Filibusters!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

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.

WOW!

Karl Rove engineered all the Senate and House elections so the Reps would get a majority?!

That guy ROCKS!!

[Insidious Rex]

Thats why they pay him the big bucks.

[Rían]

Well, you can pay a guy big bucks, but personally, I don't think he, or anyone, can affect elections on that scale.

[Rían]

Here's something pertinent to this thread: It's a letter that the Senate majority leader sent to the minority leader on filibusters. It's taken from Frist's webpage. I just copied it instead of linking to it.


US Senator William H. Frist, M.D.
March 17th, 2005 - WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, M.D. (R-TN) today released the following letter to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) regarding Senate consideration of the president’s judicial nominees:

The Honorable Harry Reid
The Capitol
Washington, DC 20510


Dear Harry:


Your letter of March 15, 2005, sets out your objections to exercise of the Constitutional option as a way to reform aspects of the judicial confirmation process. Please know that I would undertake such a course only if it were clear to me that reasonable alternatives were not possible.


I agree that the Senate must not be a rubber stamp, but l firmly disagree that the filibuster is the appropriate way to vindicate the Senate’s check on the appointments process. For more than two centuries, filibusters were rarely attempted on judicial nominees, and no nominee with clear majority support was ever barred from the bench by filibuster. Also, nominees filibustered in the last Congress were not “rejected.� Rather, those filibusters denied the full Senate the right to vote. President Bush was right to resubmit these qualified individuals to the Senate. They deserve up-or-down votes. As you know, within the meaning of the Constitution, a cloture vote is not advice and consent; instead, it is delay and deny.


Each party can recite a litany of complaints about the way judicial nominees have been treated, in a process that continues to descend into bitter partisanship. However, this cycle of recrimination cannot continue. It is not healthy for the Senate. Moreover, it produces manifest unfairness to Presidents of both parties and to their nominees, and cheapens our responsibilities as United States Senators.


Instead, reform of the confirmation process is sorely needed and should precede Senate consideration in this Congress of any of President Bush’s judicial nominees.


There is precedent for this. You are aware that when then-Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd proposed cloture changes in 1979, he announced he would exercise the Constitutional option, but would withhold if Republicans gave him a time agreement allowing for robust debate, an opportunity for amendment, and the certainty of a vote. Republicans negotiated an agreement with Senator Byrd, engaged in vigorous debate, offered a series of amendments to his proposal, and gave him a vote. With major cloture reform achieved, the Constitutional option was not exercised. This example affords us a model for resolving present difficulties.


When we return after the Easter recess, I will offer a proposal that takes account of complaints both parties have had with the confirmation process. It will protect the Constitution, validate our duties as Senators, and restore fairness to a process gone awry. I will seek your assistance in securing an agreement that allows us to expeditiously consider that proposal. Your cooperation in resolving this issue will ensure that bipartisanship continues to flourish in an institution that has served our nation so well over the past two centuries.


Sincerely,



Bill Frist, MD.

The section I bolded I think is especially important.

Thoughts?

[Count Comfect]

First, I think Mr. Frist's bias is showing on the issue, but so is mine, so let it go.

I'd say I disagree with Byrd then and Frist now. the "Constitutional" (wonder why he calls it that) or "nuclear" option should not be used. And Mr. Frist is not a judge, so his interpretation of the Constitution is no more inherently likely to be valid than mine (or, apparently, Harry Reid's) about whether a cloture vote is advice or consent.

I would agree that total use of the filibuster to block all votes is not a good idea - but I don't think radical reform is the way to do it. Another change on the order of Byrd's might be a good idea, but his change was only to debate rules AFTER cloture had been invoked, not cloture itself.

[Rían]

It looks to me like Frist is just doing what Byrd did, as described in the bolded section. I hope the Dems can do now what the Reps did then.

[Nurvingiel]

Is a filibuster the deliberate wasting of time to stall a vote? Could this really be regulated? I mean, one could do this thing by verbosely proposing a series of irrelevant arguments, and reiterating them ad nauseum. You couldn't make a rule against that could you?

