is ridiculously liberal, so much so that conservatives can never stop whining incessantly about it. I’ve never heard of this so-called right wing echo chamber. Sounds like another lie of the liberal media.

Anyway, I know Democrats are employing the filibuster for the first time against judicial nominations because I’ve heard it from so many different sources, like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, Michael Savage, Michael Reagan, the 700 Club, the Drudge Report/Matt Drudge, the New York Post, James Dobson, Dr. Laura, the Washington Times, Bill O’Reilly, Bill Bennett, Neal Boortz, G. Gordon Liddy, Ann Coulter, Michael Medved, The National Review, Michelle Malkin, Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough, Oliver North, Larry Elder, Michael Gallagher, David Horowitz, the Christian Broadcasting Network, The Weekly Standard, George Will, The American Spectator, NewsMax.com, David Brooks, Bob Novak, D’Ninesh D’Souza, Cal Thomas, Tucker Carlson, TownHall.com, Dennis Prager, Howie Carr, FreeRepublic.com, Janet Parshall, Dan Kroah, The Boston Herald, Hugh Hewitt, Glenn Beck, David Limbaugh, Sinclair Broadcasting…………………………………………that it is obviously true.

I just wish there was a conservative voice or two in the media to counteract the clear liberal bias.

[adios]

Notice that the fillibuster didn't prevent an up and down vote for any of the judges to serve on the bench. The fillibuster has never been used to prevent an up and down vote on judicial nominations to serve. I wouldn't call 1968 recent and Fortas was already serving on the Supreme Court. It's not clear that Johnson wouldn't have ultimately prevailed since 12 Senators abstained and the vote was very close. Anyway Fortas was already on the Supreme Court. As I've pointed out before the Republicans were the majority party from 1994 on during the Clinton administration. Thus the Republicans could block the nominees in commitee. The fillibuster is used by the minority party to force a comprimise more or less. When the majority party blocks a nominee because that nominee doesn't have the votes to get out of commitee it's much different than the minority party blocking a nominee with a fillibuster. I've pointed out what the rules are in the Senate regarding getting out of commitee go read my posts.

It's clear to me that the Republicans are going to use the "Nuclear" option to do away with the fillibuster at any rate. Perhaps the Demcorats ought to try winning elections.

[adios]

The mere fact that non legislative fillibusters weren't enacted until 1949 shows the total vacuousnous of the Democrats rhetoric about the nuclear option. The fact is that fillibuster rules aren't sacrosanct and have been altered more than once. For the Democrats to be screaming about changing fillibuster rules is truly disingenuous.

[ACPlayer]

If you say so I will accept that.

However, consider the following. Instead of the line up we have today -- Al Gore is President and Harry Reid is Senate Majority leader today. Al sends to the Senate the nomination of the CA judge for the supreme court who found the pledge unconstitutional. We also find essays and op eds he has written that say that Bible studies in school are unconstitutional and that having a chaplain work for and say a prayer each day in the Senate violates the separation of church and state. The democrats are gung ho about this guy, they have rammed thru his nomination in committee and are proposing that the Senate Rules be changed so that the Republicans cannot filibuster this guy. Would you be saying -- go Frist fight the changes we cant have this guy on the supreme court for a life time appointment or would you be saying hey Frist you cant filibuster this guy, the filibuster is unconstitutional?

THink about it very carefully. Something like this will happen in the next few years if the filibuster rules are changed now.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
The mere fact that non legislative fillibusters weren't enacted until 1949 shows the total vacuousnous of the Democrats rhetoric about the nuclear option. The fact is that fillibuster rules aren't sacrosanct and have been altered more than once. For the Democrats to be screaming about changing fillibuster rules is truly disingenuous.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you agree the rules aren't sacrosanct, then stop screaming about how the filibuster of judicial nominations are a violation of tradition, as you admit Senate Rules aren't inviolable anyway.

Here's what you want to claim:

"Democrats are violating tradition. This is outrageous.
Republicans should change the rules. The rules were intended to change."

Wouldn't changing the cloture rule be a violation of Senate tradition? Do you not share a similar outrage over Republicans trampling on Senate traditions over cloture rules?

Either embrace tradition or embrace change, but it’s disingenuous to blame Democrats for rejecting tradition while lauding Republicans for seeking change.

[trippin bily]

[ QUOTE ]


Do you agree? Is this a cause for concern?

