home

The Filibuster And The Supreme Court

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Supreme Court
Posted on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 01:59:43 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I was exchanging e-mails with Ed Whelan the other day (yes NRO's Ed Whelan) and I told him him that I would certainly defend the GOP Senate caucus' right to filibuster judges even though I would likely disagree with their criteria for doing so. Ed responded that he would criticize such GOP tactics. I'll do my part here. Via Steve Benen, GOP Senator Jon Kyl says:

Jon Kyl, the second-ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate, warned president-elect Barack Obama that he would filibuster U.S. Supreme Court appointments if those nominees were too liberal. . . . Kyl said if Obama goes with empathetic judges who do not base their decisions on the rule of law and legal precedents but instead the factors in each case, he would try to block those picks via filibuster.

That is absolutely the right of the GOP minority. This is their exercise of the Constitutional advise and consent role. While I disagree with their views on judges, they are Senators and have the right, even the duty, to exercise their Constitutional powers. Now what I want to know is what the Gang of 14 has to say aout this? And I expect to hear no objections to the Nuclear Option, (excuse me, I mean the I mean Constitutional Option from any Republicans now. I certainly will object to it. They can not without exposing their base hypocrisy.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Kerry For State? | Saturday Afternoon Open Thread >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Filibuster And The Supreme Court | 25 comments (25 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Steve M on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:15:21 PM EST
    There's no need for a nuclear option, since both parties agree that a bare majority of Senators can change the rules at the start of a new Congress.  You only need the nuclear option if you want to change the rules in the middle of the game.  For precedent, you could look at the opening of the 1995-96 Congress when a couple of Dem Senators proposed weakening the filibuster.

    Since the GOP seems to acknowledge a difference between legislative and judicial filibusters, one alternative to eliminating the filibuster altogether (which would definitely be hardball) would be some kind of compromise making filibusters of presidential appointments harder to sustain.  If the Republicans object, a collection of their quotes from the nuclear option fight would be quite amusing.  The key is that the Democrats aren't flip-flopping from their position on the nuclear option since everyone agrees the rules can be rewritten at the start of a new Congress.

    Excellent point (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:19:43 PM EST


    Parent
    I don't really agree (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:22:16 PM EST
    The best substantive point made against the nuclear option was that the filibuster had served for generations as a check on the Congress and the President. That's the reason why most Senators voted against the rule change in the 1990s.

    Parent
    I think Steve's point is different (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:24:25 PM EST
    That for posturing purposes, the Dems actually have a defensible positiopn. It would be malarkey, but defensible. The GOP has no position here.

    I mean Kyl's statemnent is complete and utter hypocrisy.

    Parent

    The nuclear option was hypocritical to begin with (none / 0) (#11)
    %%norm