Sorry to change the subject off the letter, but I don't get it enough to have an opinion about that.

[Rían]

From the US Senate webpage:

filibuster - Informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.


I think what they're currently trying to do is what Byrd (a Dem) did back when he was majority leader - get a "time agreement allowing for robust debate, an opportunity for amendment, and the certainty of a vote." IOW, not endless, meaningless (as in reading a phone book to occupy the time) debate.

[Insidious Rex]

The extreme conservatives and religious extremists are pushing Frist to finally put up or shut up on the whole nuclear option thing. they are all for it of course so he realizes he will need to puppet to their wishes soon if he wants to have a chance as the republican candidate in 2008. Should make things interesting over the next few weeks...

[Rían]

Just like the "extreme" liberals and non-"religious extremists" were pushing Byrd, I imagine.

So how is what Byrd did any different?

[Insidious Rex]

Was Byrd running for president? And why are you ignoring that Count has addressed this point here at least twice now? Silly question no doubt...

Its the nuclear option we are talking about. Not anything else. And trying to continually turn the tables simpy doesnt take away from the fact that resorting to a nuclear option is a VERY BAD IDEA. I wonder why people dont seem to care that you are cutting your nose off despite your face when you do such a thing. But I guess scoring small political points is more important then running a government. Go figure.

[Rían]

(It's "cutting off your nose to spite your face")

I'm not ignoring what the Count has posted . He said, among other things, that he disagreed with BOTH Byrd and Frist, and I admire his consistent and fair stance. What I'm worried about with you is that you don't seem to be applying the same standards to Reps and Dems, unless you think that Byrd was also doing a bad thing then, just as Frist is now. Do you? I"ll go back thru the thread and see if I can see a post like that - I don't remember.

And I'm consistent in that I think unlimited filibusters are wrong, no matter WHO has the majority in the Senate - Reps OR Dems.

Personally, I don't see what running for President has to do with it. If what Frist is doing is wrong, then so is what Byrd was doing, no matter if they're running for President or not. Do you agree?

And it seems that the Reps in Byrd's time were more reasonable, so far, than the Dems of today, because acc'd to Frist's letter, they gave Byrd a time agreement. I haven't seen the Dems do this yet.

BTW, I read this: "Judicial nominees with majority support have never been prevented from a confirmation vote, as they have been since 2003 by Senate Democrats." Anyone know if this is true?

And Count - I don't quite see your point here - "Another change on the order of Byrd's might be a good idea, but his change was only to debate rules AFTER cloture had been invoked, not cloture itself." It looks to me that Frist is proposing to do the same thing as Byrd threatened, and Byrd didn't have to go thru with this threats ONLY because the Reps gave him a vote. Could you please elaborate?

[Rían]

I just re-read the thread, and Count, your posts were informative and fair; I really enjoyed reading them.

You, OTOH, Rexy, seem to only be mad at Republicans, and to accuse me of changing my tune when the Dems are in the majority. I repeat that I think unlimited filibuster is wrong, no matter WHO has the majority. I can go with long, extensive debate, but not unlimited nonsense that prevents a vote.

I see some of your points, Count, but it seems that the Dems are abusing it in a way the Reps didn't, because as far as I can tell, NO judicial nominee with majority support has been prevented from getting a vote until the Dems started doing it. It seems that the Reps blocked Clinton's nominee for AG or whatever Count said, but that was it.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

when did Bryd or any other democrat insist on enacting the nuclear option to destroy filibustering?

See Frist's letter. Byrd didn't have to follow thru because the Reps agreed to a time agreement and a vote. Let's hope the Dems are as reasonable. Can you apply your complaints evenly to BOTH sides now, or are just the Reps wrong, IYO? If so, I just don't see how you can say Byrd wasn't wrong, either, because it sure looks like he's proposing the same thing.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Estrada's main problem was that he had no judicial experience but was being nominated to a very high federal court without a track record, and that his associates seemed to doubt whether he could separate his personal beliefs and the law (which judges often have to do).

