« Woman suffrage -- Because Men Wanted to Be Lazy | Main | Activist Judges »
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Radical Right Radically Misunderstands the Filibuster
From a Mark Levin fan site/blog. For those of you who do not know who Mark Levin is he is a conservative talk radio host on WABC in New York City.
Democrats spewing disinformation about Frist
The Internet is swarming with disinformation accusing Republican Senator Bill Frist of being hypocritical and dishonest for opposing the judicial filibuster, claiming he participated in the same type of filibuster of a Clinton nominee. The talking points say Frist filibustered Clinton nominee Judge Richard Paez in 1996. This NewsMax aticle, however, reveals the truth.
Democrats Perfect the Art of the Double Standard
Judge Paez was confirmed on an up-or-down vote. That is NOT a filibuster of a judge!
This lunacy got my attention when it showed up on my own forum!
Where are the up-or-down votes for Bush's nominees? If we can't have an up-or-down vote because of the Democrat filibuster, then the filibuster rule for judicial nominees must go. It's as simple as that.
Ummm, I think you are a little confused about exactly what a filibuster is (color and emphasis on the line in the post added by me). You see a filibuster is the right of any Senator to take the floor and speak about whatever they want. Your buddy Strom Thurmond holds the record at 24 hours and 18 minutes and that was when he tried to block the civil rights act in 1957 (what a good Republican, I mean southern Democrat turned Republican).
To stop a filibuster you have to vote on whats called a Cloture Motion, this requires that three-fifths of the Senate (60 votes) must vote for the cloture. If this happens than the filibuster is stopped. If it does not get that support than the Senators can keep talking for as long as they want. When this happens the opposition concedes the effort or nomination is hopeless and withdraws the nomination.
The Cloture Motion is what everyone is really up in arms about not the filibuster itself, well in this case Frist wants to get rid of the whole process as it pertains to judiciary nominations. And guess what? Your buddy Frist on vote number 00037 in the year 2000 of the Lord our Christ voted against the Cloture Motion and for the continuation of the filibuster (he was one of 14 Senators to vote Nea). This put an end to the filibuster and brought the vote to floor for an up or down vote. And as we know Judge Richard A. Paez was confirmed 59-39 with 2 not voting and of course Senator Frist voted Nay to the confirmation.
You forgot one important word from the article you cited. You forgot "ultimately", "The fact is Judge Paez ultimately was confirmed on an up-or-down vote, though he had a majority of more than 50, but fewer than 60 votes." You see by forgetting that word your argument becomes a non-truth. There was in fact a filibuster, it happened just prior to the Cloture Motion that ended it and advanced the confirmation to an up or down vote.
To sum this all up, this move by Frist and the radical right is to not only silence the minority Democrats but also the moderate Conservatives. You see right now he would have to get 60 votes in favor of ending a filibuster before even going to an up and down vote. Frist knows he cannot trust some of the people in his party that don't share his radical thinking. But he can gaurantee 51 votes if the filibuster is gone and it goes directly to an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate. Hmmm, silencing the moderates of your own party, pretty sleezy if you ask me.
Posted by The Bastard at 05:42 AM in Right Wing Nut | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2454366
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Radical Right Radically Misunderstands the Filibuster:
Comments
Hey Nut case, could you at least spell Mark Levin's name correctly?
Posted by: MarkLevinFan | Apr 26, 2005 4:00:39 PM
I can't read beyond the spelling of Mark Levin(e). If you can't get this "right" spelling of your rival, how the hell are you going to get the rest of the facts correct!!
Then maybe I'll continue .... to read on.
Posted by: Suzioooooo | Apr 26, 2005 5:26:06 PM
OK! Will do. Sorry. Are you going to apologize for the misinformation or will just keep spatting this crap out because it's the only way your party can get by?
Posted by: The Bastard | Apr 26, 2005 5:36:25 PM
Yep, you can listen to Mark Levin online on the WABC radio web site from 6PM-8PM each night. He puts callers who identify themselves as liberals in the front of the caller queue. Why not give him a call tonight and debate the issue with him? :)
---
No the issue is not at all about the Cloture Motion. Changing the Senates rules for the Cloture Motion is a possible solution to the issue.
The issue is that the senators who are elected by the people and are supposed to represent the people are not doing their jobs by voting on these nominees. It is one thing to bring a legislative proposal to the floor and then debate it, and revise it and compromise on issues or even try to include some pork. It is quite another to look over someone's resume and then decide yea or nay on giving them the job. You can't change the person, you can't change their past, and there isn't anything you can do about it other than to say yes or no.
What is so radical about forcing them to do their jobs? The filibuster has its place in senate politics, but not when it comes to the process for appointments.
Also if the senate follows its own rules and votes to change it own rules, then what is the issue? The system is working when the senate debates and *ultimately* votes. Sometimes you get what you want and sometimes you don't.
Posted by: ¡Oracle! | Apr 26, 2005 6:02:27 PM
Oracle,
That's great that you have this opinion but the jist of the post was to point out that he posted a false statement! Atleast get it right if you're going to talk about it.
Posted by: The Bastard | Apr 26, 2005 6:19:11 PM
Hey don't call the Bastard a nut case, does being right wing and hiding under "mark Levin fan" give you an aura of fake superiority?
And to The Bastard: I've been waiting for somebody, not me, to bring up Strum Thurmond--it was one of his proudest accomplishments.
Posted by: pia | Apr 26, 2005 6:21:16 PM
Why would The Bastard even bring up Stom Thurmond, (who was a Democrat when he filibustered civil rights legislation) without even mentioning Democrat Robert Byrd, who himself filibustered the 1964 civil rights measure, albeit for only 14 hours and 13 minutes. ;)
Posted by: trinity | Apr 26, 2005 6:34:13 PM
Can we keep our eye's on the ball? Sheesh, his post was untrue! Can we discuss that?
And Strom Thurmond was a Dem true but he is as much a Dem as DeLay is moral!
Posted by: The Bastard | Apr 26, 2005 6:37:35 PM
Okay, let's discuss the post. Levin was wrong. Next?
Posted by: Craig R. Harmon | Apr 26, 2005 6:50:02 PM
WOW, Craig, you crucify us (smurk) about our possible misinformation but let this slide. And it wasn't Mark Levin that was wrong it was this stooge (Mark fan) that was wrong on his blog!
Posted by: The Bastard | Apr 26, 2005 6:52:37 PM
Well, Bastard, if you're wrong, in my book you're crucified. I mean, if the Mark fan was here arguing that his blog post was right, well, I'd be right there with logs and nails. He's not. While several people have argued tangentially, none has disputed your correct assessment of the truth value of this misinformation. I mean, you've nailed it to the tree. What do you need me for?