On this discussion, the views of the judges is irrelevant and a distraction. Perhaps you can start another thread.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is what you said in an earlier post on this thread ac.
Now you want to use the views of your hypothetical judge to make your point.
Facts are facts. None of the Bush nominees is a radical right wing nuts.
The dems are pulling a power grab for... I don't know what for. None of these judges is worth the fight.
They should chose their battles more carefully.

[trippin bily]

I agree with an earlier poster that the dems should be more concerned with winning elections than filabusters.
Perhaps if the views of the radical dems in charge should change to be more in tune with the rest if the country.

[vulturesrow]

Nice strawman. I dont think Adios complaining about violating Senate tradition. He is complaining about naked obstructionism by the Democrats. The cloture rule has been changed several times. Of course back in the good old days the positions of Democrats and Republicans were completely backwards.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice strawman. I dont think Adios complaining about violating Senate tradition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, he isn't? Silly me for thinking he was. Where would I get that idea?

[ QUOTE ]
The tradition in the Senate until Bush's tenure was that the fillibuster was not used for Judicial nominations. The Democrats broke that tradition during Bush's first term in office by employing the fillibuster for the first time in the nations history to block Judicial nominstions.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Felix_Nietsche]

To me the ideal judge to be appointed to a US Federal bench is an originalist. To be an originalist, a judge must:

1. Interpret the constitution as the writers of the constitution intended.
E.g. Some people today argue that the death penalty is "cruel and unusual punishment" which violates the constitution. However an originalist will note that the death penalty was an acceptable penalty when AND after the constitution was written therefore it the death penalty is constitutional.

2. Uphold laws that are constitutional EVEN ones that are LOUSY laws.

Unfortunately for the conservative movement, finding originalist is like trying to find Unicorns. Scalia is a rare breed. Many 'conservative' judges who upon reaching the bench turn into Judicial Dictators. Some try to wear the mantle of benevolent dictators, re-interpreting laws they deem 'unwise'. Others upon receiving their life time appointment view their judicial powers as they way of creating a legacy. Their egos take over and they start playing Santa Claus....

In sum,
when a conservative president is allowed to to appoint a conservative judge, the odds that the judge STAYS conservative are at best 66%. The intoxicating lure of power has turned many so-called conservative judges into flaming judical activists, playing 'god' with the law (eg W.Burger). I can not think of *ONE* instance where a 'liberal' judge was appointed and they turned into a conservative originalist.

Sorry fellow conservatives....The judicial die is loaded against us. Even if Bush43 is successful in appointing 'conservative' judges they have to stay conservative. Since 100% of liberal judges stay liberal....the odds are against us.

[ACPlayer]

.. and BCPVP etc.

When liberal prez and liberal congress in the future nominate liberal judges the republicans need every tool possible to block them.

Of course if you actually believe that the democrats will never control both houses, then perhaps this extremist "nukular option" may be acceptable to the partisans pushing it.

[ACPlayer]

You are reacting not thinking.

The rule of the filibuster has nothing to do with the views of the judges and MUST not have anything to do with it. Either you want an additional check in the system or not. This particular check is not particularly onerous (one senator putting a hold on the nomination, which is permitted by the rules is far more onerous).

I challenge you to either consider this issue without thinking about whether these particular judges are worthy or not (that is not really relevant), if you cant do that consider what will happen when the shoe is on the other foot (per my example, or another judge about gun control, abortion, or any other issue), and if you cant do either then I cannot help you.

Carry on.

[ACPlayer]

Either the rules are important to the issue at hand or they are not important.

If the rules are important in rhe nomination of judges then we should not be messing with them. If they are not important then why are getting worked up about them.

The reps are not getting worked up about the rules they are upset about the impact of the rules. This is a short term way of conducting business.

[Felix_Nietsche]

.......or at least force the Dems to do a real filibuster.

Repubs need to grow a pair of balls fast. Of course having people like McCain, Snow, and the other NorthEast 'Moderate Repubs' does not help... The Judicary Branch is the only branch the liberals control and it has MOST POWER...due to corrupt judges who have ignored the restraints of the US Constitution.

Repubs need to stop these unconstitutional filibusters now.

[ACPlayer]

I see you have missed the point again and simply got onto your partisan soapbox and spouted the Rush line.

Carry on.

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
To me the ideal judge to be appointed to a US Federal bench is an originalist. To be an originalist, a judge must:

1. Interpret the constitution as the writers of the constitution intended.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong about this. Originalism is based on what the general public would have understood the statutory language to mean at the time it was enacted. The intent of the founding fathers, legislators, etc. is not that important in this theory.

