Filibusters!

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Thought this was somewhat timely:



See what can happen when you start ignoring rules to ram through judges with simple majority votes? Lets hope the Tear Gas Option isn’t something the republicans have mulled over as well…

Give me break. It's really pushing it to compare the US senate to Equador. And I would like to know where what Congress is attempting to do is in ANYWAY a violation of our constitution. There seems to be a huge difference between the two.

As for the filibusters - I'm not sure how I feel about them. I'd have to look into them more. I do think that the democrats are abusing filibusters though.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Give me break. It's really pushing it to compare the US senate to Equador. And I would like to know where what Congress is attempting to do is in ANYWAY a violation of our constitution. There seems to be a huge difference between the two.

Incidental. The point of the comparison is to point out that when their president and his leaders in congress took highly radical steps simply to force through judges that reflected their extremist agenda that the system broke down and chaos resulted. And we would be best served to learn from such tactics and how it effects the workings of other governments rather then just waving it off as those silly inferior Equadorians.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Incidental. The point of the comparison is to point out that when their president and his leaders in congress took highly radical steps simply to force through judges that reflected their extremist agenda that the system broke down and chaos resulted. And we would be best served to learn from such tactics and how it effects the workings of other governments rather then just waving it off as those silly inferior Equadorians.

And it's radical in what way? The issues are nigth and day. They were breaking their Constitution. Nothing is happening that is against the constitution here. Also - by the article - it says they were REPLACING judges. It soudns like they were firing judges and putting supporters in place - again not the same thing. These are vacant positions that need to be filled in the US.

[Rían]

from IRex's article"...in a simple majority vote that violated the nation's constitution..."

There's nothing about changing debate rules in the Senate that is going against our Constitution. Democrats have changed debate/procedural rules MANY times, as have Republicans. Our Constitution says that judges shall be voted on. Filibusters prevent these legal votes.

I don't have problems with discussion. I do have problems with filibusters intended to put off a vote that is a Constitutional right (i.e., when Senators say, "we're gonna keep talking until the end of the session so this can't come to a vote.") That, IMO, is unconstitutional and unethical.

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by Rian

Our Constitution says that judges shall be voted on.

Not true. It says the Senate shall have the right to give "advice and consent" regarding judicial nominations. A vote is not guaranteed to the nominee.

And filibustering nominees is a very long-standing tradition, which (unlike other Senate rules) has not been changed/tinkered with/etc before. It is a bipartisan weapon intended to prevent the tyranny of the majority, and as such is very much in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution.

EDIT: To quote from the Constitution (as found on house.gov)

[the President]shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law

Judges of the lower courts fall under "officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for."

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Not true. It says the Senate shall have the right to give "advice and consent" regarding judicial nominations.

And they give their "advice and consent" by what method?

[Count Comfect]

By debating it... says nothing about having to actually VOTE, otherwise EVERY nominee would have gotten voted on immediately, no?

[Rían]

from the article
"In fact, Sen. Byrd, widely hailed as the chamber's fount of all
knowledge on procedures and traditions, led the charge to
establish new Senate precedents in 1977, 1979, 1980 and
1987 -- including many designed specifically to stop
filibusters and other minority-party stall tactics. "

Yes, they may be a tradition, but it's not like they haven't been changed around before.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

There's nothing about changing debate rules in the Senate that is going against our Constitution. Democrats have changed debate/procedural rules MANY times, as have Republicans. Our Constitution says that judges shall be voted on. Filibusters prevent these legal votes.

I don't have problems with discussion. I do have problems with filibusters intended to put off a vote that is a Constitutional right (i.e., when Senators say, "we're gonna keep talking until the end of the session so this can't come to a vote.") That, IMO, is unconstitutional and unethical.

I think Jersey already commented on that point and we got past that.

http://www.entmoot.com/showpost.php?...5&postcount=22

[Rían]

Why vote immediately? Why not hold a reasonable debate and then vote. That's MHO.

Yes, JD commented on it, but I've been gone and I"m catching up and wanted to comment, too, because it seems like a HUGE difference - I mean, one was unconstitutional and one ISN'T.

[Count Comfect]

Rian - the difference is between hedging rules around the filibuster and directly altering it: the one thing that has not been changed, pretty much ever, is the requirement of 60% for closure of debate, which is what the Republicans want to change now. That is why it is called the "nuclear option," because it is a radical change to the very nature of the filibuster and debate in the Senate, not just a placement of more rules onto its use.

I say voted on immediately because a filibuster IS a reasonable debate: it's a minority's expression of their desire not to have the candidate. The concept of a filibuster isn't just someone "reading the phonebook" or such extreme measures: it's simply a refusal to allow a vote, which happens to require someone to continue speaking (because if there are no speakers the motion moves directly to a vote). The whole purpose of it is to prevent 50 senators and the VP (or any similar combination up to 59 senators) from railroading things past the rest of the Senate. A change to the rule might alleviate a temporary problem, but it opens up much larger problems of majority abuse, much as have been known to happen in the House (where no filibuster is allowed).

[Rían]

I disagree with your analysis, Count. I think that if there's a minority in Congress, then it's for a good reason - the will of the people who voted them in. Rational debate is fine - filibustering in order to prevent a vote is NOT fine, IMO, no matter WHAT side you're on. I don't care WHO is in the minority - if you can't persuade the majority over to your side by rational discussion, then why should you be allowed to do it by bully tactics?

And as the article said, filibusters HAVE been limited before.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

A change to the rule might alleviate a temporary problem, but it opens up much larger problems of majority abuse, much as have been known to happen in the House (where no filibuster is allowed).

