Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » World Watch » Filibuster and Judges (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Filibuster and Judges
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I thought the issues were laid out well in this article. I don't believe the filibuster should be used to block judicial appointments, I'm not in favor of the filibuster at all. Get rid of it.

The fact that it is a useful tool for the minority, though, is a real impediment.

Here's some additional detail on who is pressuring the Republicans not to change the rules:

"The National Right to Work Committee, a 2.2 million-member group critical of unions, and the Gun Owners of America, with 300,000 members, say they fear eliminating judicial filibusters could eventually lead to doing away with filibusters altogether. "

Two Groups Break Ranks on Changing Filibuster Rules Over Blocked Judges

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was actually impressed at how long he was able to stay reasonable and avoid the whole "evil left conspiracy" talk. One of these days he may get through a whole essay. [Smile]
Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Don't you think he has a point, though, that the debate in the media centers on whether the rules should be changed - rather than whether the judges should be blocked?
Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think the funny aspect about the whole media discussion is that extremists in both the Democrat and Republican camps feel that "The Media" is against them and for the other side.

And so, to expect anything resembling sense on the issue from medai outlets, you'll have to turn to the old standbys:

PBS,NPR,BBC, and C-SPAN

As to getting rid of the filibuster...why?

Why on earth rid yourself of a tool that slows down issues to the point that they can be reflected upon? Perhaps this really is a GOOD time to start discussing the merits of the judicial nominees, and what the drawbacks are.

I love the filibuster,. It still smacks of the "Littlest Senator Who Could" to me.

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jameshanchina
Member
Member # 2402

 - posted      Profile for jameshanchina   Email jameshanchina       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In my point of view that he want to protect himself and his group -the minority and it's a tactic to stay. But we've been accustomed to hearing and seeing before sth ends there is always an impediment.So wait and see,then.
Posts: 41 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TCB
Member
Member # 1677

 - posted      Profile for TCB         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OSC made some interesting points, but I take issue with his dismissal of Republican hypocrisy. He discussed how Republicans have prevented the Senate from voting on judicial appointments in the past, but suggested that what Democrats are doing now is worse because

quote:
...the filibuster is the Big One. It's an entire minority group -- in this case, the Democratic Party -- declaring war on the President...

So somehow the means by which a minority party prevents the Senate from voting on a candidate matters more than the prevention itself? Or perhaps he's suggesting that it's worse for a large minority of senators to prevent a nomination than it is for a few senators in the Judiciary Committee. Either way, I don't buy it.
Posts: 824 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Frankly, I think the committee system is more in need of an overhaul then the fillibuster.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dahut
New Member
Member # 2434

 - posted      Profile for dahut   Email dahut   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mr. Card is leaving out some important information.

He implies that the Democratic party, by threatening filibuster, have prevented Bush from appointing judges. For example, "-- in this case, the Democratic Party -- declaring war on the President and refusing to allow him to exercise his constitutional authority to appoint judges and other officials with the "advice and consent" of the Senate."

When in fact the Democrats have allowed 205 of Bush's nominees to be appointed and have only blocked 10 of them. For comparison, Clinton had 373 out of 443 judges appointed. So allowing 205/215 judicial appointees is not that unusual. What's unusual is that the threat of filibuster has not been used, generally, to block judicial appointees. It is not the first time, though, as Republicans and Orson would have you believe.

"But in all the history of the Senate, the filibuster has never been used against a President's judicial appointments. Until now."


In fact the Republicans were the first to threaten filibuster on a judicial nominee back in 1968, on the appointment of Chief Justice Abe Fortas. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45149-2005Mar17.html).

So Mr. Card you should do so more homework.

And the threat of filibuster by a significant minority, significant since you need enough to prevent a filibuster from being overriden, would tend to produce more moderate candidates, ones both parties can live with, and not ones that the Republicans hate.

Posts: 2 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jefferson101
Member
Member # 2396

 - posted      Profile for jefferson101   Email jefferson101   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dahut:
Mr. Card is leaving out some important information.