[Felix_Nietsche]

..............I wasn't aware there was a rule about disagreeing with you.

[ACPlayer]

I did say carry on, didn't I.

Comprehension problems as usual! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[trippin bily]

Enough with the insults ac. Bcause i dissagree with you does not mean I am not " thinking "
You say not to think about the views of the judges yet use the views of judges as part of your argument
AC the judges view is completely germaine to the argument.
It is the reason the dems give FOR the filabuster.
Which goes to your original point about a change of rules powere grab.
Under the rules of the Senate do the repubs have the ability to stop the filabuster ?
Do you believe this all came about because of some deep seeded filabuster principle the dems have ? Really ?

[ACPlayer]

AC the judges view is completely germaine to the argument.

It should not be.


Do you believe this all came about because of some deep seeded filabuster principle the dems have ? Really ?

THat is just as irrelevant as the Republican's desire to change the filibuster. Just because the democrats are using the rule for a partisan gain, is not a good reason for the Republicans to change the rules for partisan gain.

The rule originally was designed for the minority to use it for partisan purposes.

So, take off your partisan hat and THINK! It is not an insult, it is a challenge.

[Felix_Nietsche]

I think you are parsing words.

When the constitution was ratified there was a basic assumption that by ratifying the constitution, you were accepting the meaning/defintions behind the language it communicated.... Besides, how do you question 'the people' 200+ years ago. The 2nd ammendment gives the people the right to bear arms. So what is the defintion of arms? Guns, sabers, knives, and perhaps cannons. Reading the works of the authors of the 2nd amendment would give us a better idea of what they meant by arms. With with regard to arms, it generally refers to weapons that can be carried in one's 'arms'. So perhaps cannons were not considered 'arms' and therefore we can rule out owning nuclear weapons as being a constitutional right.....based on the author's intent.

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are parsing words.


[/ QUOTE ]

No I'm not. If you gave your definition of originalism to Scalia or Bork they would tell you that you have it wrong.

I have a reading suggestion for you: "The Tempting of America" by Robert Bork. I think you'd like it.

With regard to your 2nd Amendment example, the answer is that it is a matter of abstraction. Certainly a person in the 18th Century couldn't have told you all the things that could be considered arms, any more than a person today could. What he could do was define "arms" as hand-held weapons, more or less, and proceed from that understanding.

[ACPlayer]

I have actually stayed away from the views of the judges in my arguments. I offered an example of how a partisan republican may wish to preserve the rule for future use. Offering an example is different from the argument.

The argument must be about whether it is important for the minority to have a braking effect on the nomination process or not. The republicans in essence are saying that because they want these judges nominated, no it is not important. In this very thread, people have asked what is wrong with these judges (and I believe that this is the wrong question to ask, because the answer is it does not matter!).

To better frame the question about whether the minority should continue to have the power, consider:

1. Is the country damaged if these particular nominations are withdrawn and others offered that pass the particular rules in place. I suspect there are many well qualified judges.
2. Is the Republican party harmed in the future when some wacko liberal judge is appointed by Hilary (or look alike) and the Republicans have no real say in the consent part of their responsibility.

If you are happy with the rule change after asking these questions of yourself (not the ones about the qualifications of these judges) then you are a thinking supporter of the cahnge. If all you can see is what you consider to be well qualified judges being blocked, or you see the Republican will being blocked -- then I am afraid I believe you are guilty of short term partisan thinking, the very thing you accuse the dems of.

Unfortunately, I believe that Frist et al are not thinking supporters of the change but are doing it for short term partisan gain.

[trippin bily]

[ QUOTE ]


The argument must be about whether it is important for the minority to have a braking effect on the nomination process or not. The republicans in essence are saying that because they want these judges nominated, no it is not important. In this very thread, people have asked what is wrong with these judges (and I believe that this is the wrong question to ask, because the answer is it does not matter!).

To better frame the question about whether the minority should continue to have the power, consider:

1. Is the country damaged if these particular nominations are withdrawn and others offered that pass the particular rules in place. I suspect there are many well qualified judges.
2. Is the Republican party harmed in the future when some wacko liberal judge is appointed by Hilary (or look alike) and the Republicans have no real say in the consent part of their responsibility.

If you are happy with the rule change after asking these questions of yourself (not the ones about the qualifications of these judges) then you are a thinking supporter of the cahnge. If all you can see is what you consider to be well qualified judges being blocked, or you see the Republican will being blocked -- then I am afraid I believe you are guilty of short term partisan thinking, the very thing you accuse the dems of.