Well the House doesn't have final say in bills anyway the Senate does. So it all depends on if the Senate agrees with the House, as to whether or not something will come before the president. So I really don't see why the house would haev a filibuster rule. However - the filibuster is contradictory ot demoncracy. For one thing - if the majority is voting for something - it should be voted on. Reading from the phonebook and crap I disagree with. If you have a debate that's one thing - just wasting time is ridiculous. The Democrats controleld both houses for decades and they've been upset ever since they became the minority.

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by Jerseydevil

The Democrats controleld both houses for decades and they've been upset ever since they became the minority.

And the Republicans have ceased being upset ever since they became the majority... which says more about the nature of being a minority or a majority than about either party.

And the House and Senate share responsibility - neither one has "final say," except on appropriations, where only the House can introduce the bills, and on nominations (in which the House has no say).

Why is it contrary to American democracy to have things ruled by something other than a majority? To pass a constitutional amendment requires 3/4 of the states. To convict an impeached President requires 2/3. Why is having a 3/5 supermajority to vote such a problem? The purpose of all those rules is to prevent the minority from being abused by the majority by requiring more than 50%+1 to pass something. This is a venerable aspect of American democracy. And yes, it isn't pure democracy, rule of the majority. But I don't see why the rule should be junked. I feel that the ability of the minority to force the majority into concessions to be a legitimate value we, as a nation, should hold.

And as I've said, filibusters have been "limited" but not Eliminated. And that's what removing the 3/5 requirement for closure would do.

[Insidious Rex]

Why Count dont you know? Its all part of Karl Roves master plan of a one party nation. Just having majorities in all branches of government isnt nearly enough you realize. The Final Solution will be replacing all the judges with their own ideologues. Then everything will have fallen into place. And then they will build a frickin laser on the moon *pinkie to edge of mouth *

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

And the Republicans have ceased being upset ever since they became the majority... which says more about the nature of being a minority or a majority than about either party.

And the House and Senate share responsibility - neither one has "final say," except on appropriations, where only the House can introduce the bills, and on nominations (in which the House has no say).

Yes - teh Senate does have the final say in Congress on Bills. Bills originate in the House, ONCE they pass the House chamber - they MUST get approved by the SENATE. Then they must go before the President. I could go into further complications - such as if the Senate has any modifications and so forth - but I see no need to at this time.

Why do you think one is called the UPPER house and one is the LOWER house and why do you think that Senators have to be older? The Senate was put in place to control the House. That is a historic fact and their role has not changed through the years.

Please - I'm perfectly knowledgeable about the workings of the government and the history of the founding of the US Government.

Why is it contrary to American democracy to have things ruled by something other than a majority? To pass a constitutional amendment requires 3/4 of the states. To convict an impeached President requires 2/3. Why is having a 3/5 supermajority to vote such a problem? The purpose of all those rules is to prevent the minority from being abused by the majority by requiring more than 50%+1 to pass something. This is a venerable aspect of American democracy. And yes, it isn't pure democracy, rule of the majority. But I don't see why the rule should be junked. I feel that the ability of the minority to force the majority into concessions to be a legitimate value we, as a nation, should hold.

yeah - and the Constitution STATES those requirements. It does NOT require a super majority on federal judges however. The supermajority was put on things that the Founding Fathers felt were the MOST criticial - such as a change to the consitution or the impeachment of the president. The placement of federal judges - except for the supreme court does not rise to that level. Of course then you have those asshole judges in California - they should have been filibustered - not to mention the ones in Massachusetts.

[Count Comfect]

JD - I'm not saying you do not have a working knowledge of the government. But I will respectfully state that, while what you have said about the Senate being the Upper house and the House of Representatives the Lower is true, constitutionally only appropriations bills are require to originate in the house. Anything else can originate in either one. "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills"

The Constitution does indeed state the other requirements. I was merely citing them as examples of the American tradition of protecting minorities by requiring more than a simple majority vote in some cases. According to the Senate's own standing rules page (http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/standingrules.txt) the only change to the rule on cloture (which is the filibuster rule) was in 1986, changing the length of additional filibuster AFTER closure of debate was voted on from 100 hours to 30 hours (Sen. Res. 2, 99th Congress). The rule of a 3/5 vote for cloture has never been changed.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

JD - I'm not saying you do not have a working knowledge of the government. But I will respectfully state that, while what you have said about the Senate being the Upper house and the House of Representatives the Lower is true, constitutionally only appropriations bills are require to originate in the house. Anything else can originate in either one. "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills"

The Constitution does indeed state the other requirements. I was merely citing them as examples of the American tradition of protecting minorities by requiring more than a simple majority vote in some cases. According to the Senate's own standing rules page (http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/standingrules.txt) the only change to the rule on cloture (which is the filibuster rule) was in 1986, changing the length of additional filibuster AFTER closure of debate was voted on from 100 hours to 30 hours (Sen. Res. 2, 99th Congress). The rule of a 3/5 vote for cloture has never been changed.

I did not say that bill could NOT originate in the Senate. But first before going to the president -they must go down to the House and be approved by the House (even if they do originate in the senate ) - the house, can then put any changes they want into them and THEN they must STILL go BACK to Senate for FINAL approval. They can NOT go from the House to the President. They still have to go to the SENATE. As I said - I can get into the all the complications - but I didn't think it was going to be necessary - now I see that I may just have to do that.

[Count Comfect]

Ah well, the House has the same final say then: because it too must pass any compromise bill that comes out of the conference committee on the versions passed by the two houses. But we digress. Very much.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Ah well, the House has the same final say then: because it too must pass any compromise bill that comes out of the conference committee on the versions passed by the two houses. But we digress. Very much.

I don't think this discussion is that out there. Anyway - the house has to pass the bill - but it still has to go before the senate for final approval. Without the senate approving any bill it's dead in the water and can not go before the president.