Rainbow Filibuster Coalition

[adios]

Is there a problem here (I can only imagine what elwood horrid thing elwood will accuse me of being now /images/graemlins/smile.gif)?

Rainbow Filibuster Coalition (http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004166)

Rainbow Filibuster Coalition
The Democrats aren't prejudiced--they bork everybody.

Wednesday, October 15, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT

Senate Democrats are preparing to filibuster more of President Bush's appeals court nominees, making it a good time to note that the original meaning of the word "filibuster" was "pirate."

The 17th-century marauders known as Filibustiers pillaged the Spanish colonies in the West Indies, slashing and burning as they went. The Democratic minority in the Senate is rampaging through the Constitution, trampling on 200 years of practice in confirming federal judges by simple majority vote. As the list of victims mounts, it's also instructive to note the rainbow coalition that Democrats find unacceptable.

Six of them are pictured nearby. All of them come with the endorsement of the bar. All have been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee and all have enough Democratic support to be confirmed on the Senate floor.

Yet all are being blocked by a liberal minority that is overruling the results of the past two elections by imposing a new 60-vote super-majority qualification on the Constitution's advise and consent clause. The nature of Democratic objections to these nominees reveals what a raw power play this is. There's always some new excuse that provides some political cover.





Honduran immigrant Miguel Estrada's sin was that the Bush Administration refused to release internal memos he wrote while serving in the Clinton Justice Department. Never mind that no Justice Department would release such private communications, and that the two Democratic Solicitors General he worked for testified to his integrity and ability to enforce laws he disagrees with. After 28 months of waiting to get a vote, Mr. Estrada decided to withdraw his nomination and get on with his life in August.




Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen is unacceptable because she voted to uphold a state parental-notification law on abortion. That law is very precise about the conditions under which a parent must be informed. Nine times she voted to let the girl have the abortion but three times she ruled that a parent must be notified. Somehow this makes her "extreme."

Alabama Attorney General William Pryor has also run afoul of the Democratic abortion litmus test. Though he's vowed to follow the law and says he would uphold Roe v. Wade, he made the mistake of saying that he agrees with JFK Supreme Court Justice Byron White that Roe was wrongly decided.

California Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl is next up on the Democrats' Most Unwanted List. While a junior attorney at the Reagan Justice Department, she defended the tax-exempt status for Bob Jones University as a point of administrative law. She did not defend Bob Jones's racial policies, but among liberal Democrats this qualifies you for a lifetime ban.

Then there's Charles Pickering, who was re-nominated after the Democratic-controlled Judiciary Committee killed his appointment in 2002. Mr. Pickering is accused of racial insensitivity despite a record of personal courage in promoting racial harmony in his home state of Mississippi and despite a raft of testimonials from local African-Americans.

Coming up on the filibuster hit parade is Henry Saad, an Arab-American nominated for the Sixth Circuit. Mr. Saad's bad luck is to hail from Michigan, where Senators Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow are conducting a feud over two Democratic candidates blocked by Republicans during the Clinton Administration. Three more Michigan nominees are also candidates for filibusters once they get out of committee.





And then there's Janice Brown, an African-American on the California Supreme Court nominated for the D.C. Circuit. Democrats are plowing for any excuse to filibuster her, lest Mr. Bush someday decide to promote her to the U.S. Supreme Court. Modern liberalism's ultimate nightmare is a black conservative woman in a position of moral authority.
The only thing these nominees have in common is that they were nominated by a GOP President and share a conservative view of the law. Far from being radical or extreme, their views are shared by tens of millions of Americans--a majority if the results of the past two elections count for something. If Democrats want to dictate who can sit on the federal bench, they can always take the issue to the voters and win either a Senate majority or the White House. They shouldn't be allowed to hijack the confirmation process.

[elwoodblues]

Yes.

[ACPlayer]

We get our chance to weigh in on this in the next election.

[elwoodblues]

The original article raises interesting questions about 2 issues. 1) What is/should be the scope of the phrase "advice and consent of the Senate" and 2) Should the tradition of the filibuster be abolished.

As to question 1, I think for years the Senate has been derelict in their duties in this regard. Blanketly accepting all judicial nomination (and Ambassador nominations for that matter) doesn't seem to be doing the job. I also agree with (what I assume is) the opinion of the original poster that the current Senate has taken "advice and consent" too far. Because the phrase is fuzzy, I think both interpretations are probably reasonable.

As to question 2, there is something to be said for honoring the traditions of the body. The filibuster has been a longstanding tradition in the Senate. By definition it is a tool used by the minority. In my view, you shouldn't change the rules in the middle of the game just because they aren't working to your advantage. If the democrats persist in using the available rules to block nominations, I think they should be able to. The available remedy is to vote them out of office for doing so and/or change the rules for the next time. The problem with changing the rules is that the same rules that work against you when you are the majority work for you when you're the minority.