He implies that the Democratic party, by threatening filibuster, have prevented Bush from appointing judges. For example, "-- in this case, the Democratic Party -- declaring war on the President and refusing to allow him to exercise his constitutional authority to appoint judges and other officials with the "advice and consent" of the Senate."

When in fact the Democrats have allowed 205 of Bush's nominees to be appointed and have only blocked 10 of them. For comparison, Clinton had 373 out of 443 judges appointed. So allowing 205/215 judicial appointees is not that unusual. What's unusual is that the threat of filibuster has not been used, generally, to block judicial appointees. It is not the first time, though, as Republicans and Orson would have you believe.

"But in all the history of the Senate, the filibuster has never been used against a President's judicial appointments. Until now."


In fact the Republicans were the first to threaten filibuster on a judicial nominee back in 1968, on the appointment of Chief Justice Abe Fortas. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45149-2005Mar17.html).

So Mr. Card you should do so more homework.

And the threat of filibuster by a significant minority, significant since you need enough to prevent a filibuster from being overriden, would tend to produce more moderate candidates, ones both parties can live with, and not ones that the Republicans hate.

I've seldom seen such a a target rich environment of misinformation and disinformation. This post, IMO, is a good illustration of the thrust of what OSC was talking about. Start out by trotting out the standard DNC and MSM talking points about the situation, compare apples to grapefruit and lemons, and then declare that they are all oranges anyway.

First of all, comparing the number of judicial appointments approved during the Clinton administration to the current situation is nothing but a huge smokescreen, to put the best possible face on it. The Clinton appointees that were not confirmed were not filibustered by a minority. They were held up in the Judiciary Committee. Amazingly enough, the Republicans were able to do that because they had a majority on the Judiciary Committee. They had a Committee majority because they also held the majority of the seats in the Senate.

So, what we are being told now is that obstructionism by a minority is no different than majority rule. Of course, this only applies if the obstructionism is being done by the Democratic party. During the Clinton administration, when the Republicans offered to filibuster against some legislative actions, the majority Democrats pontificated (and the MSM loudly editorialized) that the filibuster was an archaic and unsuitable relic of past centuries and should be eliminated for good and all. Not just for Presidential appointments, mind you, but for all Senatorial action.

And then we are regaled once more with the Fortas case. There are more than a few things about that one that are being conveniently ignored when it's cited as a precedent. First off, no one was attempting to deny Abe Fortas a seat on the Federal bench. He was a sitting Supreme Court justice at the time. The issue was whether he should become Chief Justice. Addittionally, it was not just "the Republicans" who were involved. There were several Democrats who opposed him also. The vote on cloture, after four days of floor debate, was 45 in favor and 43 opposed. At that point, LBJ withdrew his nomination. That occured in October of '68. In May of '69, Fortas resigned from the Supreme Court under an ethics cloud.

Comparing that situation to what is happening now might be better characterized as comparing apples and potatoes, even. But hey. Both apples and potatoes are red sometimes, so that's close enough to justify whatever extremes are now occuring, isn't it?

Finally, it could be noted that claiming that the current obstructionism will produce "more moderate" candidates is a complete reversal of the actual intent of the exercise. The whole purpose is to avoid the introduction of any Judges who might tend to moderate the levels of Judicial Activism that the Democrats seem to feel is necessary to accomplish their agenda, since they have had no luck in getting a majority of the electorate to approve of it.

[ May 13, 2005, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: jefferson101 ]

Posts: 262 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Littlest Senator Who Could"

Canadian, I think you just hit on the title of the next hot children's story!

Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I still think that the filibuster is not a power. It was a cheap trick back when they started it, and it is a cheap trick now. If you really think the Senate should have to get sixty votes to pass legislation, then get yourself an Amendment to do so. This, of course, isn't the only cheap trick - as others point out. That's hardly an argument for continuing the process.

And you can't call it "closing debate" when you're reading gumbo recipies into the Congressional Record...

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ignoring whether its a cheap trick or not...