Posted by: Craig R. Harmon | Apr 26, 2005 6:57:50 PM
That's all I wanted to hear! We are not married or civially unified so I won't harp on it with you. We both have wives that can do that better than we can. :-)
Posted by: The Bastard | Apr 26, 2005 7:02:52 PM
"Can we keep our eye's on the ball? Sheesh, his post was untrue! Can we discuss that?"
Gladly.
The Constitution makes no provision for a "super majority" or 2/3 majority in order to confirm a person for a federal court appointment. The Constitution specifically mentions the few instances where a super majority is required for passage, such as an amendment to the Constitution.
The fact that theses specific instances are mentioned demonstrates that the Socialist/Democrat party is breaking the law by filibustering federal judicial nominees. Theses illegal filibusters are what is wrong, not Mark Levin.
Before you proclaim what is true or untrue you should a least attempt to understand what the issue is.
CS
Posted by: cs | Apr 26, 2005 7:06:32 PM
CS,
I understand the issue and I did write about it. I just want people to know when a blogger publishes soemthing that is untrue (especially a neo-con blogger)
Judge Paez was confirmed on an up-or-down vote. That is NOT a filibuster of a judge!
THAT IS NOT A TRUE STATEMENT. AND UNFORTUNATELY A ALOT OF NEO-CONS ARE SAYING IT. FRIST DID USE THE FILIBUSTER.
Can you admit that without changing the subject?
Posted by: The Bastard | Apr 26, 2005 7:10:19 PM
CS, when The Bastard refers to "the ball", the ball he's talking about is the truth-challenged assertion that Judge Paez was not filibustered. As a simple matter of fact, he was. He was not kept from an up or down vote by that filibuster but he was filibustered by Frist.
What you say about no provision being made in the Constitution for a 3/5 majority (not 2/3, by the way, since cloture, at this time, requires only 60 out 100 Senators) is true however, I do not believe that "Advice and Consent" simply means that the President sends down the names and the Congress votes. There is the matter of Advice. Advice implies that the President will seek the advice of all members of Congress. That means debate. I know, I know, actual filibuster like reading from phonebooks has nothing to do with debate or advice. However, the Constitution does allow the Senate to make up certain rules regarding how it conducts its business. Arguably, filibustering is one of those rules. As a tool, the threat of filibuster slows down the process to allow thorough debate to occur, rather than turning the consent process into a mere rubber stamp in the hands of the majority.
On the other hand, I agree with you that, at some point, after thorough (real) debate, the Constitution does require that a vote take place. That's as far as I can go, Bastard, the rest is up to you guys.
Posted by: Craig R. Harmon | Apr 26, 2005 7:22:45 PM
Craig,
Fully agree! That's is why the filibuster should not be eliminated. Maybe that's where this should be going. Amend the filibuster to allow for a time limit. You know red light, yellow light, green light. True debate and then a vote?
Yeah, reading from a phonebook is bad business.
Ooops! Got off the subject, sorry, this guy "MarkLevinFan" is wrong. Please correct your site or cite or whatever, just correct it!
Posted by: The Bastard | Apr 26, 2005 7:29:09 PM
Attention all libs who think you are smarter than everyone else. You can call Mark Levin 1-800-848-WABC. He will put you at the front of the line. He might even give you some FREE government cheese if you can convey a coherent thought. C'mon, you're much smarter than he is, give it a shot!
Posted by: firefighter4bush | Apr 26, 2005 7:35:39 PM
Well, much smarter than "MarkLevinFan" thats for sure! Again, he is wrong, the post is wrong, fix it!
Posted by: The Bastard | Apr 26, 2005 7:42:34 PM
You know Bastard....you think that you can come over the Marklevinfan blog site, and spew your untruths, and think that your going to educate us....Well, if you have listened to Mark Levin tonight, he opened his show, on this very subject....Now if you were listening, you would have learned something.....
Now out of respect, to the Marklevinfan blog site, I will take my argument from over there, to over here!! I am appalled that you would call this blogger a "stooge", and a "neo-con blogger"......you can't hold a candle to this blogger....he proves his professionalism, unlike you....You can name call, all you want, but your out of your ballpark....don't try to debate these guys....your not in their league...
Now as you can see, what goes around, comes around...and this one came up behind you, to bite you.....So stay here, where you belong!!
Now are you going to say that Mark Levin got it wrong?
Posted by: Debbie | Apr 26, 2005 7:47:46 PM
Debbie,
I never said Mark Levin was wrong. Calm down and read the post by "MarkLevinFan" he is wrong, there was a filibuster, and you can't argue it! Next!
Posted by: The Bastard | Apr 26, 2005 7:51:53 PM
Who are you Debbie, and what are you trying to say?
Posted by: pia | Apr 26, 2005 7:54:21 PM
“THAT IS NOT A TRUE STATEMENT. AND UNFORTUNATELY A ALOT OF NEO-CONS ARE SAYING IT. FRIST DID USE THE FILIBUSTER.”
That is plain wrong. If the guy was FILIBUSTERED he wouldn’t be a federal judge today. Why do you think that a one day hold up of the conformation vote by the full Senate is a filibuster?
“I do not believe that "Advice and Consent" simply means that the President sends down the names and the Congress votes. There is the matter of Advice. Advice implies that the President will seek the advice of all members of Congress. That means debate.”
That is the function of the Judiciary Committee. Once a nominee makes it out of the CONFORMATION HEARINGS his nomination is sent to the full SENATE to be VOTED on.
“However, the Constitution does allow the Senate to make up certain rules regarding how it conducts its business. Arguably, filibustering is one of those rules.”
So when the rules are changed it is perfectly legal and proper. Don’t cry when the rule is changed soon, to force a vote on federal judges.
“On the other hand, I agree with you that, at some point, after thorough (real) debate, the Constitution does require that a vote take place.”
I agree, and that’s why there is this little thing called “Cloture”The stonewalling to DENY a nominee an up or down vote, which is guaranteed by the Constitution, is tantamount to circumventing the law of the land.
You guys are as culpable with the socialist/democrats in this whole illegal affair. Your use of semantics to call a one day hold up a filibuster is childish. Especially when you consider that the very definition and function of the tactic is to prevent a vote which is guaranteed in the Constitution.
Posted by: CS | Apr 26, 2005 8:24:06 PM
Dang you kids are funny......all you can do is harp on smeantics about something that ticked you off?
Aren't there bigger "lies" out there you can whine about?
Keep crying...with each tear does your parties demise become more certain in the upcoming elections......(insert evil laugh here)
Posted by: Kender | Apr 26, 2005 8:40:39 PM
God whats wrong with you people?
Do you understand what the term fillibuster means?
