home

Saving the Filibuster

By TChris, Section Judiciary
Posted on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:31:20 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

TalkLeft has frequently written in opposition to the "nuclear option" -- the Republican threat to change the Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster. (Previous posts are here, here, here and here.) The president and some Senate Republicans are unhappy that ten unqualified candidates for federal judgeships were blocked during the president's first term, notwithstanding the 200-plus nominees who were confirmed. If they can't have their way, every time, they throw a tantrum.

The NY Times editorial page today, as it has in the past, takes a stand against the nuclear option.

Many of the wisest Republicans are well aware that their leaders are playing a dangerous game and that they are doing it for frivolous reasons. The judicial nominees can easily be replaced. But the sense that there are certain rules that all must play by, whether to their advantage or not, is something that cannot be restored. Senators need only to look at the House to see what politics looks like when the only law is to win at any cost.

The Senate, of all places, should be sensitive to the fact that this large and diverse country has never believed in government by an unrestrained majority rule. ... Indeed, as a recent New Yorker article pointed out, the Democratic senators who have blocked that handful of judicial nominees actually represent substantially more Americans than the Republican majority that wants to see them passed.

< Calls For Reform to End Police Abuse in Sealy, TX | School Whistleblowers Protected by Title IX >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Saving the Filibuster | 15 comments (15 topical)
    Re: Saving the Filibuster (none / 0) (#1)
    by nolo on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:39:16 AM EST
    the Democratic senators who have blocked that handful of judicial nominees actually represent substantially more Americans than the Republican majority that wants to see them passed.
    That's a damned good point. People seem to forget that the Senate was designed to be a somewhat undemocratic institution, in that it gives equal representation to each state regardless of its population. Procedural mechanisms like the filibuster help to balance this.

    Re: Saving the Filibuster (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 11:46:09 AM EST
    "they know not what they wrought" unintended consequences, this admin and the rep party, power gone awry! thank goodness life has a way of balancing itself!

    Re: Saving the Filibuster (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 11:49:51 AM EST
    ten unqualified candidates I won't quibble about all ten, but I'm curious why it is that you think that Miguel Estrada was "unqualified" to be a federal judge. You may disagree with what you expect to be his judicial philosophy, but that's altogether different from saying that he's unqualified. Consider Estrada's qualifications: graduated from a top law school, clerked for a Supreme Court justice, worked in the U.S. Solicitor General's office and then the U.S. Attorney's Office. To put it another way, I disagree with many of the rulings issued by Judge Reinhardt on the Ninth Circuit, but I wouldn't dream of calling him "unqualified."

    Re: Saving the Filibuster (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 12:53:50 PM EST
    Tung Yin, Oh the can of insanity you just opened. You might want to duck. The spittle is likely to get pretty thick.

    Re: Saving the Filibuster (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 04:34:17 PM EST
    Senator Bill Frist is sitting on his nuclear option. The filibuster is in danger. Right now, the future of the filibuster rests in the hands of a few Senators--and, of course, US. Because after all, THEY WORK FOR US. So no matter who you voted for, or what your persuasions are--take the time to think about this issue. Really think. Do you want checks and balances? Do you want discussion of judgeships? Or are you thinking that it is a good thing to rush appointments to the Federal bench through without much discussion? The Democracy Cell Project is inviting all other blogs to begin what we are pleased to introduce as the FILIBLOG. RALLY THE FILIBLOGSTERS We are calling out to all of you, become filiblogsters by contacting the Senate and let them know how you feel about using the nuclear option in the confirming of judges. If the filibuster is to survive, the time to filiblog is now. Phone, fax, and e-mail your concerns and comments. www.senate.gov Senator Bill Frist 509 Hart Senate Office Building Washington D. C. 20510 202-224-3344 202-228-1264 (fax) In Nashville 615-352-9411 615-352-9985 (fax) You can start with Senator Frist and keep the filiblog going by contacting your own senators: www.senate.gov FILIBLOG TODAY TO SAVE THE FILIBUSTER!