Unfortunately, I believe that Frist et al are not thinking supporters of the change but are doing it for short term partisan gain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again backwards AC.
1.Is the country damaged if theses judges are voted in ? I'm sure they are all qualified.
2.No party is harmed. If some REALLY radical judge is put forth by either party, during the confirmation hearing the radicalness would be revealed and the american people would force the hand of the senate.
I have THOUGHT about the rule and i want judges to go up for a vote. The crazies will be weeded out.
For the dems to call this the "nuclear option" is laughble.
senate rules are changed every day. To go back to this rule or that rule is not "nuclear"
In the end it is not Frist but the dems who are doing this for partisan gain.
The american people put repubs in charge of the senate, house and executive for a reason.
It is not the job of a few radicals like pelosi and reid
to thwart the will af the american people.
Put these judges up for a vote and be done with it.

[ACPlayer]

OK. We agree to disagree.

Carry on with your delusions, and I will with mine. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I note that you have not answered my points. In the interest of reaching across I will answer yours:

1. The answer is either yes or no depending on your political persuasion. But I dont consider this relevant to the importance of the filibuster.
2. If you think this, you dont understand how partisan the process is. If you listen to any of the hearings, the republicans handle the nominee with kid gloves and glowing statements and the democrats attack. The roles will be exactly reversed regardless of how extreme the nominee is. The members of the executives party rubber stamp the prez's nominee.

[bdk3clash]

For the dems to call this the "nuclear option" is laughble.
senate rules are changed every day. To go back to this rule or that rule is not "nuclear."

Just to set the record straight, the Republicans conceived of this rules change and coined it the "nuclear option." (Source: left-wing whackjob Robert Novak. See his column (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/21/filibuster/) which states:
[ QUOTE ]
The unprecedented Democratic blockage of 16 Bush appellate choices has led Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to attempt a maneuver that, in effect, confirms a judge by a simple majority vote of 51 rather than the 60 needed to break a filibuster -- unfortunately first self-described by Republicans as the "nuclear option."

[/ QUOTE ]
As of late, Republicans apparently figured out that the term "nuclear option" doesn't sound very good to the public, so they've started referring to their removal of the filibuster as the "Constitutional option."

Furthermore, Republicans have recently claimed that the term "nuclear option" is a creation of Democratic Senators. As usual, the "liberal media" (including NPR, the New York Times, Newsweek, and the Chicago Tribune) has accepted this bullshit hook, line and sinker.

An NBC news correspondent even stated that the "nuclear option" was actually the Democrats' threat to shut down the Senate (?) if the Republicans eliminated the filibuster.

This is similar to the terminology surrounding Social Security privatizaion/elimination, which for years had used the terms "privatization" and "private accounts." Yet once Republican pollsters found out that people reacted negatively to such terms, the administration began referring to "personal accounts," which the media almost unquestioningly went along with. (Thankfully, Bush's plan to eliminate Social Security appears dead in the water.)

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
2. Is the Republican party harmed in the future when some wacko liberal judge is appointed by Hilary (or look alike) and the Republicans have no real say in the consent part of their responsibility.

[/ QUOTE ]
Here's the thing though: the Republicans don't have any say right now because the minority is denying them it. Having their say would be voting yes or no, not denying everyone a chance to have their say.

[ACPlayer]

Ah, but you have it wrong. At the moment the Republicans dont want a say in the consent. They simply want to sell the Prez's nominations thru. Do you honestly expect the Republicans to reject their Prez's nomination? Sure a couple of senators may vote against a nominee here and there (I doubt it, but perhaps) but no way is the leadership going to allow a Prez nomination to fail because of the "say" of the Republican senators. The Party Apparatus will make sure of that.

No, the say comes from the opposition. They are the ones far more likely to critically scrutinize the Prez's nominations. Just as the Republicans were scrutinizing the Dems whem Clinton was the Prez and the Dems were pushing their agenda.

The real questions is in how the minority has its voice.

I suggest you seriously consider my hypothetical and you may see that focussing on the individual nominee and his merits is of no importance in the debate of the role of the filibuster.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, but you have it wrong. At the moment the Republicans dont want a say in the consent. They simply want to sell the Prez's nominations thru.

[/ QUOTE ]
So...? The President is the one who nominates judges. Congress doesn't get a say in who's nominated, they get a say on whether that nominee will be confirmed. Not allowing the majority of the Senate to give/withdraw their consent is stupid.