Its not an outcome, it's a process. You can fillibuster someoneor something and at some later point the measure (or person) passes.
When you vote for cloture it means that someone is dragging the debate on in an effort to delay a vote. That is what us poltical scientists would call a fillibuster. It did indeed happen to Paez. Mr. Frist voted against cloture - hence he voted for extended debate even though there was a majority ready to confirm Mr. Paez.
Please go back and learn the correct terms. What you mean to say is that he was not subject to a succesful filibuster. Thats like saying The Eagles never made the Super Bowl because they lost last year.
Posted by: The Cranky Liberal | Apr 26, 2005 9:02:10 PM
I think you meant semantics?
"Keep crying...with each tear does your parties demise become more certain in the upcoming elections......(insert evil laugh here)"
It's good to see that you have a sense of humor!
Did you get that from your lib troll leader, Al Franken?
Posted by: firefighter4bush | Apr 26, 2005 9:08:07 PM
CS, when a Senator takes the floor and talks for eight, ten, twenty hours, that is called filibustering. Filibuster may be used to indefinitely hold up business but it need not come to that for it to be filibuster. Any time a Senator gets up and says whatever comes into his mind, regardless of its relationship to the subject at hand and holds it for as long as he can...that is a filibuster. Semantics, Schemantics...words have meaning. When you make incorrect statements about the meaning of those words, you are likely to be called on it.
Posted by: Craig R. Harmon | Apr 26, 2005 9:09:09 PM
So I guess this must be a paleo-stalanist blog, or is that crypto-communist blog?
Posted by: Sax Machine | Apr 26, 2005 9:22:56 PM
Sax, what asylum did you escape from?
Posted by: Craig R. Harmon | Apr 26, 2005 9:24:51 PM
Did anybody from the right read the post? Gosh, all that hard work and you all refuse to read! Maybe I'll try pictures next time, would that help?
Kender, thanks for stopping by. Always love to see you!
Posted by: The Bastard | Apr 26, 2005 10:03:58 PM
Bastard, FYI. I removed my comment about misspelling Mark's name and I corrected my own misspelling. Truth be told, the only reason I banned you from commenting on my site was because I objected to your user name, not what you had to say. If you want to use a different name that I don't object to, say so here and I'll remove the ban. That's entirely up to you.
Posted by: MarkLevinFan | Apr 26, 2005 10:14:58 PM
OK MarkLevinFan you've got a deal. I will remove the follow up post I put up. But that leaves one little detail. The inaccuracy of your original post that started this. It is <b>wrong</b> and based on the discussion here very few people have a true grasp of what the filibuster is or how it is used. I guess you can blame the MSM (including Mark Levin) for not taking the time to accurately portray something.
I live in NYC and have listened to him. Don't agree with half of what he says but hey, whatever floats your boat.
Now this is debating and compromising my friends! Soemthing our politicians should learn!
Posted by: The Bastard | Apr 26, 2005 10:25:09 PM
Pia... if your speaking of Cite as opposed to Site.
The first sentence Site is spelled correctly for the meaning of the Web"Site" a pro-noun!, first of all!
So Pia.... Debbie is correct on her spelling of Site in her first sentence (as you put it).
2nd of All- Cite-is a Verb meaning to look/see the website.
Example: Now I followed you to this Web"Site". With little Ex"cite"ment!
Now do you understand the difference between Cite & Site?
Posted by: Suzioooooo | Apr 26, 2005 10:25:45 PM
Oh.My.God. Are you for real, MarkLevinFan? What business is it of yours what he calls himself. Do you want to control names, too?
Posted by: Craig R. Harmon | Apr 26, 2005 10:26:54 PM
Thanks Craig, but we all have to compromise sometimes! My initials are literally SOB so I can use that. :-)
And unless MarkLevinFan posts another inaccurate article I probably won't be at his site (cite) much.
But MarkLevinFan must know he is wrong on his original post. And there is no compromise there.
Posted by: The Bastard | Apr 26, 2005 10:31:56 PM
(The Bastard)
"Can we keep our eye's on the ball? Sheesh, his post was untrue! Can we discuss that?"
I'm sorry, but you were the one who brought that up. I was just responding to it. :)
As far as the filibuster debate, the problem is that the Democrats are engaging in a practice that the Republicans never did. They are misusing the filibuster in order to prevent certain judges from getting their up or down vote. If these judges were voted upon by the full Senate, which is what the Constitution calls for, they would be confirmed, more than likely on a bi-partisan basis.
Now, when the shoe was on the other foot, it may be true that Frist voted "nay" on the vote to end debate, but I hope you are not comparing that to the present situation, because they are not at all similar. The Republican leadership has never whipped their guys into line to vote against cloture time and time again in a concerted effort to permanently deny Judge Paez an up or down vote. It didn't happen! The Dems, on the other hand, are doing precisely that to President Bush's nominees, and that is what we are objecting to here. What they are doing is unprecedented.
According to the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, by September of 2004, the Senate had debated Judicial Nominations more than 150 hours, more than any previous Congress. They blocked Miguel Estrada's nomination this way for 28 months. This is an abuse of power, and they aren't even the Majority Party. It's a joke, and a bad one at that. I hope Frist stands firm and changes the Senate rules to end this tyranny of the minority, which the Republicans are clearly entitled to do. Byrd did it often when he was the Majority Leader of his party, so the precedent is there. It's done all the time. Let's get on with it!
Posted by: trinity | Apr 26, 2005 10:32:51 PM
Craig, you ask, "What business is it of yours what he calls himself." It's my site. That makes it my business. I don't tell him what he should call himself on his own site. That is his business.
Posted by: MarkLevinFan | Apr 26, 2005 10:36:50 PM
(Craig R. Harmon}
"CS, when a Senator takes the floor and talks for eight, ten, twenty hours, that is called filibustering. Filibuster may be used to indefinitely hold up business but it need not come to that for it to be filibuster. Any time a Senator gets up and says whatever comes into his mind, regardless of its relationship to the subject at hand and holds it for as long as he can...that is a filibuster"
Yes, and the last time you saw a Senator actually do this, Craig R. Harmon, was when exactly? Thanks for the civic lesson, but your definition is rather obsolete, don't you think? Filibusters aren't what they used to be.
Good point, though. If the Dems continue to obstruct, Republicans should at least make them actually stand up there and be uncomfortable, and read telephone books or something. This effortless, virtual filibuster nonsense has got to go!
Posted by: trinity | Apr 26, 2005 10:44:40 PM
Trinity, I agree. If they are going to threaten a filibuster, we should at least get a show out of it.