[Boris]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there a problem here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

You continue to make meaningless posts. I don't need you to regurgitate the Op-Eds of the Wall Street Journal. I have a subscription so I can read them just fine on my own. How about a little commentary from you Tom? Why not add something to the discussion?

[MMMMMM]

No, the article is discussing not which President gets to select candidates, but which party (Democrats) have gone to certain extreme lengths never before utilized in order to block the legitimate confirmation hearings of judicial candidates who were properly nominated. In other words the Democrats were (with Estrada) blocking a process which was never thus blocked before, and seem prepared to do it again.

If ALL candidates can simply be blocked by such extreme measures provided a minority is donkey-like in its stubbornness and willingness to waste unlimited time, we can look forward to NO further judicial appointments EVER. If the Republicans were willing to stoop as low as the Democrats over this, the Supreme Court would simply retire or die off and no replacements would be forthcoming.

So who is President or what party he hails from is not the issue here. The issue is a certain minority making a bald and unethical power-play.

As the article wraps up:

" If Democrats want to dictate who can sit on the federal bench, they can always take the issue to the voters and win either a Senate majority or the White House. They shouldn't be allowed to hijack the confirmation process."

[MMMMMM]

elwood, I believe the filibuster has never (before Estrada) been used to block the judicial confirmation process. This is a new precedent entirely.

[elwoodblues]

You're probably right...I didn't do the research to look it up. Just because it hasn't been done in the past doesn't mean that it isn't an available option. To my knowledge (again, I didn't do the research) there aren't any subject-matter restrictions on the use of the filibuster.

~elwood

[MMMMMM]

Uh-huh, I don't know. But if they do it every time a candidate they don't like gets nominated, and their political opposition gets sick of this and resorts to the same, no candidate would ever get nominated. I think we can see that this is not fair play or a viable tactic regarding Senate confirmation hearings, even without "looking it up";-).

The purpose of the confirmation hearings is to certify the candidate's fitness for the position--not to vote on whether we like his views. The Constitution empowers the President to select nominees--if they don't like that, maybe they should work on changing that law, rather than playing along when it works for them but stonewalling when it works against them. Or work harder to get a President they like, with ideas, worth electing.

[elwoodblues]

I might have misread ACPlayers post (I'm known to do that), but I thought he/she was saying that if you disagree with the tactic of employing the filibuster, you have the power to vote out the senators who engage in the tactic in the next election (not the president who offered the appointment).

[MMMMMM]

Could be, that occurred to me later too. Anyway I doubt the public would vote out someone for purely for filibustering. Most people are more concerned with partisan issues.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
The purpose of the confirmation hearings is to certify the candidate's fitness for the position--not to vote on whether we like his views. The Constitution empowers the President to select nominees

[/ QUOTE ]

While the Constitution empowers the Presidect to select the nominees, it also requires the Advice and Consent of the Senate. Any further clarification (e.g. the purpose of the hearings) is someone's interpretation of the mandate of the Constitution. Your position appears to be that the Advice noted in the Constituion is limited to Fitness. That's a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution, but I certainly don't think it's the only one.

~elwood

[Chris Alger]

Hot off the press: the usual partisan whining.

As the Journal fails to note, the reason Bush has so many judicial vacancies to fill is that the Republicans blocked and delayed Clinton appointments at an unprecedented rate. "By the end of 2000, the Senate had confirmed only 39 of 81 pending judicial nominees and just eight to appeals courts. Forty-two were left to lapse. ... Under Reagan and Bush, the the Senate, then controlled by Democrats, typically approved presidential nominations to the appellate bench within three to four months. When the roles were reversed and Republican senators were in charge, the average delay rose to more than seven months in Clinton's second term and 280 days in Clinton's last two years, according to a tabulation by the Alliance for Justice." CommonDreams.org (http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0521-06.htm) The GOP campaign to keep vacanies open until they could regain the White House and to avoid creting new judgeships got so out of hand that Rhenquist himself crticized it in 1997.

Moreover, the Democrats have been approving GOP nominees at a frenetic pace, with over 100 to date, and more in 2000 than any year since 1994.

And just why is it so important for the Republicans to appoint right-wing judges instead of competent apolitical jurists? Because Bush is using judicial nominations to throw bones at the racists and religious fanatics that dominate his party's grassroots.

So why should anyone but them care if all the ideological appointments get blocked? Does anyone seriously think that Bush selected these people by merit, yet they just happen to hold unpopular beliefs dear to the hearts of the Christian Coalition? What to you want to bet that some of these appointments have never presided over a trial?

[MMMMMM]

But what they did with Estrada is prevent it from ever getting to that point.

Also, there may be a place, constitutionally, for the Senate to approve or disapprove his views--I may have spoken too soon on that. But what the Dems did is effectively prevent any meaningful discussion of his fitness or his views. They blocked the hearings themselves--a sham and a travesty, IMO.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush is using judicial nominations to throw bones at the racists and religious fanatics that dominate his party's grassroots.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems like a bit of an overstatement...I would fully expect the President to try to appease the party base, just as I would fully expect a Democrat President to do the same, just as I expect Democrat Senators to do what they're doing. Our system is supposed to work this way (it is specifically designed be slow and clumsy.)