I think the fillibuster is an important tool in the checks and balances kit. Because of the nature of politics, its not an overused tool (though I suspect that if in 2008 the dems win the white house and the senate back, the repubs might fillibuster everything in sight), and it fills an important function... making sure a minority party has a say in what happens. Our system is one of making sure that no branch has too much power... but the fillibuster makes sure that no party has too much power, and I think thats equally important. Without any fillibustering, in the current environment, there would not be any senate debate on any topic. Just look how long they spend discussing bills that AREN'T going to be fillibustered.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IrishTD
Member
Member # 2216

 - posted      Profile for IrishTD   Email IrishTD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'll agree with Everard on this one in that the fillibuster is good for checks and balances. However, I really do think that nominations to various offices should get a reasonably prompt up/down vote -- if you're undecided, don't vote or vote down (I'm assuming a nominee could be put forward again if desired).

The real dirty trick is the placing of a "hold" on a nominee...this completely prevents a vote on a nominee and doesn't have to be publicly announced.

Posts: 825 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Digger
Member
Member # 2341

 - posted      Profile for Digger   Email Digger   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm ok with filibusters...when they are actually filibusters. As OSC pointed out, there's no real filibuster occurring. It is the mere threat of a filibuster that is stopping the votes on these appointments.

Keep the filibuster in the arsenal, but be ready to pull out the blankets and crank up the media circus anytime you want to use one.

[ May 13, 2005, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: Digger ]

Posts: 1317 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dahut
New Member
Member # 2434

 - posted      Profile for dahut   Email dahut   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jefferson101,

The situations being compared are not exactly the same but the significance and relevance is actually quite similar. Yes they are apples and oranges but they are still fruit.

That the Republicans prevented an up or down vote through the machinery of committe rules is really no different than threatening to use filibuster. If they had a Senate majority than why not allow a vote to occur?

Yes the Fortas case is not one of a new judicial nominee being nominated but the nomination for the elevation of an existing justice. But it invalidates the claim that judicial filibuster is unprecedented. Furthermore Bill Frist himself voted to fillibuster Richard Paez's judicial nomination to the Ninth Circuit in 2000.

This is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue or liberal vs. conservative issue but one of the power of the majority vs. minority's ability to force compromise. The party in power will always hate fillibuster and the minority party loves it. But as Mr. Card rightly points out to change it would have profound effects on power relationships in Congress. I for one think that fillibuster is a moderating force, as others have pointed out in this forum. There is enough extremism in politics today.

Posts: 2 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 2399

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The minority has the duty to do all in its power to keep the majority from inacting any decisions that the minority considers to be wrong. And agian, the mainstream media is not leftist. Open up U.S. News and Wrold Report, a populor and blantantly partisan magazine, or watch Fox News. As you know, I don't have a T.V., however, I'm ashured, by friends from Mexico and Hong Kong and by other Americans, that C.N.N. has a noticibly pro-American bias. Talk Radio is full of Right-wing demagouges. What more evidence do we need, the American media are not leftist.
Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Boss Tweed
Member
Member # 2432

 - posted      Profile for Boss Tweed   Email Boss Tweed   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dahut:
Mr. Card is leaving out some important information.

He implies that the Democratic party, by threatening filibuster, have prevented Bush from appointing judges. For example, "-- in this case, the Democratic Party -- declaring war on the President and refusing to allow him to exercise his constitutional authority to appoint judges and other officials with the "advice and consent" of the Senate."

When in fact the Democrats have allowed 205 of Bush's nominees to be appointed and have only blocked 10 of them. For comparison, Clinton had 373 out of 443 judges appointed. So allowing 205/215 judicial appointees is not that unusual.