Posted by: Craig R. Harmon | Apr 26, 2005 11:04:06 PM
Trinity,
Senators have used the telephone book. And the point is that the filibuster can be ended by a cloture, as stated in my post, the problem is the Frist cannot gaurantee enough votes to pass the motion so lets just get rid of it! That is not compromising. He is not only silencing the minority by suggesting this but also the moderate conservatives that don't agree with his radical view. It's absurd!
Posted by: The Bastard | Apr 26, 2005 11:31:39 PM
And...MarkLevinFan has still not updated his site to reflect what the actual article hinted too. Frist participated in the filibuster in 2000. It can not be argued otherwise, it is not aridiculous request, if you are going to argue or comment on fact then present the facts. No distortion!
And Trinity, one simple question, you state <i>"the Senate had debated Judicial Nominations more than 150 hours, more than any previous Congress,"</i>if that is true (don't have time right now to look it up)could this have anything to do with crappy judges that needed more time to be talked about?
Posted by: The Bastard | Apr 26, 2005 11:37:06 PM
I believe that my comment on the MarcLevinFan site was taken out--as was the sentence that I was responding to.
Doesn't bother me: anybody who knows me knows that I take words and their various meanings seriously.
Posted by: pia | Apr 27, 2005 7:39:02 AM
"CS, when a Senator takes the floor and talks for eight, ten, twenty hours, that is called filibustering. Filibuster may be used to indefinitely hold up business but it need not come to that for it to be filibuster. Any time a Senator gets up and says whatever comes into his mind, regardless of its relationship to the subject at hand and holds it for as long as he can...that is a filibuster. Semantics, Schemantics...words have meaning. When you make incorrect statements about the meaning of those words, you are likely to be called on it."
OK Craig, would you prefer the word Obstruct over filibuster?
Main Entry: 1fil•i•bus•ter
Pronunciation: 'fi-l&-"b&s-t&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Spanish filibustero, literally, freebooter
2 [2filibuster] a : the use of extreme dilatory tactics in an attempt to delay or prevent action especially in a legislative assembly b : an instance of this practice.
Main Entry: 2filibuster
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -tered; fil•i•bus•ter•ing /-t(&-)ri[ng]/
intransitive senses
1 : to carry out insurrectionist activities in a foreign country
2 : to engage in a filibuster
transitive senses : to subject to a filibuster
Main Entry: ob•struct
Pronunciation: &b-'str&kt, äb-
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Latin obstructus, past participle of obstruere, from ob- in the way + struere to build, heap up -- more at OB-, STREW
1 : to block or close up by an obstacle
2 : to hinder from passage, action, or operation : IMPEDE
3 : to cut off from sight
That is the whole point in what the minority party is doing to these nominees, which ever word you choose to name it. I am no fan of Frist and never will be, but his vote against cloture is not filibustering. If you can show me where he was the guy “quoting the phonebook” then I will agree he filibustered.When it comes to denying a nominee for federal judgeship an up or down vote it is wrong, no matter which party you belong to.
And in the end it means that those elected by the people to govern the country are being prevented from doing the People’s will.
There is a reason the Republicans are in the majority, the people do not want the Democrats in charge. They reject the Socialist agenda.
CS
Posted by: CS | Apr 27, 2005 9:17:45 AM
CS,
I'm tired of doing the research for you so all I'm gonna say is do your own googling! Frist was part of the filibustering that held up Richard Paez nomination for four year "FOUR YEARS". This was done by using a "hold" which according to the Brookings Institute reporting in front of the Senate on June 17, 2003 clearly notes.
<blockquote>As is commonly noted, the right of senators to place “holds” on legislative measures and executive and judicial nominations is not formally recognized in the standing rules of the Senate. Holds—or the ability of a single senator to block the majority leader from calling up legislative measures and nominations—arise in the Senate because of the chamber’s reliance on unanimous consent agreements and debatable motions to proceed to schedule business and organize debate on the Senate floor. Lacking a previous question motion, a simple majority is powerless under Senate rules (except under special conditions) to determine whether and when to proceed to consider a measure or matter on the Senate floor. By placing a hold on a measure, a senator is registering his or her intention to object when the majority leader seeks unanimous consent.
Although nothing in Senate rules binds either the majority or minority leader to honor his colleagues' holds, such objections typically delay action because leaders are loathe to upset colleagues whose cooperation will be needed in the future. Leaders can ignore holds, but to proceed in face of opposition they would customarily then have to pass a motion to proceed, which is subject to a filibuster. As the weight of Senate business and ideological and partisan conflict over major issues have increased since the 1970s, holds have been transformed. Where previously holds were predominately used for senators to obtain advance notification before measures would be brought to the floor, by the 1980s holds had been turned into single-senator vetoes. Judge Richard Paez’s four-year wait to be confirmed to a Ninth Circuit judgeship in the late 1990s attests to the consequences of such holds. Holds now are also often used to take measures or nominations hostage in exchange for concessions from fellow senators or the Administration. Just last week we learned that a senator had secretly placed a hold on literally hundreds of Air Force promotions and nominations, affecting officers from majors to generals. The target of the hold? Hundreds of officers had been taken hostage to force the Air Force to deliver a promised four new C-130 cargo planes for the Idaho Air National Guard. Although hostage-taking of such proportions is out of the norm, hostage-taking in general is a well-honed practice. No definitive data exist, but targets of such hostage-taking are typically presidential appointees awaiting confirmation.</blockquote>
These "holds" aren't even written rules and the Republicans used them for four years! And then they got rid of them. This has been a slow erosion of any tool the minority party has. These power drunk sleeze balls will not always be the majority.
From the American Prospect.
<blockquote>But when the Republicans took over the White House in 2001 and the Senate in 2003, things sped up. In 2003, Hatch announced that he would abandon the "blue-slip system" he had insisted on since 1995, whereby a senator could block action on a nominee from his or her home state; North Carolina's Jesse Helms had used this power to block every one of three black candidates to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Anonymous floor holds were abolished, as was the rule requiring that at least one minority-party senator on the Judiciary Committee must agree to a vote on a nominee if any committee member objects. These rules changes left the Democrats with only the filibuster.
Frist's solution to the current stalemate on judicial nominations is a "simple return to the 200-year of tradition on judges." Frist's memory and history are obviously selective. It was just five years ago, in March 2000, that Frist himself participated in the filibuster against Paez after Lott finally overrode the Smith hold. In light of the ferocity with which Republicans stonewalled Clinton's nominees, Frist's entire case folds; the 10 nominees filibustered by Democrats hardly compare to the 65 Clinton nominees denied a vote by the Republicans' under-the-radar procedural maneuvers.</blockquote>
On March 9, 2000, Frist participated in a filibuster of Richard Paez, President Clinton's nominee to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. When confronted about his vote late last year, Frist claimed he filibustered Paez for "scheduling" purposes. Not true. A press release by former Senator Bob Smith titled "Smith leads effort to block activist judicial nominees" plainly states that the intent of the filibuster was to "block" the Paez nomination.