The article backs up one of my original points: "The problem with changing the rules is that the same rules that work against you when you are the majority work for you when you're the minority. "

[MMMMMM]

Chris, isn't it true that while the Republicans may have blocked the approval of many of Clinton's nominees, they didn't do what the Dems recently did with Estrada--which was to effectively block the confirmation hearings themselves (by filibustering)?

It's one thing to not confirm, according to procedure. It's entirely another to prevent the confirmation process (which would then allow confiming or not) from ever truly getting under way.

If I don't have all the terms right because I am not a lawyer I think you will still know what I mean. Instead of allowing the process to go forward and then not approving the actual nomination, the Dems refused to allow the process to even take place--(probably because they knew they lacked the votes to block it in a fair and regular manner).

And if that's what they did, one can only say Shame On Them--and if that's the case, so, I think, should you.

[adios]

Then ignore my posts. Maybe if you ask Matt he'll delete them for you. I've learned quite a bit by reading the commentary on these articles from other posters.

[Utah]

no sham at all. The other posts are correct that the elected nature of the senators puts the correct check and balance in place.

The reality is that the Republicans made less than whole hearted attempts to get Estrada appointed as he was not a key strategic initiative. I believe Estrada even said he was frustrated at the efforts to get him appointed.

I would have loved to see the republicans force a real filibuster.

[MMMMMM]

My understanding is that the Dems have changed the rules, or the foul lines, or something here.

Sort of in the spirit of Dick Gephardt who said that when he's President, he will undo anything wrong the Supreme Court might do---not his exact words but damn near his exact meaning. So the Dems, by blocking the confirmation hearings themselves, (instead of trying to get the nomination to be not approved within the framework of the hearings) have shown a similar willingness to flout constitutional process.

[MMMMMM]

There is a process by which judicial nominees are APPROVED or NOT APPROVED. It is called Senate Confirmation Hearings. The elected Senators have it in their power to APPROVE or NOT APPROVE a judicial candidate through the hearings themselves. Blocking those hearings from even taking plac, though, is indeed a sham and a travesty.

But if you love filibusters I think I might see where you're coming from--by hook or by crook, it's important to get things your way, eh?

[MMMMMM]

Boris, I will say someone is being an ass (but that doesn't necessarily mean it has to be you /images/graemlins/tongue.gif ).

Boris: "Yes (there is a problem).

You continue to make meaningless posts. I don't need you to regurgitate the Op-Eds of the Wall Street Journal. I have a subscription so I can read them just fine on my own. How about a little commentary from you Tom? Why not add something to the discussion?"

By the way, I believe Tom has added more in the way of meaningful information (especially financial data) to many of his posts than you ever have.

I suggest you take that chip off your shoulder that often somehow magically appears whenever someone expresses an opinion you don't like.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Hot off the press: the usual partisan whining.

As the Journal fails to note, the reason Bush has so many judicial vacancies to fill is that the Republicans blocked and delayed Clinton appointments at an unprecedented rate. "By the end of 2000, the Senate had confirmed only 39 of 81 pending judicial nominees and just eight to appeals courts. Forty-two were left to lapse. ... Under Reagan and Bush, the the Senate, then controlled by Democrats, typically approved presidential nominations to the appellate bench within three to four months. When the roles were reversed and Republican senators were in charge, the average delay rose to more than seven months in Clinton's second term and 280 days in Clinton's last two years, according to a tabulation by the Alliance for Justice." CommonDreams.org (http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0521-06.htm) The GOP campaign to keep vacanies open until they could regain the White House and to avoid creting new judgeships got so out of hand that Rhenquist himself crticized it in 1997.

Moreover, the Democrats have been approving GOP nominees at a frenetic pace, with over 100 to date, and more in 2000 than any year since 1994.

And just why is it so important for the Republicans to appoint right-wing judges instead of competent apolitical jurists? Because Bush is using judicial nominations to throw bones at the racists and religious fanatics that dominate his party's grassroots.

So why should anyone but them care if all the ideological appointments get blocked? Does anyone seriously think that Bush selected these people by merit, yet they just happen to hold unpopular beliefs dear to the hearts of the Christian Coalition? What to you want to bet that some of these appointments have never presided over a trial?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here you go twisting the facts again Chris. The republicans did not block one single Clinton judicial nominee. Several were not confirmed by the full Senate which is required but this also required some Democrats voting against the nominees. Many more never made it out of the Democrat controlled commitee. Many vacancies were ignored by the Clinton administration and never had nominees submitted to the Senate for confirmation in the first place. When in doubt twist the truth eh Chris?

Since more bench appointments have been confirmed during this administration (according to you) I would say they are fufilling their duty to America rather than shirking it.