[ QUOTE ]
No, the say comes from the opposition. They are the ones far more likely to critically scrutinize the Prez's nominations. Just as the Republicans were scrutinizing the Dems whem Clinton was the Prez and the Dems were pushing their agenda.

[/ QUOTE ]
If their criticism has merit, then they should try to convince the majority to vote against the nominee. They should not be allowed to make sure no one has a say. This is how things are done in Congress. Should congressmen filibuster every bill they don't like? The majority is the majority for a reason.

[ QUOTE ]
The real questions is in how the minority has its voice.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's called a vote. Radical concept, I know...

[ QUOTE ]
I suggest you seriously consider my hypothetical and you may see that focussing on the individual nominee and his merits is of no importance in the debate of the role of the filibuster.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would be just as against the use of a filibuster to deny the president's nominees an up or down vote in your hypothetical. I don't care about who the judges are or who's judges they are.

[ACPlayer]

If their criticism has merit, then they should try to convince the majority to vote against the nominee.

You really think that the republicans will be able to convince a future democratic majority to change its mind. The two parties can barely agree on what day of the week it is at any given time.

That is insanely funny.

I have hope that McCain etc will prevail on enough republicans to kill this nonsense.

Should congressmen filibuster every bill they don't like?

They sure can. A number of gun control bills which would have been passed have been successfully filibusters (or have been threatened with one to kill the bill). At one point a single senator could kill the entire bill by filibuster, now the filibuster needs the support of 40.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
You really think that the republicans will be able to convince a future democratic majority to change its mind. The two parties can barely agree on what day of the week it is at any given time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Doesn't matter. This is how it is supposed to work. And are you saying that every Republican in Congress tows the GOP line?

[ QUOTE ]
They sure can...blah blah blah[ QUOTE ]

I didn't ask if they could or not. I asked if they should.

[ACPlayer]

Pretty much. Except for a few from the blue states and even they fall into line when the big threats come out. Besides the Republicans need to find only 5 democrats to bring a matter to a full vote. They cant do that either.

And, yes they should filibuster laws if they find them objectionable. There are many rules in the Senate, I happen to think that the filibuster is a fine rule as another check in our system. If the senators cannot find 60 colleagues to agree to have a vote at all, perhaps the underlying legislation needs a little revisiting.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
And, yes they should filibuster laws if they find them objectionable.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then why have nay votes?

[ QUOTE ]
If the senators cannot find 60 colleagues to agree to have a vote at all, perhaps the underlying legislation needs a little revisiting.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why is 60 the magic number? Why not 50-51? Why not 100? The rules were changed once before, I believe. Why do you feel so passionately about this particular number? Is it because the GOP is in control? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

And btw, no one is trying to get rid of the filibuster for legislation. It's only for judicial nominees.

[ACPlayer]

I have explained it to you before. I am questioning the change because it is obvious to me that it is being done to achieve a short term partisan objective. I think that is a bad idea. Howver, It seems to me that you and Frist cannot see past the partisan rhetoric on both sides to get to the core of the issue.

Except for the war in Iraq, the control of the Republicans by the Christian Lunatics, and the lack of any fiscal discibple I prefer that the Republicans be in charge /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Regarding your thing about only judicial nominees, why is Frist not pushing to change it for everything if he so passionate about bringing things to an up or down vote.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I am questioning the change because it is obvious to me that it is being done to achieve a short term partisan objective. I think that is a bad idea. Howver, It seems to me that you and Frist cannot see past the partisan rhetoric on both sides to get to the core of the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wasn't the previous change from two-thirds to three-fifths a partisan change? Isn't the filibuster by the Dems a partisan move?

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding your thing about only judicial nominees, why is Frist not pushing to change it for everything if he so passionate about bringing things to an up or down vote.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why don't you ask him?

[ACPlayer]

The last change was probably also partisan, so what? The dems are using it for partisan purpsoses so what? Is this about partisan tit for tat? Cant the merits be evaluated without these stupid irrelevant statements?

I have left Frist a voce mail. Until he gets back to me, I will assume that he his doing it keeping the short term objective in mind, and damn the consequences for the future.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
The last change was probably also partisan, so what? The dems are using it for partisan purpsoses so what? Is this about partisan tit for tat? Cant the merits be evaluated without these stupid irrelevant statements?

[/ QUOTE ]
So do you believe that nothing should ever be done for partisan purposes?