In fact, Paez was only one of at least six filibusters Republicans attempted during the Clinton years. Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and others argue that these filibusters don't count because they ultimately weren't successful in blocking the nominees. All that proves, however, is that Clinton's nominees were moderate enough to secure 60 votes. It also suggests the remedy to Bush's problem: Stop nominating extremist judges to the federal bench.
So "CS", if you need more history lessons please go back and get your GED! (Smiles)
Posted by: The Bastard | Apr 27, 2005 11:42:53 AM
CS are you so brainwashed that "Democrat" equals "Socialist?" Sad
The Bastard just gave you a great history lesson that you didn't thank him for, so I will sum it up in very simple English so you can cite for your site.
Bill Frist was part of a four year filibuster (or hold) used to literally hold up Richard Paez's nomination for four years.
A hold can be a measure by a single senator to delay a nomination of a person.
While not legally binding, precedent has allowed this.
So Frist who badly wants to get rid of the filibuster for his own good, was a pivotal part of Paez's hold for four years. Hold=filibuster.
Yes I repeated myself because that's so amazing and something that everybody should know and understand.
FRIST IS TRYING TO GET RID OF SOMETHING THAT HE USED FOR HIS OWN REASONS
Posted by: pia | Apr 27, 2005 12:21:46 PM
Hey Bastard,
"Go back and get your GED"?....are all these personal attacks necessary? Marklevinfan, invited you back, as long as you keep it a clean, healthy debate....But these personal attacks, "Neo-con blogger, stooge, sleezeballs", shouldn't be accepted....CS, is just trying to be civil with you.....and when you don't agree, you have to point out, that us Republicans have a spelling problem....
If you go over to the Marklevinblogspot, you will see that Mark opened his show with the so-called Bill Frist filibuster......listen to it, and make your comment....and if you disagree with Mark...call his show and tell him.....I'm sure you won't get past the "20 second liberal clock", if you decide to spew your personal attacks on him......
All I'm saying is...try and keep it civil....and if you would listen to the show, you will find that CS is very important to the Mark Levin show.....He hasn't been wrong yet....
I know that partisan politics can get nasty...but at least we can remain civil to each other, and leave out the name calling....
Glad to see you changed your name from Bastard to SOB....you toned it down a bit LOL (smiley).....
Posted by: Debbie | Apr 27, 2005 12:41:23 PM
Actually Debbie, my initials are SOB so blame my parents. As far as the name calling and tone it down, nope won't happen. We are arguing an actual fact in history, BILL FRIST USED THE FILIBUSTER, which your friend "MarkLevinFan" most clearly did not state in a recent post. This is not opinion based it is fact based. How many times does it have to be stated. Not just by me but by other commentors on this site. By the way some of them that stated that you were wrong argue on this site all the time and they are not liberals but they saw the blatant lie and admitted it was wrong. I guess you are just following "your" presidents lead and denying guilt. Seems to be the Republican way these days.
JUST REMEMBER YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST FACT THAT HAS BEEN REPLIED TO TIME AND TIME AGAIN THROUGHOUT THIS DISCUSSION!
I will end with this, CS's and I quote <i>"I am no fan of Frist and never will be, but his vote against cloture is not filibustering."</i> It is all about filibustering. The filibustering (stalling) was already happening, all the cloture vote does is try to put an end to it but Frist voted against ending it!!!!
Without making fun, you guys and girls are just too funny!
Posted by: The Bastard | Apr 27, 2005 12:56:58 PM
Ahh I must listen to this show to see the level of discussion that goes forth. If Mark Levin can inspire such thoughtful, deep and analytical discussion, he must be a man of the ages. A modern Man of the Enlightenment. I must, must must listen to him soon.
My brain has been working to hard and he sounds like just the kind of guy to make it switch off.
Posted by: The Cranky Liberal | Apr 27, 2005 3:44:48 PM
nah, he'll just make you in-cite-full.
Otherwise defined as filled with venom for his show, his callers, and his fan-site personed by people of questionable taste and methodology.
To delete a person's comment because it shows that something (also deleted) was innacurate is showing disdain for free speech.
Posted by: pia | Apr 28, 2005 11:00:30 AM
Is this exciting argument over?
Posted by: Elijah | Apr 28, 2005 9:00:00 PM
I think so!
Posted by: The Bastard | Apr 28, 2005 9:22:40 PM
Well, I guess it IS basically over, since both sides appear to be pretty well entrenched in their stance on the issue. I would just like to make one more attempt to convince you guys that you ARE actually wrong though, if that's okay with you. I'll re-start the discussion with the following post from The Bastard.
(The Bastard)
"Senators have used the telephone book. And the point is that the filibuster can be ended by a cloture, as stated in my post, the problem is the Frist cannot gaurantee enough votes to pass the motion so lets just get rid of it! That is not compromising. He is not only silencing the minority by suggesting this but also the moderate conservatives that don't agree with his radical view. It's absurd!
Well, first off, TB, I would point out that if you think that getting rid of the filibuster is a radical view and an absurd idea, then you would have to acknowledge that the Dems have in the past been radical and absurd.
Democrats, when in the majority, have agreed with what the Republicans are thinking of doing. Not only that, but on occasion, they have actually changed the Senate rules themselves when they believed that the then minority party, (Reps) were making it difficult for them to further their agenda.
With regard to the filibuster, it may or may not have a place in politics, but let's face it, to act as though changing Senate rules is a radical, right-wing form of tyranny or something, is not to be objective in your criticism. It's not honest to take the position that the Republicans are wrong now in making this argument, but it was okay when the Democrats advocated making the same change. Can we at least agree upon that?
Not only have Democrats argued in favor of ending filibusters for judicial nominations, but for ending them in the legislature as well. The NYT has also come down on the side of getting rid of filibusters altogether, at least they did when the Democrats were in the majority. ;) Would you care to acknowledge or comment on that fact before I go any further?
Posted by: trinity | Apr 30, 2005 2:59:39 PM
Trinity,
Considering that I look at myself as more of a moderate I would consider the move on either side radical.
As far as getting rid of the filibuster here is my whole take short and sweet. The filibuster is a stop gap a "pause" if you want to call it that, it forces the senate to move to a more bipartisan stance when making such important decisions as appointing a judge for life.
They achieve this by one side pulling a filibuster and the other side is forced to convince enough people on their side to vote for the judge and obtain enough votes from the other side to obtain 60 votes in a cloture. They then move onto an up down vote were it is assumed that an overwhelming majority will approve the canidate. Majority by one vote is not in the best interest of the nation. That just means the canidate was marginal. Are we as a nation marginal? Would we settle for that?