Most of Bush's apointees have been approved because most of them are for lower courts, meaning they don't matter. However, the Democrats have been filibustering many of the apointees to the higher courts, and have made it clear that they will filibuster any conservative appointees to the Supreme Court. Since Democrats know that certain aspects of their agenda are not supported by the population, they've gotten in the habit of using activist judges to impose their will on America, so they can't let a justice onto the Supreme Court who won't distort the Constitution to promote a liberal agenda. The Republicans have no option but to end judicial filibusters, as the Democrats are clearly abusing this power.
Posts: 8 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bryan Erickson
Member
Member # 1135

 - posted      Profile for Bryan Erickson   Email Bryan Erickson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Senate's own website, in its Historical Minutes section, describes the Republican-led filibuster of Justice Fortas in an entry entitled "October 1, 1968: Filibuster Derails Supreme Court Appointment". The website is here:

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Filibuster_Derails_Supreme_Court_Appointment.htm

Every news and history outlet dealing with this episode that I have been able to find, other than the current attempt by Senate Republicans to rewrite history and those taken in by it, describes the Fortas episode in the same way, as a filibuster led by the then Republican minority in the Senate. A further sampling of the record of this filibuster is provided by the then Republican minority counsel to the House judiciary committee, here:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050506.html

As for "Most of Bush's apointees have been approved because most of them are for lower courts, meaning they don't matter", those 205 Bush nominees confirmed by the Senate include 20% of all current federal appeals court judges.

[ May 14, 2005, 01:40 AM: Message edited by: Bryan Erickson ]

Posts: 68 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jefferson101
Member
Member # 2396

 - posted      Profile for jefferson101   Email jefferson101   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pelegius:
The minority has the duty to do all in its power to keep the majority from inacting any decisions that the minority considers to be wrong. And agian, the mainstream media is not leftist. Open up U.S. News and Wrold Report, a populor and blantantly partisan magazine, or watch Fox News. As you know, I don't have a T.V., however, I'm ashured, by friends from Mexico and Hong Kong and by other Americans, that C.N.N. has a noticibly pro-American bias. Talk Radio is full of Right-wing demagouges. What more evidence do we need, the American media are not leftist.

Oh, my goodness! U.S. News and World Report and Fox News lean to the right?

Of course, you don't mention that ABC, NBC, CBS and PBS all have a pronounced left wing bias. Or that the WaPo, NYT, LA Times, Time, Newsweek, and so on all lean left.

Most foreigners will tell you that CNN has a "Pro-American" bias. Why? Because they show more stories from the U.S. It's doesn't have a lot to do with the slant of the stories. It's just that they cover more news from the suburbs of DC or Atlanta thant hey do from the suburbs of Mexico City or Manila.

"Talk Radio" is full of "right wing demagoges"? And NPR is full of left wing demagouges, too. At least I'm not having to pay for the right wing ones out of my tax dollar.

The entire MSM had an unchallenged left wing agenda for many years now. In the last 10 years or so, though, some folks have discovered that there is a market for an opposing opinion, too. Of course, those who had an unchallenged podium to push their agenda now feel that they are being abused. How sad for them.

News flash: All media reporting is biased. If one recognizes that, and recognizes what their biases are, one can parse through it. But if one chooses to treat their bias as revealed truth from the great Broadcast Antenna on high, so it goes.

They are handing out the glasses of kool-aid. Don't be late to jump on their bandwagon, or you might not get one before they run out.

Posts: 262 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 2399

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actualy, the CNN's bias had to do with international stories in which the U.S. was involved, especialy military ones. As for ABC, NBC, CBS and PBS, I don't watch them. But I can tell you that Time and Newsweek are not that biased, there arn't very well writen either. They both have articals from both sides and letters from nutcases from both sides. The Economist and the B.B.C. are excelent and their coverage of American news is better than American coverage. The New York Times is also a good paper, as is the Wall Street Journal, both have biases but both are good. There is no left-wing bias in the media becouse there are hardly any left-wing Americans, by which I mean Social Democrats, Socialists and Marxists.
Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jefferson101
Member
Member # 2396

 - posted      Profile for jefferson101   Email jefferson101   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pelegius:
There is no left-wing bias in the media becouse there are hardly any left-wing Americans, by which I mean Social Democrats, Socialists and Marxists.

You could have fooled me. I am of the opinion that most of the current Congress is Socialist, at the minimum.

GWB is a moderate Social Democrat.

And the MSM all think he's a "right-wing fanatic". Where does that leave them?

Heh... I know "right-wingers". Some of my best friends are "Right-wing fanatics". And GWB is in no way a right-winger, let alone a fanatic about it.