[ QUOTE ]
I have left Frist a voce mail. Until he gets back to me, I will assume that he his doing it keeping the short term objective in mind, and damn the consequences for the future.

[/ QUOTE ]
If this is the case, why hasn't Frist enacted the constitional option? I'm sure there's a lot of pondering about what the future implications of this action could be going on amongst top GOP leaders.

Perhaps this option is being enacted to end partisan obstruction of judicial nominees. Consider how the roles have ocillated back and forth. This would put an end to the minority party (which ever they are) dictating who should be nominated for judicial positions. Nominations are the president's job; voting on the nominations are congress's.

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
Name one Clinton nomination that got filibustered.

[/ QUOTE ]

Over 60 were killed in the Senate Judiciary Committee under a longstanding single-Senator-objection rule that Senate Republicans abolished as soon their Party seized control of the executive branch.

Bearing that in mind, I ask you one simple question: if it is improper to block 10 Bush nominees because 40 Senators object, isn't it a thousand times more improper to block *SIX TIMES AS MANY* Clinton nominees because ONE Republican Senator objects behind closed doors in committee chambers?


q/q

[ACPlayer]

Better to do things on principle (look at the thread you started) -- specially changing procedures.

What is the constiutional option? This talk about constitutional option is being usde to sell to the gullible -- You?

The senates job is not to vote on the nomination but to act as a check on the prez's choices. Today's republicans think this means finding anyway possible to OK the prez's choices. This is not the "constitutional option" that the framers had in mind, IM (lay) O.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Better to do things on principle (look at the thread you started) -- specially changing procedures.

[/ QUOTE ]
As I stated, this could be being enacted to eliminate the partisan filibuster of either side on judicial nominees. I don't believe the top GOP leadership feels that they will be in power forever, so they can't assume this won't ever be used against them.

[ QUOTE ]
What is the constiutional option? This talk about constitutional option is being usde to sell to the gullible -- You?

[/ QUOTE ]
What is the nuclear option? This talk about nuclear option is being used to sell to the gullible-- You?

[ QUOTE ]
The senates job is not to vote on the nomination but to act as a check on the prez's choices. Today's republicans think this means finding anyway possible to OK the prez's choices. This is not the "constitutional option" that the framers had in mind, IM (lay) O.

[/ QUOTE ]
No...the constition says Congress shall advise and consent. It doesn't say the minority shall have the power to deny the entire Congress the ability to give or withhold consent. That is not a check, it's a gross overstep of power. For some reason, I don't believe the Framers would have thought that the minority should be able to tell the majority that they may not fulfill their constitutional duties, because they are the minority for a reason. Just my opinion.

[ACPlayer]

The term Nuclear Option was coined by the GOP, I believe.

[BCPVP]

Wikipedia agrees, but that's not the point.
Interesting, and balanced, article by wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_option

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
The term Nuclear Option was coined by the GOP, I believe.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you guys even read other posts in this thread, or just your own? I gave a long-ass explanation above about the origin of the term "nuclear option."

ACKNOWLEDGE ME! TELL ME I'M GOOD!

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
Wikipedia agrees, but that's not the point.
Interesting, and balanced, article by wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_option

[/ QUOTE ]
From the article:

[ QUOTE ]
In 1996, Clinton nominated Judge Richard Paez to the 9th Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals. Conservatives in Congress held up Paez's nomination for more than four years, culminating in an attempted filibuster on March 8, 2000, which failed when only 14 Republicans approved it. Bill Frist was among those who voted to filibuster Paez.

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess he had a change of heart on the appropriateness of using the filibuster to block judicial nominees.

By the way, I think the Republicans are doing this now because if they did it for a Supreme Court nominee (I'm sure they have their fingers crossed) it would look like they were blatantly trying to pack the court with extreme right-wing conservatives, which they are.

[ACPlayer]

Yeah, I read it.

I acknowledge thee purveyor of accurate factoids and shall self flagellate myself for my failure. Never again!

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess he had a change of heart on the appropriateness of using the filibuster to block judicial nominees.

[/ QUOTE ]
And numerous Dems have changed theirs. Both sides have flip-flopped on the issue.

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, I think the Republicans are doing this now because if they did it for a Supreme Court nominee (I'm sure they have their fingers crossed) it would look like they were blatantly trying to pack the court with extreme right-wing conservatives, which they are.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why should Bush appoint extreme left-wing judges?

[Felix_Nietsche]

OK....I got the book today.
It has been on my reading list for 10+ years so I guess the time has come for me to read it...