The Senate judiciary filibuster

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by obie, Nov 13, 2003.

  1. obie

    obie New Member

    Nov 18, 1998
    NY, NY
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    ... is now at the halfway point. The GOP has done an excellent job getting publicity for this stunt, even if it's not going to resolve anything.

    Without looking it up, guess how many:
    1. Bush judicial nominees have been blocked by Democrats
    2. Bush judicial nominees have been voted on
    3. Clinton judicial nominees were blocked by Republicans
     
  2. GringoTex

    GringoTex Member

    Aug 22, 2001
    1301 miles de Texas
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Bolivia
    I'll take a wild guess and say that the Dems have aproved of 98% of Bush's nominees and that this is significantly higher than the percentage of Clinton's nominees that the Reeps approved.
     
  3. riverplate

    riverplate Member+

    Jan 1, 2003
    Corona, Queens
    Club:
    CA River Plate
    Put all the nominees up for 50%+ majority vote, not 60% super-majority vote.
     
  4. obie

    obie New Member

    Nov 18, 1998
    NY, NY
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Just like they've always done in the Senate, right? Or, maybe not. It's a shame that we've lost the classic long-talker filibusters like Thurmond '57 or Helms '83 to lame ones like this October 2001 Republican filibuster on airline workers' comp, where nobody had to really say anything on the floor in order for it to work. And I won't disagree with you that the rules should be changed. (Though it is interesting that minority party Democrats introduced legislation in 1995 to remove the filibuster, and majority leader Bob Dole killed it without a vote.) But they're not, and the party out of power has always used this to get their way, so suck it up and deal with it.
     
  5. Richth76

    Richth76 New Member

    Jul 22, 1999
    Washington, D.C.
    1. 4
    2. 168
    3. Not enough if you asked Ashcroft.
     
  6. NER_MCFC

    NER_MCFC Member

    May 23, 2001
    Cambridge, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Re: Re: The Senate judiciary filibuster

    I have the impression that the filibuster and some other distinct Senate rules were originally created precisely to force the Senate to more collegial and concensus oriented, particularly in the early days. The Senate didn't get its 50th member until 1836 and they weren't chosen by general election until 1913 or so. It was always intended to be a calmer more deliberative body, so it's useful give the minority tools that they can use prevent the majority from getting what they want by brute force.

    This whole situation would be hilarious if it weren't maddening. The Republicans just figure that the few people who care about nominees won't notice that they were much worse in their use of majority methods to block Clinton's nominees. It's just that they didn't have to do it in public.
     
  7. riverplate

    riverplate Member+

    Jan 1, 2003
    Corona, Queens
    Club:
    CA River Plate
    I'm not talking about the right to filibuster. Nobody's questioning that. I'm talking about a president being permitted to fill judiciary posts with his own selections, which is his right. This 60% super-majority business is new.
     
  8. Richth76

    Richth76 New Member

    Jul 22, 1999
    Washington, D.C.
    So you would prefer there be not vote at all? Our founding father's had this idea called "checks and balances". Any eighth grade civics textbook should be able to take it from there.
     
  9. riverplate

    riverplate Member+

    Jan 1, 2003
    Corona, Queens
    Club:
    CA River Plate
    There's a difference between "checks and balances" and obstruction. Bush won the presidency (like it or not) and it is his right to fill those judicial posts. Barring egregious behavior or acts in the past, you do not torpedo judicial nominees simply because of ideology. That is what has been going on.
     
  10. csc7

    csc7 New Member

    Jul 3, 2002
    DC
    the senate has the right to advice and consent, you don't seem to care about that so much
     
  11. obie

    obie New Member

    Nov 18, 1998
    NY, NY
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    1. The President doesn't have the right to "fill" (i.e., appoint) judiciary posts -- he has the Constitutional right to nominate candidates, which are then considered and utimately confirmed/rejected by the Senate.

    2. The Senate has the Constitutional right to set its own rules and procedures. Since the Constitution does not require a simple majority rule for all things Senatorial (at best it's agnostic on this), the Senate rule requiring a super-majority to provide cloture applies to all Senate votes unless otherwise specified in the rules.
     
  12. riverplate

    riverplate Member+

    Jan 1, 2003
    Corona, Queens
    Club:
    CA River Plate
    Correct. Advise and consent. Not advise and disagree.
     
  13. John Galt

    John Galt Member

    Aug 30, 2001
    Atlanta
    Fixed above. I agree wholeheartedly.

    If you want to complain about something as unfair, don't have a recent record of having done the exact same damm thing.
     
  14. riverplate

    riverplate Member+

    Jan 1, 2003
    Corona, Queens
    Club:
    CA River Plate
    The Constitution may not require a simple majority, but throughout the history of the nation, simple majority has been the way it has been done as far as judicial appointments are concerned, until recently. You don't believe in precedent?

    If a nominee gets out of Committee, the Senate has a duty to vote on his/her nomination, up-or-down, by majority.
     
  15. NER_MCFC

    NER_MCFC Member

    May 23, 2001
    Cambridge, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    No, actually it doesn't. Its duty, insofar as there is such a thing, is to do what the Senate as a whole thinks best. The Senate has long required more than 50.01% majorities because for certain votes because they are regarded as too important for the voice of the minority to be simply brushed aside.
     