Judicial Confirmations Significantly Lower (http://asp.washtimes.com/printarticle.asp?action=print&ArticleID=20011130-966007)

[Chris Alger]

1. I dont' see the difference, but I'm pretty sure the GOP blocked more confirmation hearings.

2. The GOP took this game to a whole other level by blocking confirmations en masse in order to generate a backlog for post-Clinton.

[Chris Alger]

"The republicans did not block one single Clinton judicial nominee" although "Several were not confirmed by the full Senate."

Think before you write.

As for the allegedly low rate of Bush confirmations, your source is 2 years old and contradicted by the more recent evidence in my post.

[Chris Alger]

It's accurrate on abortion. There is no way in hell the Supreme Court is ever going to overturn Roe and its numerous progeny and the GOP leadership knows it. In fact, they welcome it. Yet they can claim they've done a service for the hard right by appointing judges that have criticized the decision.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]

Think before you write.

As for the allegedly low rate of Bush confirmations, your source is 2 years old and contradicted by the more recent evidence in my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me think before I write Chris??? Just what have you been smoking? Your link was from a Boston Globe article published on 5/20/01 and my article is from the Washington Post and was published 6 months later not earlier. I know your sources are poor but even you can do better than that.

Also if you are going to quote me out of context you really should do a better job.

[Chris Alger]

You were describing Bush appointments in November 2001. The Boston Globe article described Clinton appointments. The "more recent evidence" I referred to was the more than 100 Bush appointments.

[andyfox]

"If the Republicans were willing to stoop as low as the Democrats over this, the Supreme Court would simply retire or die off and no replacements would be forthcoming."

Now you're talking.

[ACPlayer]

If you have been following these threads you will realize that the knee-jerk republicans (as opposed to true conservatives), who hang around this forum, believe that analogous thinking are for the weak. They all want the rules to work one way when they are on side of the argument and the other way when they are on the other side.

[ACPlayer]

The dems did not and could not block the confirmation hearings.

The hearings were held, and according to the dems, Estrada did not answer the questions offered up. WHen the confirmation was sent to the floor for a vote, it could not collect enough votes for cloture.

The process took place and worked the way it was supposed to. All the whining about these nominations by the republicans is similar to the whining about the Florida election debacle by the democrats.

The process is working people. Get over it.

[adios]

I'm not disagreeing with your points but I think the op ed piece pointed out something that no former soliciter general had to disclose the memos that he was asked to disclose.

[MMMMMM]

"Seven times the Republicans brought up his name, and seven times the Republicans fell short of the 60 votes required to close the debate and proceed to a vote on the merits of the nominee. The best the GOP could do was muster 55 votes, a clear majority but not enough to end a filibuster. The minority triumphed. It can now gloat and flex its muscles and dare the administration to nominate anybody else with a mind and heart."

In other words, ACPlayer, had it not been for the filibuster, Estrada's merit could have been voted on by the Senate. But breaking a filibuster takes more votes than the majority votes which Estrada already had. So the Democrats, by filibustering, raised the threshold of required votes from 54 to 60.

[ACPlayer]

Well, if we want to talk about Estrada and the article you posted from the opinionjournal.

First, the rainbow filibuster is misleading demagogry. The senate has confirmed without objection at least 5 latino nominees.

Second, Estrada has never held a judicial seat so any writings of his are relevant and, as I understood it, the particular memos requested were of the type that the WH could have authorized release without compromising anyone.

Third, like a not of nominees these days, he refused to answer a lot of questions. Given the lack of writings available to review, that led to senators having trouble knowing how to give advise and consent to the president as is their constitutional responsibility.

Fourth, one argument put forward by the dems is that he refused to cite even one case by the SC that he disagreed with in 40 years. A perfectly reasonable interview question for the job.

Fifth, it has become increasingly difficult for me to believe the Republican leaders when they support such a nomination. THis is because more and more of these "leaders" act more like followers. I know that they would never, ever find fault with a candidate nominated by the WH. This is very troublesome, if true, because, I want them to act as a balance and do some independent as opposed to knee-jerk thinking.

All in all, Estrada's nomination was weak, his job interview was weak and the dems did not buy it. They established the precedent with this nomination and are now (mis?)-using it for other more worthy candidates. Republicans will get their chance in a year and half.

[Boris]

web page (http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary/committee_rules.cfm)

[ QUOTE ]
The republicans did not block one single Clinton judicial nominee.

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe not once the nomination reached the full senate. But I'll bet dollars to donutz that Republicans never allowed many nominees out of committe. Notice in the rules that it only takes one minority member to effectively block action on any nominee.

I guess this doesn't really excuse the Dems. Just brings everyone down to the same level.

[MMMMMM]

As I understand it, Boris, the Dems were the only party to ever filibuster this process: thereby raising the effective ceiling of required votes from a simple majority (54) to the amount required to break a filibuster (60). And the wasteful louts wasted over two years doing it no less.

[ACPlayer]

Those are the rules of the game. Look them up. Estrada's merit did not rise the level required by the game.

Whining about the rules of the game. Sheeesh!