One or the other of us has a bit of a definition issue here. And I don't think it's me.

Posts: 262 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good point about GWB not really being a right ring fanatic. He is fairly conservative on social issues but as far as political issues and the role of government he is quite liberal. We need too be more careful in classifying people these days, conservative in social issues does not imply conservative in palatal issues and vica versa. Again the media generally has a liberal bias in social issues (tending more towards more rights for gays and such) but remain a bit more neutral (maybe slightly left) in political issues.

As for the article there were pros and cons in my opinion. A discussion of if the filibuster should be used for presidential appointees is legitimate. Although saying that the democrats are preventing all judicial nominees that the republicans wouldn't hate is misleading. As stated most of the appointees have been approved. I think we should keep the filibuster if a 40% of the senate dislikes something that much then it's likely a significant potion of the country is opposed or unsure about the issue.

I agree with whoever before brought out the point that the republicans should force the issue and bring the justices up for a vote. It's a lot easier for democrats to threaten a filibuster than actually carry one out. Of course it isn't enjoyable for the republicans either. The strategy I would use if I were a republican is to bring up the justices for a vote right before the senate needs to sign one of those emergency spending bills for the military in Iraq. Then when the democrats are filibustering the republicans are out talking to the media about how the democrats are hurting our troops through their partisan politics or however the republicans try to characterize it. Really after a few days of filibuster when the Senate has business that needs to be completed to “support the troops” the popular sentiment would probably cause the dems to back down.

Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, according to OSC's article the GOP is not doing away with filibusters (as they could) because they might one day want to use them? But the Dems are Satan's spawn for using them now?

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Digger
Member
Member # 2341

 - posted      Profile for Digger   Email Digger   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"However, the Democrats have been filibustering many of the apointees to the higher courts, and have made it clear that they will filibuster any conservative appointees to the Supreme Court."

Let's be clear. There's been no filibuster to date. There's been the overt threat of a filibuster, but no one has actually called for a vote on these judges, which would trigger the beginning of an actual filibuster.

I say, bring on the filibuster. Let's see how silly and ridiculous it really is. Let's hear the chicken soup recipes, watch the comical image of Senators camping out in their offices, and the sheer circus of the process. Watch our elected children play their petulant little parts.

Posts: 1317 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"Therefore, the filibustering minority must always have its forty-one Senators available, day and night, as long as the filibuster continues."
I don't think that's correct. I don't know if anyone else here would know...but I think that technically, even though the Republicans need 51 Senators on the floor of the Senate during a Filibuster, the Democrats (minority party), only need 1 on the floor of the Senate. I don't think they need 41 Senators there, day and night. Am I wrong on this?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Digger
Member
Member # 2341

 - posted      Profile for Digger   Email Digger   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I don't think they need 41 Senators there, day and night. Am I wrong on this?"

I may be wrong as well, but I think it works like the following:

A quorum must be present to take a vote. On a cloture vote, 60% of the quorum is needed to end debate. So, if you are the minority party, having less than your full cadre is a risk, because the majority party would have an easier time mustering 60% of a quorum when a vote is called. Consequently, the majority party would be advised to keep its own members present for to make it easier to capitalize on any shorthandedness on the part of the minority party.

I'm not sure what constitutes a quorum in the Senate. And I'm too lazy to go look it up.

It's really a childish process. One to be trotted out only in the most dire of circumstances. But both parties have a vested interest in maintaining the dignity of the Senatorial institution - which is why no one wants an actual filibuster. It will throw back the curtain and let you see the sheer banality of the clockworks.

By contrast, to justify the filibuster, the minority party must make the issue look deadly serious. Go read any article on the situation (or this very forum for that matter). Terms like 'nuclear option' are trotted out for a reason. All bluster. Start the filibuster process, Senators. I triple dog-dare you.

