Nuclear option in the Senate: Opinions - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Superbelt · 03-16-2005, 08:17 AM

So, Bush wants to resubmit the failed judicial candidates from last term.
The Democrats are, again, threatening to filibuster them.

There is much more serious talk now on the Republican side about removing the filibuster provision. If they do that the democrats will almost assuredly "go nuclear" and shut down all senate business until the rule is reinstated.

The Democrats have allowed the vast majority of Justices to go through. Only about 10, the most extreme candidates have been filibustered by the dems.
I see nothing wrong with this and at the very least can equate it with Senate Republicans denying Clinton's nominees even a hearing. It's basically the same thing.

I see the opposition party's weeding out of extreme justices from either side as a good thing and side with the Dems on this issue. The Republicans are acting like little whiney emperors who want to get every last crumb. What says the TFP?

Seaver · 03-16-2005, 09:19 AM

How are Republicans able to remove the filibuster provision? The filibuster is not a law, but a traditional respect given to fellow Senators. I'm a big fan of the filibuster, it is a steam valve giving people time to stop and think about what they're really passing.

HOWEVER, I think both sides are acting like whiney children. I see this as parallel to the Texas Democratic Representatives bailed when the Reps. won a majority for the first time since the Civil War. Something doesnt go their way so instead of working with them to better represent their own people they throw a fit.

Superbelt · 03-16-2005, 09:27 AM

But these nominees are pretty bad and pretty far out to the right. We don't need that extremism in our courts.

I think it is interesting to note that the Republicans are whining about the will of america being subverted, but the 44 democrats represent 55% of the american population.
I did the math.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...state&Sort=ASC
http://geography.about.com/gi/dynami...2000/tab05.txt
(I split state population where the party splits the senate)

The will of America actually rests with the democrats if they filibuster in unison.
153612160/126620083- by rough count
(27 million extra americans rep'ed by the Dems)

This is thanks to states like California, New York and Illinois on the Dems side and Wyoming, Kansas and Utah on the Republican side.

NCB · 03-16-2005, 09:30 AM

Bring the judges to an up or down vote. If they fail ,they fail; if they pass, they pass. This filibustering of appellate court judges is sickening. It's time for the GOPer to start acting like the majority party they are and allow the constittutional process to move forward.

NCB · 03-16-2005, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

But these nominees are pretty bad and pretty far out to the right. We don't need that extremism in our courts.

I think it is interesting to note that the Republicans are whining about the will of america being subverted, but the 44 democrats represent 55% of the american population.
I did the math.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...state&Sort=ASC
http://geography.about.com/gi/dynami...2000/tab05.txt
(I split state population where the party splits the senate)

The will of America actually rests with the democrats if they filibuster in unison.
153612160/126620083- by rough count
(27 million extra americans rep'ed by the Dems)

This is thanks to states like California, New York and Illinois on the Dems side and Wyoming, Kansas and Utah on the Republican side.

You're assuming that all NYer, ect... support their Dem senators and congreessmen. You're also assuming that GOP senators and congressmen are supported by all of their constituents. That's not the case.

Perhaps a better indicator would be a national election where a Dem and a GOPer square off. See who wins that race

flstf · 03-16-2005, 09:36 AM

I agree what's wrong with letting them come up for a vote. The case can still be made and debated to vote them out if they are not qualified.

Superbelt · 03-16-2005, 09:38 AM

That method, man v. man, doesn't always seem to work correctly *(will of the majority) nationally though.

NCB, did you think it was disgusting when the Senate Republicans refused to release Clinton's nominees from committee?

The Senate is a check on Bush's choice of judges. The Senate democrats who represent a majority of america (even though all their constitutents didn't vote for them, they still represent a majority) are right to look out for the majority of america's interest.

cyrnel · 03-16-2005, 09:41 AM

I grew up thinking the filibuster was an odd mechanism. It wasn't brought up often, it was always regarded in classes as (to be kind) "alternative politics." I don't recall it being used often even by the minority. Now it's all over the place. I've not researched this at all, but am interested in why the filibuster is coming to a head. What is different now? Is this a symptom of our failing cooperation or has something else changed?

Superbelt · 03-16-2005, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

I agree what's wrong with letting them come up for a vote. The case can still be made and debated to vote them out if they are not qualified.

What's wrong is they will pass guaranteed and everyone knows it.
It will be on a party line vote.
These people just aren't appropriate or qualified for America.
These people are the only qualified individuals Bush could find?