[MMMMMM]

It is the first time that has ever been done, ACPlayer, and the fact is that if it were always done it would make all nominations moot and unconfirmable.

Legal, but unprecedented and disgraceful. Unethical too, IMO.

The Dems are losing popularity and power and obviously they aren't going down without playing as dirty as they possibly can.

[ACPlayer]

You sound like the democrats whining about the Florida election, putting bumper stickers "lets not elect him in 2004 either".

Intellectually deficient, results driven positions.

As I said, Republicans will get a change after 2004 to filibuster the democratic pres's nominations.

[MMMMMM]

Do you think filibusters are good things?

In our country's more evil hours, opponents of racial equality employed filibusters to stymie civil rights legislation.

You are on the wrong side of the fence on this one. Filibusters are not good things. They prevent the addressing of issues which need to be addressed, as well as wasting time and resources.

[elwoodblues]

Filibusters themselves are neither good nor bad --- the way that they are used can be good or bad. A filibuster is a tool. I've heard people say the same about guns --- they are neither good nor bad; rather it depends on how they are used.

You could make the same arguments about many other powers held by different branches of government:

Is a senator's ability to propose a non-germaine amendment good?
How about the president's ability to issue pardons?
How about the president's ability to veto legislation?

All of the above are traditional tools held by various political branches. Each can be put to good use or bad use. I know this has been said before in this thread, but these discussions always seem to come up when they are being used against you (or the group with whom you agree.) I remember a whole lot of furor over Clinton making a whole bunch of pardons at the end of his term of office; I doubt I'd hear from the same people if/when Bush makes pardons. I often heard on the radio that Clinton vetoed too much legislation and "thwarted the will of the people"...I doubt if I'd hear the same thing from the same people if Bush used the tool (though I'd probably hear it from the Dems).

~elwood

[MMMMMM]

Filibusters aren't pardons, and they are also purely obstructive tools.

Moreover, the Democrats set a precedent by using the filibuster for the purpose of obstructing a Senate Confirmation Hearing.

It isn't "just whose side you are on" here; this has never been done before and as such represents a new level in purely obstructionist politics.

If the Republicans had ever done this before you would be justified if you said that those who are complaining are just the spoilsports on the losing side--but the Republicans never did it. This is a new level, and a new low.

Also, it is a bald tactic to change the ratio of votes required for approval since it takes more votes to break a filibuster than it does to confirm a judicial nominee.

[elwoodblues]

I guess I'm not quite getting what your position is...is your position that Filibusters are bad or that Filibusters are bad in the context of confirmation hearings?

If it is that they are bad in the context of a confirmation hearing, what is it that makes that context different than others?

In order to get rid of the filibuster (I think) you would have to amend the senate rules to allow for time restrictions on debate time as well as various other rules. I don't think there is a rule called "the filibuster rule." I'm pretty sure that a filibuster is just the implementation of neutral rules (would someone correct me if I'm wrong about that...)

As far as whether the Republicans ever did it before, I really don't care if they did. For me it doesn't matter. For me there are only 2 real issues: 1) should we be allowed to change the rules in the middle of the game because they aren't working in our favor, and 2) In general, should the senate change its rules to disallow the use of the filibuster.

~elwood

[ACPlayer]

Do you think having a requirement for anything good if you dont agree with the result?

Those are the rules of the game. Thats how it is played.

When Republicans use filibusters for whatever purpose no doubt you would applaud. If Gore had been elected by the Supreme Court you would be denouncing that decision.

Get off it, you are carping about the result and not the process. None of your statements here are on principle.

[MMMMMM]

Yes, my statements are on principle. Never before has a filibuster been used for that purpose.

[elwoodblues]

So is the principle: applying existing rules in new contexts is bad, even where the rule itself is not limited in its scope?

I would assume then that you are against the current, potential, use of military tribunals and designation of individual as "enemy combatants."

[MMMMMM]

Some things haven't been done before because people had too much decency or sense of fair play to do them. Filibustering a Senate Confirmation Hearing is one of them.

Are politicians and lawyers ALWAYS to use the dirtiest tricks legally available to them? If there is an area which heretofore has been exempt from dirty legal tricks, the first party to play a dirty legal trick there sets a new and undesirable precedent. They also somewhat violate an unspoken agreement to play fair in that particular arena.

The mere fact that such a tactic could be used to block EVERY nominee, regardless of whether they had a majority of votes, shows that it is a bad tactic to use even if legal. Obviously the system can't work if both sides simply filibuster all the other sides' nominations. Therefore it is a bad idea for anyone to use it in the first place, as they are introducing a new and very pernicious tactic to the playing field.

[MMMMMM]

"So is the principle: applying existing rules in new contexts is bad, even where the rule itself is not limited in its scope?"

No, applying new tactics of dirty warfare is bad in an arena if you know the other side can easily do the same with equal effect--more especially so when both sides are trying for the same overall greater end: a free and prosperous United States of America.