If you obtain an overwhelming majority vote for someone it can also be safely assumed that that judge is going to act in the best interest of the consitution and not way in heavily for either side. Pipe dreams I know, but our founding fathers built into the rules for a reason.
As far as both sides arguing to get rid of it at one time or another you would have to agree that both sides have also argued to keep it when they were on the recieving end, so keep it! What's the problem?
Posted by: The Bastard | Apr 30, 2005 7:46:11 PM
Bastard, that misses the whole point. The Constitution does not require an overwhelming majority to confirm judges. It requires a majority, simple and pure--period. You are demanding more than is required. Now would it be nice to have a grand majority? Sure. Unfortunately, or fortunately, as the case may be, you don't get to decide what is necessary to confirm judicial nominations...that is what we have a Constitution for.
Posted by: Craig R. Harmon | May 1, 2005 12:17:21 AM
Craig,
I was going to type a long winded response but I think the <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0425/p01s01-uspo.htm" rel="nofollow">CS Monitor</a> sums it up pretty well, so I pasted it here and highlighted my points. Now remember CS Monitor is a conservative paper, I don't want to hear charges of bias.
<b>WASHINGTON</b> - Wrapped in the sanctity of the US Constitution, the debate over the "nuclear option" to end judicial filibusters sounds patriotic, almost noble.
Republicans say they are protecting the nation from a minority of Democratic senators seeking to impose a 60-vote supermajority on judicial confirmations when the Constitution requires only 51 votes.
Democrats say they are protecting the nation from an attempt by the Republican majority to undermine the framers' careful design of checks and balances within the Senate.
On one level, the deadlock over President Bush's appeals-court nominees, and the related debate over the so-called nuclear option, increasingly resembles a "political game of chicken," as one analyst puts it. But by presenting constitutional themes and invoking the work of the Founding Fathers, senators on both sides of the aisle are escalating the confrontation beyond mere politics.
"Constitutional politics" is how Michael Les Benedict, a legal historian at Ohio State University in Columbus, views it. "It raises the matter to an issue of principle," he says.
So who holds the constitutional high ground? As in most high-stakes disputes involving fundamental issues, a range of compelling arguments support both sides.
The debate revolves around three related provisions: the Constitution's advice and consent clause, the congressional rules clause, and Senate Rule V.
Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution says in part that the president shall have the power to nominate and appoint judges "by and with the advice and consent" of the Senate.
<b>While the same clause requires a two-thirds Senate vote to ratify treaties, it sets no specific requirement for judicial confirmation.</b>
That suggests that it takes a simple majority of 51 votes to confirm a judge, which has been the historic practice. But some legal analysts say <b>that nothing in the Constitution prevents the Senate from setting a higher standard.</b>
The Constitution also says in Article I, Section 5: <b>"Each House [of Congress] may determine the rules of its proceedings."</b> Senate rules permit members to engage in filibusters to stall judicial confirmation votes. Under Senate Rule XXII, even though only 51 votes are needed to confirm a nominee, it takes at least 60 votes to end a filibuster. In addition, the rule says any attempt to change a Senate rule requires the support of two-thirds of the senators "present and voting" (67 votes if all 100 senators are participating).
It is those higher vote requirements that are the intended target of the nuclear option. Under that option, the Republicans would use a majority vote (rather than 67 votes) to change the filibuster rule from 60 votes to 51 votes.
That would implicate Senate Rule V, which says that the Senate's rules shall continue from one Senate to the next "unless they are changed as provided in these rules."
Republicans say the combination of Rule V and open-ended Democratic filibusters of judges can result in unconstitutional entrenchment, rendering Rule V invalid. This is why some Republicans are calling it the "constitutional option." Democrats say the rules are clear and fair, and should not be unilaterally changed in the middle of a heated dispute.
Overall, Republicans and their supporters say there is a constitutional duty to provide the Senate's advice and/or consent through an up-or-down majority vote on each presidential nominee. To use a filibuster to block a majority vote is to rewrite the Constitution and undermine the fundamental concept of majority rule, they say.
Democrats and their supporters stress that the Senate must follow its own rules when carrying out advice and consent responsibilities. <b>The filibuster rules are designed to protect the interests of the minority party by creating an incentive for majority senators to reach out for compromise rather than adopting a winner-take-all approach. The result of compromise is almost always better government, they say.
"Democratic senators represent a majority of the population, but they are a minority in the Senate," says Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional law professor at Duke University in Durham, N.C. "The filibuster in part is a reflection of that - the way in which senators who represent the majority can act as a check on the majority of senators who represent a minority of the population."</b>
Professor Chemerinsky says the Republican focus on a majority vote is misplaced. <b>"The filibuster doesn't change the fact that to be confirmed it takes a majority," he says. "The filibuster's role is what number of votes does it take to end debate. And there is nothing in the Constitution about the number of votes it takes to end debate."</b>
Not every constitutional scholar is siding with either the Democrats or the Republicans. "I think both sides are wrong," says John McGinnis, a constitutional law professor at Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago.
Professor McGinnis and Michael Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law have identified what they see as a constitutional anomaly in how the Senate rules function. First, they say, the Republicans are wrong by insisting that judicial confirmation is limited to a majority vote. "There is nothing in the advice and consent clause that says the Senate cannot choose to have a confirmation rule by something other than a majority," McGinnis says.
Second, they say, the Democrats are wrong by insisting that the Senate rules can require more than a majority of senators to change any rule. "If a majority could adopt a supermajority rule that could not be repealed by the majority, they could do all kinds of things," says Professor Rappaport. "It would not be necessary to pass a constitutional amendment when the First Congress adopted the Bill of Rights. They could have passed a statute and then just one house, the Senate, could have said, 'This statute shall not be repealed without the consent of 100 percent,' " he says.
"That is extremely odd to think that a single house of Congress could insulate something when in fact legislation requires both houses of Congress to pass, and presentment to the president," Rappaport also says.
The professors say there would be nothing unconstitutional about a Senate rule requiring 60 votes to confirm judicial appointments, but a simple majority of senators must always have the ability to change the rule.
"I disagree on every level," Chemerinsky says. "If Congress were ever to say it takes a 100 percent vote - or 60 or 80 percent - to change this law ... I think that is unconstitutional entrenchment."
To Senate historian Richard Baker, such heated debates are nothing new. "Isn't it wonderful to drape the mantle of the Constitution around what it is you want to accomplish?" he says. "You can't blame people for trying, and they have been doing that for a long time."
