Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Filibuster 23

Journal by pudge

There is a fight over judicial nominees in the Senate. Has been for a few years.

What it comes down to is this: the Democrats are attacking some of the most prominent and highest-placed nominees because they disagree with them. It is the most concerted and united attack against nominees in history: never before has one party united to successfully filibuster judicial nominees.

On the other side is the Republicans, who first reacted by using recess appointments to bypass the Senate, and are now threatening to end the filibustering of judicial nominees.

I am not in favor of the proposed rule change, simply because I don't think it's worthwhile. I don't say what a lot of Republicans are saying: that someday the GOP might be a minority again, and they may want the filibuster. That's fine by me, since I am against the filibustering of judicial nominees.

No, my problem is a bit deeper than that. I just dislike the precedent it perpetuates: an ever-escalating arms race over nominees.

Don't get me wrong, if the Republicans do this, I won't lose sleep over it. The Democrats, through their unfair and unreasonable actions over these nominees, brought it on themselves.

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), one of the leaders of this effort, shows us all we need to know. He says he opposes them because they are "extreme," even though they reflect the views of the President who got a majority of electoral (and popular) votes. He says they cannot be trusted to follow the law instead of their beliefs (such as in the cases of abortion or establishment of religion), even though Pryor has proven time and again he is. He says Estrada must give his views about certain controversial issues, even though it is common ethical practice for nominees to not state such views about issues that might come before them in court.

It is not about principle, except for the principle of preventing the GOP from getting any conserrvative judges in positions of power.

But I prefer another option: the GOP should refuse to bring any bills to the floor until the nominees get a vote. I like this option because it emphasizes that the Democrats are blocking the Senate from doing its work, and because to me, the less that gets done by the Senate, the better.

Of course, it won't happen. Shutting down the government is bad PR. But it would please me personally, anyway.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Filibuster More

Filibuster

Comments Filter:
  • Let's bring back the real filibuster and leave cloture at 60. 1 senator, a bucket, time, and a copy of the DC phone book. These people don't have the stamina to pull off a Byrd/Thrumond style real filibuster, on either side.
    • That'd be nice, but they can't change the rules, because a rule change could be filibustered too. So they are shooting for not a rule change, but a ruling from the chair whether a given practice -- filibustering judicial nominees -- is allowed under the rules. That cannot be filibustered.

      One person had an interesting note: that if they remove the filibuster, then shutting off debate would require two-thirds (66) votes instead of 60, making it even harder to call a vote. This sounds like a reasonable arg

      • Wow, great article, thanks for the link.

      • One person had an interesting note: that if they remove the filibuster, then shutting off debate would require two-thirds (66) votes instead of 60, making it even harder to call a vote. This sounds like a reasonable argument, but I don't know Senate rules enough to verify this. I suspect that means it will revert to a majority vote, since that is how it worked before the filibuster, and how it works for things that cannot be filibustered. So I think that person didn't know what they were talking about.

        I t

  • Bush should use them like they are going out of style. The dems can complain, but how do you argue with:


    Article II, Section 2, Clause iii: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

    It pretty much forces the issue to head where the democrats either have to end the fillibuster or ignore the issue until Bush is out and hope that they get the presidency in 4 years and
    • As a note, from what I have heard, read, and understand the key point in this is that these are judges that would otherwise be confirmed, but for the fillibuster. That is the unprecedented issue here.

      Yes, and there are various ways to spin it. But the bottom line is that this is the first time nominees have actually been prevented from confirmation via the filibuster.
  • ...even though they reflect the views of the President who got a majority of electoral (and popular) votes.

    This gets tossed around all the time. So what?!? It is used like it is some sort of god-given decree. [G|g]od: I decree that George W. shall do my bidding. Make him your President. I would buy it if it was an overwhelming majority of the popular vote say 85%. It wasn't.

    The Democrats know that there is an almost equally split constituency and they are playing to that. People might not like i

    • This gets tossed around all the time. So what?!? ... To imply that they should just let the nominees pass because it is the will of the people as represented by the popular vote is a bunch of horse crap.