[ May 15, 2005, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: Digger ]

Posts: 1317 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I found two articles that would no doubt solve all the answers to our questions. But I am going to take a nap...soooo I'll have a look later. Meanwhile, anyone else here, have at it. [Big Grin]

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS20801.pdf

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30360.pdf

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jefferson101
Member
Member # 2396

 - posted      Profile for jefferson101   Email jefferson101   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KnightEnder:
So, according to OSC's article the GOP is not doing away with filibusters (as they could) because they might one day want to use them? But the Dems are Satan's spawn for using them now?

KE

Nope. The Democrats were Satan's spawn anyway. The current filibuster thing is just additional evidence of the pre-existing condition.

[Big Grin] [Wink]

Posts: 262 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Digger
Member
Member # 2341

 - posted      Profile for Digger   Email Digger   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think I found the relevant portions (in the second link provided):

quote:
Invoking cloture usually requires a three-fifths vote of the entire Senate - "threefifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn." If there are no vacancies, therefore, 60 Senators must vote to invoke cloture.
It would appear the minority party can prevent cloture without having to be present - except to have 1 member willing and able to speak to maintain the filibuster (else the debate ends by definition).

However, from other sections of the same link:

quote:
Today, all-night sessions are very unusual. The Senate may not even convene earlier or remain in session later when a filibuster is in progress than it does on other days. One reason may be that filibusters are not the extraordinary and unusual occurrences that they once were. Another may be that Senators are less willing to endure the inconvenience and discomfort of prolonged sessions. (emphasis mine - and boo-freakin' hoo for you, Senators - do your job or go home)

The latter point is important because late-night or all-night sessions put as much or more of a burden on the proponents of the question being debated than on its opponents. The Senators participating in the filibuster need only ensure that at least one of their number always is present on the floor to speak. The proponents of the question, however, need to ensure that a majority of the Senate is present or at least available to respond to a quorum call or roll call vote. If, late in the evening or in the middle of the night, a Senator suggests the absence of a quorum and a quorum does not appear, the Senate must adjourn or at least suspend its proceedings until a quorum is established. This works to the advantage of the filibustering Senators, so the burden rests on their opponents to ensure that the constitutional quorum requirement always can be met.

All of which, I guess is a significant part of the reason Republicans would prefer to change the cloture vote rules than to endure a real filibuster. I can think of a good reason to force the minority party to participate in the real thing, though: the next election.

It would be campaign gold for Republicans to run ads against Democrats where you have footage of the Democrat at the podium, participating in a filibuster. Beyond the potential comical things that might be said (chicken soup recipes are only the beginning), you get to paint your opponent as a childish, temper tantrum throwing obstructionist.

That triple-dog dare is still on.

Posts: 1317 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks for pouring through the links Digger. [Smile] I may be incorrect, but I have the feeling that Mr. Card may have been looking at an older set of rules for cloture procedures when writing this article. I am not an expert in this, but I think I remember hearing something to the effect that the procedural cloture rules have changed over the years...didn't that Kleagle figure-head Bob Byrd have something to do with that? Hmmm...isn't it nice to know that under current rules, a filibuster could technically keep 51 Republicans and only 1 Democrat awake all night?

[ May 15, 2005, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: FIJC ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
CiceroJefferson
New Member
Member # 2437

 - posted      Profile for CiceroJefferson   Email CiceroJefferson       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
i found cards comments fairly neutral. As a strict constitutionalist myself i believe removing the filibuster (even on presidential orders) would be extremely dangerous. first it would weaken the power of congress. bad move. the last thing this country needs is a weaker congress. second it would extend the executive branches power, also a bad move. whether a democrat or a republican, the last thing we need is a more powerful executive branch. and as far as i am concerned the judical has no right to use the ursurped power of judical review on this matter. period. this country was founded as a republic not a democracy, congress was meant to maintain the most power. but our representatives are such political cowards (they care more about getting reelected than doing the right thing) they continuely give up their power to the judical and executive. if we are not careful we will lose our representative government. we as a nation need to stop being so short-sighted in our decisions. even though the republicans see this democrat resistance as a real annoyance, that doesn't mean they should do something so rash as to castrate the checks and balances. we really need to look at the long term effects of the decisions we make. yes! the democrats would ban the filibuster if the situation were reversed, but the shortsighted ass has always been the lot of the democrat.
Posts: 1 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
halfhaggis
Member
Member # 809

 - posted      Profile for halfhaggis   Email halfhaggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry for trolling, but is this fillibuster thing for real?