It is also very short-sighted to use highly obstructionist tactics for similar reasons and because such tactics are inherently very wasteful.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]

I would assume then that you are against the current, potential, use of military tribunals and designation of individual as "enemy combatants."

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would he be agains this? It has been used in the past!

[ACPlayer]

[ACPlayer]

Now you are really getting pathetic.

The democrats have blocked a handful of nominations they have found objectionable. They have allowed plenty of nominations to go through, including some they were not very happy about.

You have latched onto a convenient excuse of being against the filibuster. When earlier in the discussion you were saying that the democrats were not even allowing a hearing which was not true. When educated by us that it was the cloture vote that was failing you proceeded to latch onto that as the problem.

Besides, all that, just because a tool has not been used does not automatically make it a bad tool.

[Wake up CALL]

"Besides, all that, just because a tool has not been used does not automatically make it a bad tool."

Finally something AC and I are able to agree upon. Let's pull out the atom bomb and use it in the Middle East! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[MMMMMM]

There is a difference between blocking a judicial nomination by:

1) using the intended method of voting, and thus not confirming when a majority does not vote for confirmation, or

2) filibustering the Senate Confirmation Hearings, which requires more votes to break the filibuster than the number of votes which would be required to block the nomination if it went to a proper vote

So just how am I "getting pathetic"?

What is pathetic is that the Democrats would stoop to setting a new precedent by doing just this in the case of Estrada.

[MMMMMM]

(excerpt) Now, despite having enough votes to be confirmed, Estrada is blocked — because Senate Democrats absolutely refuse to allow his nomination a vote, as the Constitution requires. Estrada has the support of 55 of senators, but 60 votes are required to break the filibuster. This month, Democrats succeeded for the sixth time in blocking a cloture motion — which would stop debate and allow a vote — and so continued the first filibuster of an Appeals court nominee. (end excerpt)

More text below:

(excerpt)
May 29, 2003, 9:30 a.m.
Masters of Obstruction
The Estrada roadblock continues.

By Mario H. Lopez

Senate Democrats' opposition to a first-rate Hispanic's judicial nomination should come as no surprise given the Democratic party's long history of obstruction on issues of race and equal opportunity. This statement may seem bold — the Democrats are constantly advertising themselves as the party of minorities — but the facts surrounding Miguel Estrada's nomination leave room for no other conclusion.
For two years, Democrats have played political games, offered racial insults, and finally resorted to the favorite parliamentary tool of past equal-opportunity obstructionists — the filibuster.

Miguel Estrada, nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, is a proud example of the American dream. He came here as a high-school student speaking little English. Before ascending to his current position at a leading Washington law firm, he graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, clerked for both a Supreme Court justice and a Court of Appeals justice, argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court, and served as assistant to the solicitor general under presidents Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush.

Estrada's impressive resume includes more experience than those of many past nominees. Indeed, five of the eight judges currently on the D.C. Circuit had had no prior judicial experience. And the American Bar Association, which routinely rates judicial picks, gave Estrada their highest rating.

Now, despite having enough votes to be confirmed, Estrada is blocked — because Senate Democrats absolutely refuse to allow his nomination a vote, as the Constitution requires. Estrada has the support of 55 of senators, but 60 votes are required to break the filibuster. This month, Democrats succeeded for the sixth time in blocking a cloture motion — which would stop debate and allow a vote — and so continued the first filibuster of an Appeals court nominee.

Democrats claim that Estrada has no support in the Hispanic community — even though not one membership-based Hispanic organization opposes Estrada. The racial attack peaked when Rep. Bob Menendez sneered that Estrada isn't Hispanic enough.

"Being Hispanic means for us much more than having a surname," Menendez said — although he failed to list the official requirements for Hispanic-ness. If Menendez has such a list, perhaps he should send it to the Honduran-born Estrada.

For the Left's racial demagogues and self-appointed thought police, all minorities must think alike. Of course, the only views considered acceptable are those backing policies that keep minorities firmly under the thumb of government programs the Left controls.

Currently, the "substantive" anti-Estrada argument rests on two assertions: first, that he hasn't answered enough questions, and second, that the administration will not release memos he wrote while serving as assistant to the Solicitor General.

Because the Solicitor General represents the government, the memoranda in question fall under attorney-client privilege. Every living SG agrees that releasing them would do long-term harm to the Justice Department (of the seven SGs, four are Democrats, and three are Republicans). Tellingly, producing such documents has not been required of past nominees.

Clinton SG Seth Waxman, one of Estrada's former bosses, wrote that he has "great respect both for Mr. Estrada's intellect and for his integrity" and that Estrada is "a model of professionalism and competence."

The lack of credible opposition to Estrada and the flimsy arguments, thinly-veiled racial epithets, and political tricks are all just a continuation of Democratic party opposition to equal opportunity.

In the 1930s, Democrats filibustered to death a federal anti-lynching bill that passed the House several times. Civil-rights litigation was repeatedly derailed in the 1950s by Democratic filibusters or threats thereof. Democrats filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act for 74 days, and in 1963, Democratic governor George Wallace physically blocked the schoolhouse door to prevent two black students from entering the University of Alabama.