    Re: Saving the Filibuster (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 04:43:15 PM EST
    This is a great idea. I have been to that site before and they are really on top of things.

    Re: Saving the Filibuster (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 05:21:04 PM EST
    karendc writes - "Do you want checks and balances? Actually, the checks and balances are in the three equal brancges of government, "Do you want discussion of judgeships? Or are you thinking that it is a good thing to rush appointments to the Federal bench through without much discussion?" Actually, shutting down filibusters will allow discussions and votes, whereas filibuisters stops discussions and votes. That is the nature of a filibuster. Your story doesn't hang together well. Try it on children, but not adults.

    Re: Saving the Filibuster (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 06:05:36 PM EST
    Are any of you aware that for the 1975-76 session of the Senate, the Democrats, who controlled the Senate, reduced the required votes for closure of a filibuster from 67 votes down to 60 votes? This change applied across the board, not just to judicial nominations. Both Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd voted for the change. If I remember correctly, the Democrats in the House virtually ended the filibuster in that body, sometime in the early 1960's. On Jan 1, 1995 the New York Times supported the plan of Democrat Senator Tom Harkin to "drastically limit the filibuster." They concluded their editorial with the words, "Hooray for him". Can you say hypocrites?

    Re: Saving the Filibuster (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 06:53:17 PM EST
    On Jan 1, 1995 the New York Times supported the plan of Democrat Senator Tom Harkin to "drastically limit the filibuster." They concluded their editorial with the words, "Hooray for him".
    Can you say hypocrites?
    They might be hypocrites, but they certainly weren't hypocrites for partisan reasons given the fact that Republicans took over the Senate after the November 1994 elections.

    Re: Saving the Filibuster (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:00:31 PM EST
    "the Democratic senators who have blocked that handful of judicial nominees actually represent substantially more Americans than the Republican majority that wants to see them passed." Maybe, maybe not. But isn't this the same logic as that behind the electoral college?

    Re: Saving the Filibuster (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 09:30:11 AM EST
    i was tought that it was the duty as the president of the US to appoint judicial nominees... regardless of who the president is, that person needs to do their duty. by filibustering the votes, and mandating the supermajority, (which in this case is not outlined necessary under the constitution) democrats are prolonging the process. avoiding the inevitable, and in turn waisting your tax dollars!!! we are paying these senators to do nothing! there are issues that mus tbe resolved, and no judges to resolve them, the power struggle is not righty's running a muck. it is in fact lefties doing everything they can to go against bush. honestly, are you a democrat because you like people like hillary and kennedy, o ris it just because it seems like a nice alternate to being a republican. in this last election did you vote kerry because you like him, or just because you wanted bush to lose, and you knew nader was a joke?

    Re: Saving the Filibuster (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 09:30:57 AM EST
    sorry i forgot to put my name on the above post^^^

    Re: Saving the Filibuster (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 06:11:51 AM EST
    " The President nominates the judicial appointee, and the Senate votes to confirm them." The President HAS nominated, why the hell won't the Senate vote?

    Re: Saving the Filibuster (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 31, 2005 at 07:56:13 AM EST
    The Republicans will want the filibuster back when they are no longer in power. It is the only way that a minority party can block something that is absolutely wrong. Repoublicans may say the Democrats are being obstructionist, but they have to concede that the Democrats have approved 200 of Bush's nominees, and blocked only 10. That's fewer nominees than the nominees of Clinton that the Republicans blocked. So who is obstructionist? Republicans want total power because they believe that some day there will be no Democratic party, and grabbing total power is one way to do expedite this process. I think the Republicans are killing their own party by trying to destroy democracy.

    Re: Saving the Filibuster (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 03:05:38 PM EST
    Please save the filibuster. How dare these people to keep changing our constitution. Soon we will not have one that is worth reading. Save, Save the filibuster

    Saving the Filibuster | 15 comments (15 topical)