pudge's Journal: Crooks and Liars

This video of Senator Lautenberg is making the rounds. Ha ha, the Republicans are like Palpatine. Ha ha.

The sad thing is, that Lautenberg's whole argument presented in the video is one big lie. The essential complaint is that you cannot remove part of the filibuster, you have to get rid of all of it, or keep all of it.

Well, maybe he would know, since he voted to get rid of all of it in 1995.

"You can't 'sort of' end the filibuster. ... Beware: once that barn door opens, we're going to see all kinds of changes. You can't sorta end the filibuster, you gotta either keep the filibuster, or you end it. Would the Majority Leader like to rename the Jimmy Stewart film, Mr. Smith Goes To Washington Except For Judges?"

What barn door does he mean? We have 26 laws on the books that limit the filibuster. Twenty-six. You can't filibuster a budget resolution, a resolution calling for the use of force, international trade agreements, nuclear waste site approval, and more. There is no slippery slope in regard to limiting the filibuster here: if there is one, it started long before now.

And his expressed love of the filibuster is undermined by his previous vote to abolish it entirely.

Surely Lautenberg knows this. He is just hoping you don't. But now you do.

but you agree with him, right?

[John Harrison]

You don't believe that the rules should be changed, correct?

Re:but you agree with him, right?

[pudge]

No, I do. In my previous JE [slashdot.org] I said, "I am not in favor of the proposed rule change, simply because I don't think it's worthwhile," and "I am against the filibustering of judicial nominees."

I do want to abolish the judicial filibuster, and wouldn't mind abolishing all filibusters, if it could be done in a way that preserved the real purpose of extended debate: to make sure everyone gets sufficient and necessary opportunity to make their arguments (this was, in retrospect inevitably, exploited to prevent Se