Today, Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle is blocking the courthouse door, refusing to give a vote to a nominee who would be the first Hispanic on the D.C. Circuit Court.

If the Democrats were forced to filibuster the old-fashioned way — by being required to speak continuously — perhaps they would take their place alongside brethren like ex-Sen. Strom Thurmond. As an opponent of desegregation — and a Democrat — Thurmond spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes in opposition to the 1957 Civil Rights Act. (end excerpt)


— Mario H. Lopez is a writer and communications consultant in Arlington, Va.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-lopez052903.asp

[ACPlayer]

Your quote from a previous note:

The purpose of the confirmation hearings is to certify the candidate's fitness for the position--not to vote on whether we like his views. The Constitution empowers the President to select nominees--if they don't like that, maybe they should work on changing that law, rather than playing along when it works for them but stonewalling when it works against them. Or work harder to get a President they like, with ideas, worth electing.

Point a, at this point you were not even clear that the problem was the filibuster. You stated that the dems were blocking the hearing of Estrada etc.

Point b, purpose of the process is to certify the candidate and not rubberstamp him. As I stated in a previous note, I find the automatic rubberstamping of anything the WH says by the Republicans in congress disturbing.

Point c, the President Nominates and not appoints. It must go thru advise and consent.

Point d, the advise and consent process requires that a proper vote be taken, including overcoming a cloture vote if needed. Cloture has been a part of the senate process for many more years than you and I have been around.

Point e, there are other procedures in congress that require a super majority. Thats the way the system was designed, to brake the run away power of the majority. IT is a GOOD thing. I would not want a runaway Democratic majority in the future doing what it wants without some brakes built into the system.

Point f, your responses regarding cloture being bad, appears to be entirely a function of the fact that the appointments were held up using this procedure.

Combine, points a to f and the answer is pathetic.

[ACPlayer]

My answer remains the same:

1. Thats the process -- get over it.
2. Republicans griping about the system when the result is bad, is just as bad as the democrats griping about the system when the result is bad.

You guys are supposed to be poker players. Quit being so results oriented.

If you want to suggest that we get rid of cloture, research the issue and present cogent arguments why this brake on the power of the majority should be removed -- and dont base it on this one subject. Re-arrangement of checks and balances should be done carefully.

[MMMMMM]

Using a filibuster, to block the hearing from going to a vote as the Constitution requires, is NOT part of the checks and balances intended in our system. It is pure obstructionism. The Constitution requires that the matter proceed to a vote. Filibustering the confirmation process is just finding a not illegal loophole in order to use a purely obstructionist tactic to prevent that.

Also I take it you are now not claiming it is baloney that the Democrats were the first to use this obstructionist tactic regarding confirmation hearings.

The situation is not parallel to mere partisan griping due to results, because this situation (filibuster preventing cloture of Senate Confirmation Hearing) has never occurred before. The fact that you claim it is essentially a mirror-image type of situation of results-oriented bad sportsmanship shows that you are incapable of determining precisely where analogies are valid or flawed.

Also, I'd like to see just where in the Constitution ANY kind of filibuster is considered to be part of our system of checks and balances.

[MMMMMM]

Artificially raising the ceiling of required votes from 54 to 60 by filibustering (since it requires more votes to break a filibuster than to confirm) is unprecedented in Senate Confirmation Hearings.

Now apparently the Democrats think it is OK to do this with any candidate they don't like, instead of showing their disapproval by the normal voting process.

I've mentioned all the important points in other posts in this thread and you still don't seem to be able to put it all together and see why this is bad for everyone, both Republicans and Democrats.

Also I never said what the Democrats did was illegal. I said it was shameful, and a bad idea all around to open that tactic in this arena.

End of discussion for me. If the articles and my own comments can't convince you that the filibuster was a bad idea (as well as a dirty trick since it had never been done before in this situation), I don't think anything can.

[elwoodblues]

I just pulled up an article about the history of the use of the Filibuster. Just a few interesting passages (not meant to promote one view over the other):