But didn't he have a very high rating from the bar?

And I heard some of the hearings, and they were sometimes very irritating. It seemed to me that Estrada had the correct answers. The Dems would ask him, over and over, if he would uphold the existing right to abortion. He would reply, over and over, that it depended upon the merits of the individual case, and that he would look at it fairly and not bring in his own personal opinions in the matter. How is that not correct?!! I mean, the law against sodomy was recently overturned in Lawrence V. Texas; why didn't they ask about that in the same way?

Dem Senators: "Mr. Estrada, would you uphold the existing law that says sodomy is illegal?"

Mr. Estrada: "That depends upon the merits of the individual case. I'll look at it fairly and not bring in my own personal opinions on the matter."

Clearly the Supreme Court thought the merits of the case in Lawrence merited it being overturned. Why was Estrada's answer wrong in the case of abortion?! I don't think it was.

[Spock]

Ahh, a Mel Gibson fan or is it a displaced Scott?

The people of the USA have been cheated out of swift justice (I know an oxymoron) by this tactic of delay. The judges have been and are needed to help break the log jam of cases in federal courts.
Lastly, the R. did not do this to Clinton as it is being done to W.

[Rían]

are you talking about my sig?

[Spock]

...sorry, I should have said "hi Rian", yep William Wallace, Braveheart.

[Count Comfect]

Hmm... I had a nice long reply, then my browser mysteriously decided to close...

Anyway, first, I think what Frist is doing is different than Byrd - even if he gives up the nuclear option (which he actually doesn't seem as eager to in practice as his letter suggests), he is trying to change the amount of debate PREcloture, not POSTcloture. Second, I think the filibuster is still a necessary part of our government: we don't have a majority rule democracy, that's actually the whole point of many parts of our government (the Senate is a great example: the 44 Democratic Senators represent MORE people than the 55 Republicans). A simple majority is not supposed to be able to steamroll a minority, and this would allow them to do so.

As to this being a new idea of filibustering judicial nominees, here's what the Seattle Times has to say:

"In fact, in 1968, Senate Republicans used a filibuster to block President Johnson's nomination of Abe Fortas to be Supreme Court chief justice.

Democrats note that the vast majority of Bush's judicial nominees have been confirmed, and say that Republicans have abandoned the long-standing tradition of consulting with the minority party on the more-controversial choices. Judges opposed by the minority party in previous decades often were withdrawn to avoid confrontation."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ibuster05.html

Slate.com also has good coverage (from both sides) of this debate, btw.

Personally, I don't think this tactic is new, I don't think it's bad for the country, and I think the nuclear option is worse.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

(It's "cutting off your nose to spite your face")

not in my world. and in common lexicon both terms are fairly common. kind of like "ends meat" and "ends meet". Dont be a grammar stickler when yer having a polictical argument. its in poor taste.

And I'm consistent in that I think unlimited filibusters are wrong, no matter WHO has the majority in the Senate - Reps OR Dems.

Yes and how convenient for you to start yelling about it when its part of the extremist agenda for the conservatives. Im fairly sure I woudnt have heard a peep out of you if it was the other way around so i find this disingenious. Not a lot of threads on this message board where you are preeching against some horrible political thing that the conservatives happen to be doing. Probably why we dont have any threads on Tom Delay or similar shinanagans. But we have you yelling about not being able to control the entire government by using the nuclear option.

Personally, I don't see what running for President has to do with it.

you dont? you cant understand how Frist is in a bind if he wants to have a serious shot at the republican nomination? If he doesnt try he would loose the support of the radical conservatives who want the nuclear option. Wait till this so called "christians against democrats" news conference hes going to speaking at hits the news...