It's the most ridiculously juvenile thing I've ever heard grown men and women to do. OSC hasn't started writing satirical columns, has he?

Ok. Back to the serious debate on blocking the appointment of judges...

Posts: 101 | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Sorry for trolling, but is this fillibuster thing for real?
Ever watch "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"?

In any case, if you read the Senate's procedural rules, I do not believe that the word fillibuster actually appears in it. A fillibuster is a way of gaming the rules to block a vote by prolonging the "debate". Note that I put the word debate in quotes because usually when fillibustering a Senator will read any and everything that he can into the Senate record, from Chicken Soup recipies to phonebook listings, in order to prolong the debate. If what is being said actually has to do with debating the merits of the thing being debated then I don't think that it counts as a fillibuster. At least not to my way of thinking.

I wonder what the effects of a change in rules to allow a simple majority of those present to bring cloture to the debate if the content of the discussion is not on the topic ostensibly being debated but leaving the rules as is when the content of the discussion is on topic would be?

Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
hard to codify "on-topic" in parliamentary procedure. The reason they don't make politically oriented filibusters, is that they don't want to make statements into the record while they are groggy that could be used against them.

Won't somebody please think of the poor Senate Stenographer? They have to record all that garbage, you know.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree that codifying on-topic and off-topic could be difficult and that probably makes my speculation in my previous post untennable. On the other hand, as a matter of principle I feel that as long as the currently speaking Senator is debating the topic at hand it should be difficult to shut him down while if he is simply wasting time in a delaying tactic then it should be easy to shut him down. How to codify it fairly is the problem I am sure.

I will read this thread in detail tonight and follow up any links before posting on this topic again. Has anybody linked to the current Senate procedures? If so I will find it tonight. If not and someone has a link could they post it?

Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I thought you could fillibuster any vote, including a vote to change floor procedures to eliminate fillibuster?

Anyway, I don't think anyone who can't get the support of the representatives of 60% of the country should be appointed as a judge for life. The president's cabinet at 50%+1 is great; they go out when the president leaves. But federal judges serve for life. I think the higher standard is prudent.

Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Digger
Member
Member # 2341

 - posted      Profile for Digger   Email Digger   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm happy to see the Republicans are ready to call the bluff:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050518/ap_on_go_co/filibuster_fight

Let the real negotiations begin.

"Anyway, I don't think anyone who can't get the support of the representatives of 60% of the country should be appointed as a judge for life."

Spoken like a true partisan. When the Democrats controlled Congress, it was "give every nominee an up or down vote". How times change.

Posts: 1317 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Spoken like a true partisan. When the Democrats controlled Congress, it was "give every nominee an up or down vote".
Please inform me where I said that, or anything like that, or anything you can twist into anything resembling that, or anything you can twist into something that looks like that while the looker is smoking something special.

Oh, you can't? Then stop lying and making things up.

Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
When in fact the Democrats have allowed 205 of Bush's nominees to be appointed and have only blocked 10 of them. For comparison, Clinton had 373 out of 443 judges appointed. So allowing 205/215 judicial appointees is not that unusual. What's unusual is that the threat of filibuster has not been used, generally, to block judicial appointees. It is not the first time, though, as Republicans and Orson would have you believe.

"But in all the history of the Senate, the filibuster has never been used against a President's judicial appointments. Until now."

In fact the Republicans were the first to threaten filibuster on a judicial nominee back in 1968, on the appointment of Chief Justice Abe Fortas. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45149-2005Mar17.html).

Come on. Give us some credit. We know the difference between a filibuster and a THREAT of a filibuster. Yes, you can argue that the threat of a filibuster is, in a way, using a filibuster. But that dog won't hunt when you're accusing someone else of "not doing their homework." For shame.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Zyne, chill already with the accusations of "lying." People that disagree with you are not necessarily "hatemongers" or liars. I don't know what's gotten into you. You're not always like this.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1