[ QUOTE ]
The first recorded episode of dilatory debate occurred in 1790, when senators from Virginia and South Carolina filibustered to prevent the location of the first Congress in Philadelphia. [FN27] The issue had come to a vote once before; the House voted to locate the Capitol in Philadelphia, the Senate voted against it. [FN28] The issue was so close in the Senate that an ailing *188 senator had to be carried into the Senate on his bed to cast the swing vote. One rainy day, knowing that the ill senator could not be carried in, the Senate backers of the House proposal renewed their efforts. To combat this move, Southern senators who preferred a Capitol closer to home made long speeches and dilatory motions that prevented the vote that day. Senator William Maclay, a supporter of the proposal to locate the Congress in Philadelphia, reported in his memoirs that "[t]he design of the Virginians and the Carolina gentlemen was to talk away the time, so that we could not get the bill passed." [FN29] Maclay complained that the "unreasonable delays" would erode "the confidence of the people" in the Senate
....
The extent of the use of prolonged debate or procedural delay for tactical purposes in the early Senate remains uncertain. Although it seems to have occurred, the rules probably prohibited it. For example, Thomas Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Procedure, which was adopted formally by the House and *189 informally by the Senate in the early Congresses, specified: "No one is to speak impertinently or beside the question, superfluously or tediously." [FN35] Yet, despite this rule, such debate occurred. Virginia's John Randolph, for example, compiled such a record of protracted irrelevant talk during his long service in the House and his subsequent brief tenure in the Senate that Thomas Jefferson used the generic term "a John Randolph" to describe one who protracted the proceedings of Congress. [FN36] It is not clear, though, whether extended debate with dilatory intent was considered an established practice at this point, or whether it was simply the bad habit of a few persons.
...
Standard histories of the Senate describe the early decades of the nineteenth century as the golden age of Senate debate. [FN37] Clay, Webster, and Calhoun were great orators and were quite prone to lengthy speeches. Clay and Webster, however, were never accused of having used debate for dilatory purposes, and actually favored restrictions on debate. [FN38] Calhoun, however, did not, and he clearly used extended debate for dilatory rather than expository purposes. [FN39] Calhoun's use of extended debate to protect the interests of Southerners was consistent with his theory of minority rights; he, of course, was a leading proponent of an antimajoritarian theory of government that accommodated the views of the slaveholding white South. Thus, it appears that the Senate's first *190 serious controversies over "obstructive" uses of debate occurred in the context of the sectional and party disputes of the 1820s.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just thought students of history might find this interesting.

~elwood

[ACPlayer]

There was nothing aritificial about raising the ceiling. Filibusters are there for a good reason.

The democrats actually established the precedent for a candidate that deserved it and then used it on other less deserving candidates.

You are plainly carping because you dont like the result.

I dont particularly care whether the filibuster in this case was a good idea or a bad idea, the point is and always has been, these are the rules of the game. GROW UP, GET OVER IT!

[ACPlayer]

Here is another chance to understand the process.

Nobody filibustered the senate confirmation hearings. They went just fine.

[MMMMMM]

First, please show where filibusters are "written into the rules of the game" rather than being merely a device invented and employed for obstructionism, which also happens to be not illegal.

Second, please make an argument as to why any not illegal tactic is never a bad idea nor a shameful dirty trick.

Third, explain why it is not a bad idea to initiate a tactic which, if it were to be the implemented it in similar fashion by the opposition, could potentially bring to a halt forever a necessary process (confirmation of judges).

Fourth, reiterate what you think I am carping about and why you believe it is about that, rather than what I say I am concerned about.

Fifth, explain why "growing up and getting over it" is a preferred method for dealing with concerns over use or misuse of political process.

Also, while you are at it, you might deign to explain the obvious: why disagreeing with you is carping rather than arguing.

[ACPlayer]

Carping = complaining

You are complaining about the rules of the senate that have been in place from the start.

Your entire complaint about the filibuster is based upon this one issue, a result you did not like.

Your facts are wrong about how and when the filibuster is used during the confirmation process.

Your complaint is wrong. The confirmation of judges has not been brought to a halt. Plenty of them are being confirmed, including conservative judges.

Filibuster is not an illegal tactic, it is a legitimate rule with great value in limiting the power of the majority. I would not want president lieberman nominating Hilary to be on the Supreme Court and have a dem majority ram it thru. The filibuster would be quite useful at that time.

[MMMMMM]

You answered ZERO of the points/requests in my post.

Once again, my complaint is based on the TACTICS EMPLOYED, not the RESULT. EVERY criticism I have made on this issue was regarding TACTICS EMPLOYED or PROCESS, not RESULT.

The links I provided are ACCURATE about how the filibuster was used in this instance.

The fact that the nomination process has not been halted does not render my points invalid.

[ACPlayer]

[Wake up CALL]

MMMMMM,

What wlse would you expect from a group who "carps" about Al Gore losing the Presidency with a majority of the popular vote yet do everything within their power to allow a minority of Senators to block the process of judicial nominations. They will get their due when voted out of office at the next general election. Till then let them have their fun then afterward whine about losing the election and how "unfair" it was!

[andyfox]

All politicians are hypocrites, both Democrats and Republicans. Of course they'll complain when they get the short end of the stick and then use that same stick on their opponents and see nothing wrong with it.

Having said that, there is an excellent case to be made for doing away with the eletoral college and having the candidate with the most popular votes be elected. (There is no case whatsoever for carping about Al Gore getting the most popular votes and not winning the election.) And there is an excellent case to be made for the fact that the Supreme Court acted with extraordinary dishonor in deciding the election.

Having said all that, though, here's a liberal who agrees with you that the best description for the Democrats today is indeed a bunch of whiners.

[ACPlayer]

Not only are Democrats whiners, they are do nothing whiners. IMO.