Posted by: The Bastard | May 1, 2005 8:47:33 AM
SO all I was trying to say in my previous reply was that the filibuster protects the minority and holds the Senate to higher standard for such important decisions like appointing life-time judges. It also promotes by-partisan support for such decisions. And I would like to point out that as I highlighted in the article the constitution sets no specific requirement for judicial confirmation.
Everyone likes to take the "un-constitutional" route which is just not true. Show me the rules, article or amendment that you suppose would support the case of the filibuster being un-constitutional.
Posted by: The Bastard | May 1, 2005 8:56:14 AM
There are no constitutional experts that hold that, where the constitution does not specifically set a super-majority standard, the presumption is that a simple majority is implied? There must be.
Anyway, in my estimation, and I admit that I am no lawyer, let alone a Constitutional expert, while the Constitution specifically allows both chambers to set rules for how they conduct business, to set a rule that required more than 51 votes to approve a judicial nominee would be unconstitutional without an amendment. That is not what is being argued here. We are addressing the 60 vote requirement to limit debate on judicial nominees. That is a different thing, but the <b>effect</b> of applying the 60 vote cloture rule to debate on judicial nominees is exactly the same as requiring 60 votes to approve a nominee. Actually, the same could be said for the passing of legislation, for which, again, the Constitution assumes a simple majority requirement. This is why I have argued here against the filibuster, which really is the 60 vote cloture rule.
As for the filibuster protecting the Senate minority that may represent a majority of the population, in my estimation, that is irrelevant. That is, in fact, why the House of Representatives exists in the form in which it does...it <b>is</b> representative of the majority of the population and nicely balances the Senate. No legislation, as you know, can be sent to the President for his signature that does not meet with the approval of the two-per-State Senate <b>and</b> of the representative-of-the-population House of Representatives. There is no evidence to show that, were the Senate populated in the same manner as the House, the Republicans would not hold a majority there anyway. In fact, evidence that they <b>would</b> still be the majority does exist...it is the fact that the Republicans hold the majority in the House of Representatives. In short, I deny that the minority in the Senate <b>does</b> represent a majority of the population...not only because that is not how the Senate is populated but because, if it were the way the Senate were populated, the Democrats would still be in the minority. It just doesn't wash with me. I don't buy the argument, even when presented in a Conservative news source.
It promotes bi-partisan support...that's what debate is for. I don't want the President's nominees to simply be rubber stamped, nor do I believe that they would be without debate. In the end, though, as I see it, indefinitely obstructing action by legislators that are required by the Constitution to act on judicial nominees by debate and simple-majority vote <b>is</b> unconstitutional...the contrary opinion of some Constitutional experts notwithstanding.
My, 'eliminate the filibuster' position has had support from some very <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/opinion/29tue1.html?ex=1115092800&en=e596e45fea7668c8&ei=5070" rel="nofollow">non-conservative newspapers</a>...admittedly, that support dates from when the Democrats were in the majority...go figure.
Posted by: Craig R. Harmon | May 1, 2005 9:16:05 PM
Let me put it this way, syllogistically: any rule that could be used to prevent either chamber of Congress from doing what the Constitution has charged Congress with doing--in this case, voting on judicial nominees--has got to be unconstitutional; the filibuster is preventing the Senate from voting on judicial nominees; therefore, the filibuster of judicial nominees is unconstitutional.
Posted by: Craig R. Harmon | May 1, 2005 9:37:43 PM
Excellent points there, Craiq, and I don't see how anyone can argue with the logic of what you said in your last post. If filibustering judicial nominees is preventing them from getting an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate, by the complete Senate, then it is at odds with our Constitution. I don't see how anyone can come to any other conclusion.
Chris Wallace interviewed Sen. Patrick Leahy this morning on Fox News Sunday, and Wallace confronted Leahy with a couple of his quotes from a few years ago, where he denounced the use of filibusters against judicial nominees on the grounds that they were unconstitutional. Leahy insisted that at the time he was ONLY referring to filibusters in committee, or "pocket" filibusters as he called them, having to do with anonymous holds. Still, his quotes went even further, and in them he also mentioned that judicial nominees should always get an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate.
And he is not the only Democrat who has said this. They've ALL said it.....when THEY were in the majority.
Michele Malkin gives a hat tip to Power Line for the following, and I'll give one to her, because that's where I pulled these quotes.....
"Power Line has been doing a excellent job exposing the Minneapolis Star-Tribune's forgetfulness about its flip-flopping on filbustering. Lots of amnesia going around:
"It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor." Sen. Barbara Boxer, Congressional Record, May 14, 1997
"I find it simply baffling that a senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination." Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, October 5, 1999
"Let's bring their nominations up, debate them if necessary, and vote them up or down." Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Congressional Record, September 11, 1997
"I respectfully suggest that everyone who is nominated is entitled to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor. . . .It is not appropriate not to have hearings on them, not bring them to the floor and not to allow a vote." Sen. Joe Biden, Congressional Record, March 19, 1997
“If, after 150 days languishing on the Executive Calendar that name has not been called for a vote, it should be. Vote the person up or down.” Sen. Dick Durbin, Congressional Record, September 28, 1998
“I do not believe that I as a member of the minority ought to have the right to absolutely stop something because I think it is wrong, that that is rule by minority.” Sen. Tom Harkin, Congressional Record, January 5, 1995
"The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court said: 'Some current nominees have been waiting a considerable time for a Senate Judiciary Committee vote or a final floor vote ... The Senate is surely under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary time for inquiry, it should vote him up or vote him down.' Which is exactly what I would like.” Sen. Pat Leahy, Congressional Record, March 7, 2000
"The U.S. Senate likes to call itself the world's greatest deliberative body. The greatest obstructive body is more like it. In the last session of Congress, the Republican minority invoked an endless string of filibusters to frustrate the will of the majority. This relentless abuse of a time-honored Senate tradition so disgusted Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa, that he is now willing to forgo easy retribution and drastically limit the filibuster. Hooray for him." New York Times editorial, "Time to Retire the Filibuster," January 1, 1995"
P.S. And I would just like to point out to The Bastard that these "filibusters" that are mentioned above are all done in committee, under the Senate rules, which DO permit them. They are what Sen. Leahy referred to as "pocket" filibusters, related to the anonymous holds that were being used in the committee to hold up the nominations. He made a clear distinction between them, and the sort of filibusters that the Democrats are using now to permanently prevent President Bush's nominees from being voted up or down on the Senate floor.
Posted by: trinity | May 2, 2005 12:54:07 AM
Actually, I'd much rather that anyone who is interested in this subject go here...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155173,00.html
...and read the transcript of Wallace's interview with Leahy for themselves. It's so obvious that Leahy is being disingenuous here, it's pathetic. He's using sophistry to attempt to redeem himself, and it's not going to work.