      I didn't. Please read again. I am not saying that this means the judges are correct, or even that they should be confirmed, only that it means they are not "extreme."

      Now, I do think that every judicial nominee of the President should be confirmed unless there is specific wrongdoing or poor judgment fou
      • majority of Americans

        Correction. Majority of VOTING Americans.

        As far as majority of Americans... well, current polls show that the majority of people disapprove of the job he is doing. I think his approval rating is sitting at around 45%.

        • You know, and maybe this is just the dark side of the force speaking, but: So what? If people can't be bothered to vote, I can't be bothered to care about their opinions. They delegated to those of us who care to right to make those decisions for them.
          • But it still leaves my point that this was not an overwhelming majority. Pudge clarified, but still there is a nagging use of Bush's small popular vote victory as a mandate... not really.
            • So? I may be wrong, but I don't really recall mention being made of Bush's "overwhelming majority" in Pudge's JE or subsequent comments.

              As far as Bush's "small popular vote victory", by which you mean a 3 million vote margin, being a mandate - Yes, really. He WON. That means he has a mandate to govern. That's what elections ARE. 1 vote, or all the votes. There is no requirement that the winner of an election have 85% of the popular or electoral votes (as you seemed to imply would be requisite) in order to

              • And I guarandamntee you that if the Republicans had tried to filibuster them, these same "high minded" Democrats would have been talking about THAT Republican "Nuclear Option."

                The real difference with now is that for the first time, we've had a judicial nominee fracas in the Senate where the President belongs to the party that controls the Senate [gvsu.edu]. There have always been fights over judicial nominees, but not to the degree that began with Bork in the 80s, when the Democrats borked Bork.

                The Democrats cont
            • but still there is a nagging use of Bush's small popular vote victory as a mandate... not really

              Yes, it is. Even losing the popular vote and winning in the electoral college is a mandate. Even losing both but winning in the House (as JQ Adams did, ferinstance), is a mandate.

              I believe in the Constitution. I believe that any legally selected President has as much mandate as every other legally selected President, from Washington (the only unopposed President) to Ford (the only unelected President), beca
        • I meant to say electorate, but Red Warrior is right: it doesn't matter, if they don't vote.

          Regardless, you'd be hard-pressed to show that the views of more than 50 million Americans are extreme. That's the point.
        • current polls show that the majority of people disapprove of the job he is doing

          Correction. Majority of POLLED Americans.

          Really, your argument is self-defeating.

          --trb
    • To imply that they should just let the nominees pass because it is the will of the people as represented by the popular vote is a bunch of horse crap.

      I'll give you that, but lemme throw out another argument; the filibuster is being used so that a minority can overrule a majority. The senate should have an up or down vote and candidates would normally be approved or rejected without the votes being necessary divided along party lines. Democrats are complaining because Republicans are voting along party l
      • The Tyrrany of the Majority was directly addressed by the founding fathers... here's a hint, they saw it as a bad thing.

        While I don't agree with all this, I should point out that it is a direct result of the politics that were begun under Newt Gingrich and his "Contract for America." It is hard to pull the reigns in on this sort of thing.

        By the way...

        "Democrats are complaining because Republicans are voting along party lines, ensuring that the minority party has no chance to overcome their decision."

        Are
        • While I don't agree with all this, I should point out that it is a direct result of the politics that were begun under Newt Gingrich and his "Contract for America." It is hard to pull the reigns in on this sort of thing.

          No, this began long before. It is tempting for me to say it started with the Democrats borking Bork, but while that certainly provides a more direct lineage than Gingrich to today's events, this is something that's been going on since the nation began.

          Aren't Republicans essentially comp

  • and because to me, the less that gets done by the Senate, the better.

    Right on!

    Of course, it won't happen. Shutting down the government is bad PR. But it would please me personally, anyway.

    Actually, the government shutdown of 95 made me a Republican for nearly ten years. :) (I was already a conservative, but that generated party loyalty.)

Slashdot Top Deals

"You'll pay to know what you really think." -- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs

Close