  16. Richth76

    Richth76 New Member

    Jul 22, 1999
    Washington, D.C.
    "Nominate" and "fill positions" are two completely different things.

    Well since you can't seem to remember eighth grade civics I guess you forgot the whole last decade too.

    The dems have blocked 4 out 168. How does that equate to "obstruction".
     
  17. obie

    obie New Member

    Nov 18, 1998
    NY, NY
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I've added the emphasis because it shows how you're willing to accept one Senate rule / procedure as valid and another as not. Senate Committees are artificial constructs of the Senate, just like filibusters are.

    And Estrada was not, despite constant reporting to the contrary, the first filibuster against a Presidential judicial nominee -- that would have been Republicans against Chief Justice nom Abe Fortas in 1968. This is not setting a precedent, and it's not against the rules. It is very much in line with what Republicans have done a lot better than Democrats for the past decade, which is use the rules to their political advantage.
     
  18. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    riverplate is right in that this is new, the use of the filibuster to block judges. EDIT: Except the Fortas case, but hey, if you've got to go back a third of a century... ;)

    But river, I invite you to go to calpundit.com, where he talks about how the Reeps have gone back and forth on the blue slip rule, their guiding principle being will to power.

    Look, this particular group of Reeps, guys like Tom DeLay and, well, Bush, are NOT conservatives. They're hard core revolutionaries, with a revolutionary's blind zeal. They really don't care about process. They really only care about power.

    river, here's the bottom line. How did you feel when DeLay pushed through reapportionment in Texas? Are you a hypocrite?

    Bottom line is, the Reeps started this s***. It was they who, in the 80s under Reagan, worked to delegitimize opposition to judges based on ideology. So they got what they deserve.

    It was the Reeps who pushed the most aggressive enforcement of the VRA when it comes to redistricting (but not, oddly :rolleyes: aggressive on voting rights) which has inevitably led to greater partisanship. So they got what they deserve.

    It was the Reeps who abused congressional investigative process to try to destroy Clinton. And they were perfectly willing to use surrogates as varied as Scaife and Falwell. So they got what they deserve.

    It was the Reeps who abused the impeachment process. So they got what they deserve.

    It was the Reeps who became huge fans of due process claims in Gore v. Bush, against voluminous statements of their position before. So they got what they deserve.

    It was the Reeps who kept changing the blue slip rule for reasons of partisanship, not fairness. So they got what they deserve.

    It was the Reeps who tried to de facto strip Clinton of his appointment powers. So they got what they deserve.

    It was the Reeps who have come up with a new policy on pork barrel spending in the House, purely for partisan gain. So they got what they deserve.

    It was the Reeps are shutting down completely legitimate inquiries into how 9/11 happened, and how and why our intel failed in Iraq. So they got what they deserve.

    It was the Reeps who outed a CIA agent as political retribution. So they got what they deserve.

    Should I go on?

    My point is that the ruling core of the Republican party is Tom DeLay and George Bush. And those guys don't give a s*** about process. They are motivated by will to power. If the Dems try to play by the rules, they'll get killed. Because the Reeps have no intention of playing by the rules. The movement conservatives haven't been playing by the rules for 20 years now, and as they keep getting rewarded for it, they get more and more brazen in their will to power.

    In short, I'm glad that in this one instance, the Dems are being just as ruthless and destructive as the movement conservatives. Because it's the only way to stop them. The Bolsheviks rolled the Mensheviks. I'm not interested in the Dems being Mensheviks.
     
  19. oman

    oman Member

    Jan 7, 2000
    South of Frisconsin
    Funny stuff.
     
  20. riverplate

    riverplate Member+

    Jan 1, 2003
    Corona, Queens
    Club:
    CA River Plate
    Fortas was nailed on a financial impropriety and he had members of his own party bailing out on him. And that was a single, stand-alone Supreme Court nomination. It's a different set of circumstances here.
     
  21. Richth76

    Richth76 New Member

    Jul 22, 1999
    Washington, D.C.
    How so?
     
  22. NER_MCFC

    NER_MCFC Member

    May 23, 2001
    Cambridge, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Nicely dodged, but let's get back to the real questions:
    Should the Senate be able to set its own rules?
    Should the minority party in the Senate have a meaningful voice in vetting presidential nominees?
    Would you feel the way you do if it was a Republican minority trying block left wing nominations by a Democratic president?
    If a judicial nominee can't even get the backing of the 7 Democrats needed to go over 60%, is he/she really a good choice for a life time position?
     
  23. oman

    oman Member

    Jan 7, 2000
    South of Frisconsin
    I agree with NER -- I would feel more comfortable with a 3/4 majority requirement than I would sending it the other way.
     
  24. Michael Russ

    Michael Russ Member

    Jun 11, 2002
    Buffalo, NY
    The Democrats certainly have the right to do this, but is it wise?

    Is this process making it impossible for judges to actually have an opinion on anything if they want to be appointed to higher courts?
     
  25. GringoTex

    GringoTex Member

    Aug 22, 2001
    1301 miles de Texas
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Bolivia
    Apparently not, as the Dems have approved 166 out of 172 judges.
     

Share This Page