Posted by: trinitiy | May 2, 2005 1:06:13 AM
Trinity, my syllogism is air-tight <b>if</b> one accepts that the major and minor premises are both true. The only way to attack it is to successfully challenge the truth value of one of those premises, which, I have no doubt, someone here will try to do at some point in the near future.
Posted by: Craig R. Harmon | May 2, 2005 2:29:28 AM
OK, now that we agree that both parties do the same thing when they are in the majority lets talk about the filibuster. Trinity said;
<blockquote>If filibustering judicial nominees is preventing them from getting an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate, by the complete Senate,</blockquote>
The "complete Senate" actually gets two chances to vote on a nominee, one with the cloture and the second with the up/down vote. You see Frist is not willing to risk asking for a cloture to end the filibuster because he cannot guarantee the party he can get the overwhelming vote. This is what happens with most filibusters that is why no one challenges them. Again, the filibuster is their to ensure that on such decisions as nominating a judge for life that an overwhelming majority agrees with the person stance on the constitution. Yes it is true that majority is 50+1 but don't you think that is a little careless when electing someone that is going to interpret the very document we live our lives by?
Jefferson said it best...
<blockquote>Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.</blockquote>
With that said I would hope you will all agree that you will be in the minority some day and you will have wished that you had the filibuster. The argument goes both ways and each party has played the victim, in the end the filibuster works.
Look at it this way, I am not a politician either, like Craig said. I'm just trying to protect your rights down the road. Get that, me, a moderate liberal, protect you, moderate conservative. WOW now that is a new concept. I would hope you would recipricate the favor. The filibuster killed us in the 90's but so be it, it kept "activist judges" off the bench (smirk). Don't forget history fella's, you needed that filibuster to get through the 90's, at this rate you'll probably need it more than ever after the 2006 and 2008 elections.
I'm just trying to make sure it is there after those elections so then I can start slamming you for abusing the filibuster (smiles). What comes around goes around. Remember the Republican party was a minority for a very long time. It could happen again. So my suggestion to you is think ahead, be progressive and stop being so short sighted. It is a tool to protect the minority and it doesn't always get used, well in at least 200+ nominees it didn't get used.
Posted by: The Bastard | May 2, 2005 11:03:35 AM
(Craig R. Harmon)
"Trinity, my syllogism is air-tight if one accepts that the major and minor premises are both true. The only way to attack it is to successfully challenge the truth value of one of those premises, which, I have no doubt, someone here will try to do at some point in the near future."
Yes, true enough, Craig. Still, I think we have logic on our side, so hopefully, we can poke holes in their arguments. lol Of course, they've been wrong before, and still won! ;)
Posted by: trinitiy | May 2, 2005 11:47:55 AM
(The Bastard)
"OK, now that we agree that both parties do the same thing when they are in the majority lets talk about the filibuster."
No, No, and NO! (stamping foot) lol TB, I am NOT agreeing that both parties do the same thing when they are in the majority. Well, yes and no, actually. I would concede that both parties, when in the majority, do their utmost to get their agenda through. I'm an honest person and debater, so that I'll gladly agree to.
But no, my argument is that the LEADERSHIP of the Republican Party has never attempted to rally their members to filibuster the judicial nominees once they got out of committee, in order to deny them their up and down vote. Orrin Hatch would not stand for that.
He acknowledges that no matter how poor or how activist he may believe a president's choice for the bench to be, ultimately, eventually, sooner or later, a president, (of both parties) does deserve the respect and the courtesy of having his nominee come to the floor and receive an up or down vote from the Senate.
The Democrat leadership, on the other hand, does not seem willing to extend this same respect to President Bush, and this concerted, partisan effort to block this president from getting a vote in this way, is absolutely UNPRECEDENTED!!! They ARE, in essence, now changing the procedure, and demanding that a super-majority be required to confirm judges. Obviously, we have a problem with that.
Now, did Republican Senators Smith and Sessions work to build a coalition amongst moderates and conservatives to try to do the very same thing? Yes they did. And you're right, Frist did sign on to that, so I guess that gives him the title of "hypocrite". Wow! A hypocritical politician! Shocker! (see above quotes from a bunch of Democrat hypocrites)
The point is, there was responsible Republican leadership at the time who refused to participate in such a radical tactic.
Posted by: trinity | May 2, 2005 12:31:33 PM
Unprecedented? They didn't demand a super majority for the other 200+ judges that were approved. For 10 judges you are willing to throw out the baby with the bath water, I would call that unprecedented. How come the Republicans didn't take this stand the first time they were nominated? How come Bush is not compromising by finding less radical judges to nominate? By throwing them up again is just a slap in the face of compromise. Unprecedented is filibustering over 60 of Clinton's nominees. The Dems are only asking that these 10 be struck down. I don't get what you mean by "unprecedented."
Posted by: The Bastard | May 2, 2005 1:55:24 PM
Bastard, I am merely trying to protect the rule of the majority for when the Democrats return to the majority. I am attacking filibuster on principle and logic, not on benefit or detriment to either Party. I trust the wisdom of the electorate. If that means that Republicans loose the majority in either chamber or in both, so be it. If that were to happen, Republicans would have to either make their case to the people better or adjust their platform to better reflect the will of the people...an agenda that I heartily recommend to the Democrats, by the way.
"The Dems are only asking that these 10 be struck down"
And they definitely get to do that. What they don't get to do is refuse to allow a vote that the Constitution demands that they do.
Posted by: Craig R. Harmon | May 2, 2005 3:13:31 PM
Craig,
They are not refusing anybody the vote. Hell, they haven't even filibustered yet. And if they do then let Frist put forth a cloture. If that works then they can vote. How are they refusing anything if Frist is afraid to take the step after the filibuster to end the filibuster. Because he knows the cards are not in his favor. He won't get enough conservative moderates to end the stalemate. Again, Frist not only wishes to silence the minority but also the moderates in his own party.
Posted by: The Bastard | May 2, 2005 4:38:35 PM
It's a skewed stalemate...you know, the 60-vote requirement to get to a 51-vote vote that the Constitution requires that the Senate take on the nominees. That is exactly how they are preventing the required vote. Set the bar high enough and the vote never gets taken. The cards that count are in the Republican's favor...if the vote were taken on these 10 judges, they would be approved easily. I hardly think that offering 100 Senate hours of debate on each judicial nominee amounts to silencing the minority...or his own Republican moderates, for that matter. The Democrats don't want debate...they want their way, regardless of what the majority in the Senate want.
Sorry, man, but it just doesn't wash.
Posted by: Craig R. Harmon | May 2, 2005 4:59:32 PM