BTW, I read this: "Judicial nominees with majority support have never been prevented from a confirmation vote, as they have been since 2003 by Senate Democrats." Anyone know if this is true?

actually… (good grief but how many times exactly can you say the word “Byrd� in one reply?) but it was the REPUBLICANS that first set precedent for this kind of thing when they lead a successful 1968 filibuster against President Lyndon Johnson's nomination of Abe Fortas to be chief justice of the United States. Yes 1968! So blame it on the republicans Im afraid…

EDIT: Looks like Count snuck in with this info as well while I was working on mine.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

You, OTOH, Rexy, seem to only be mad at Republicans

Why would I want extreme conservatives given unchallengeable freedom to put on the bench big business tools and mining and logging lobbyists? Are you kidding? As judges?? Or one that wants to roll back civil and constitutional rights?? you better believe im against what the republicans are doing. Everyone should be for the sake of the nation and for the sake of humanity in general in this case.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

not in my world. and in common lexicon both terms are fairly common. kind of like "ends meat" and "ends meet". Dont be a grammar stickler when yer having a polictical argument. its in poor taste.

I thought you might be interested in it. I guess not, or at least not in a discussion. I think it's a fascinating and very descriptive phrase. I should have PMed you, I guess. Sorry It wasn't meant to be a put-down. Here on Entmoot, lots of us are interested in language, and I thought you might want to know that. I guess I wasn't having an "argument", so I didn't think anything was wrong with it.

Yes and how convenient for you to start yelling about it when its part of the extremist agenda for the conservatives. Im fairly sure I woudnt have heard a peep out of you if it was the other way around so i find this disingenious.

I find this very offensive, and you're quite wrong, and I"m not yelling. I dislike politics in general, and that's why you usually don't find me on the political threads. This particular topic, tho, was interesting to me, so I started a thread on it. I've stated before that I don't like unlimited filibuster for ANY side. I guess you don't believe me. It's pretty unfair to "find" an imaginary stance of mine "disingenuous" (altho you do qualify it with "Im fairly sure")

Not a lot of threads on this message board where you are preeching against some horrible political thing that the conservatives happen to be doing. Probably why we dont have any threads on Tom Delay or similar shinanagans. But we have you yelling about not being able to control the entire government by using the nuclear option.

Again, you rarely if ever see me on political threads. But the only one I AM on recently, THIS one, I say that I don't like it for EITHER side. I think the same standards should be applied to both sides. You don't see me "preeching against some horrible political thing that the conservatives happen to be doing", but also you don't see me preaching against some horrible political thing that I think the LIBERALS are doing, either. Right?

you dont? you cant understand how Frist is in a bind if he wants to have a serious shot at the republican nomination? If he doesnt try he would loose the support of the radical conservatives who want the nuclear option. Wait till this so called "christians against democrats" news conference hes going to speaking at hits the news...

Yes, I see in one sense how this affects Frist, but my point was that I don't care WHAT a person has going - if Byrd and Frist did the same thing, then they're BOTH wrong (or right), and it doesn't matter if one is going to run for president or not, IMO.

actually… (good grief but how many times exactly can you say the word “Byrd� in one reply?) but it was the REPUBLICANS that first set precedent for this kind of thing when they lead a successful 1968 filibuster against President Lyndon Johnson's nomination of Abe Fortas to be chief justice of the United States. Yes 1968! So blame it on the republicans Im afraid…

Thanks for the info, I'll have to read up on that. That's why I put the question out there. I'm not busy defending one side or the other, or blaming one side and not the other. I'm looking for info, and trying to apply standards fairly and evenly to BOTH sides.

Why would I want extreme conservatives given unchallengeable freedom to put on the bench big business tools and mining and logging lobbyists? Are you kidding? As judges?? Or one that wants to roll back civil and constitutional rights?? you better believe im against what the republicans are doing. Everyone should be for the sake of the nation and for the sake of humanity in general in this case.

Well, I obviously disagree with you in several areas what is good for the nation and humanity in general, yet I seem to be more fair than you are. I think if the people vote in a majority of Dems, then they should be able to bring judges to a vote, even tho I imagine I wouldn't like the judges. IOw, I STILL think unlimited filibusters would be wrong, no matter WHO is in the majority, because Senators are representatives representing the people who voted for them.