Priscilla Owens
-Enron's political action committee gave Owen $8,600 for her successful Supreme Court bid in 1994. Two years later, Owen wrote the majority opinion that reversed a lower court order and reduced Enron's school taxes by $15 million. Since 1993, Enron contributed $134,058 -- more than any other corporation -- to Owen and other members of the Texas Supreme Court. A study by Texans for Public Justice found that the court ruled in Enron's favor in five out of six cases involving the company since 1993.
-Supported the elimination and narrowing of buffer zones around reproductive health care clinics in Houston.
-Owen's actions in two cases raise serious concerns about the priority she places on the government's responsibility to protect the environment and the health and safety of its citizens. In FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin, Justice Owen strongly dissented from the court's decision to strike down a state law that had been tailored to allow a particular developer to bypass the city of Austin's municipal water-quality laws. The majority pointed out that the law illegally delegated a basic right - the right to pollute - to a private property owner. Owen's dissent was dismissed by the majority as "nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric" thus merit[ing] no response. Parties affiliated with the developer contributed more than $47,000 to Owen's campaign.

William Haynes
-Supports the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens by the Executive Branch without legal counsel or meaningful judicial review.
-Signed off on the legality of withholding Geneva Conventions protections from hundreds of persons detained at Guantanamo, defined as prisoners of war.
-Haynes, as the Pentagon's top lawyer, oversaw a working group that argued that President Bush, in exercising his powers as commander in chief during times of war, is under no obligation to adhere to any rule of law - international or domestic - that bars the use of torture.
-Has been nominated to one of the most influential appellate courts in the country, but he has almost no in-court trial experience, and no direct appellate experience at all.

flstf · 03-16-2005, 10:24 AM

While we may disagree with some of their rulings neither Owens or Haynes has broken any laws that I can find with google searches. The American Bar Association gave them both the highest rating of “well qualified.” I'm not convinced that they shouldn't be able to make their case in front of the whole Senate.

NCB · 03-16-2005, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

That method, man v. man, doesn't always seem to get the results I want

FTFY

Quote:

NCB, did you think it was disgusting when the Senate Republicans refused to release Clinton's nominees from committee?

The Senate is a check on Bush's choice of judges. The Senate democrats who represent a majority of america (even though all their constitutents didn't vote for them, they still represent a majority) are right to look out for the majority of america's interest.

1. This Dem as "America's Party" is down right laughable. A party that have continually lost recent elections is not a majority party. Sure, there are Dems that get elected down here (ex...my gov, who is a conservative Dem that actually got the NRA endorsement *gasp*), bit as a whole, they're the minority party.

2. Which judges did the GOP block?

2.

Superbelt · 03-16-2005, 10:50 AM

In 1997, Orrin Hatch suggested that the "judicial ideology and philosophy of nominees be carefully reviewed." "extensive" questioning and investigation and "no set time" to complete the process. This meant that nominees waited years without even being granted a hearing by the Judiciary Committee. Some never got their hearing.

"Should we take our time on these federal judges? Yes. Do I have any apologies? Only one: I probably moved too many already."
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott 1998

William Fletcher to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked for 3 years.
Richard Paez to the 9th Circuity Court of Appeals blocked for 4 years.
Also: Margaret Morrow, Margaret McKeown, Sonia Sotomayor, Enrique Moreno, Elena Kagan, James Wynn, Helene White.

In 1998 there were 11 hearings
In 1999 there were 7
In 2000 there were 8
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...ck=1&cset=true
"Bush nominated 52 appellate court judges in his first term; Congress approved 35 of them."
"Clinton, during his second term, nominated 51 appellate court judges — and the Republican Senate confirmed 35."

"The preferred GOP technique for sinking Clinton nominees was to deny them hearings or a floor vote. Since Democrats don't control committees or the floor schedule, they have been compelled to use the more incendiary weapon of the filibuster to stop the Bush nominees they oppose. But the result has been the same: frustration in the White House and rising bitterness in Congress."

NCB · 03-16-2005, 10:57 AM

Nice work, SB.

I disagree with the GOP tactics back then. Nominations deserved to be heard, debated, and given an up or down vote.

guy44 · 03-16-2005, 11:00 AM

Yeah, but NCB, the time for the debate over whether or not filibusters for judicial nominees is acceptable has passed. The Republicans chose their ground on this one. They set the ground rules: that fillibusters can be used to block judicial nominees.

Now, they have to live with it.

Superbelt · 03-16-2005, 11:06 AM

Well first, turnabout is fairplay.

And, as I said, I like this. I think denials and filibusters filter out those who are too extreme on either side for the federal bench.
It's a system that will ensure moderation.

NCB · 03-16-2005, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

Well first, turnabout is fairplay.

And, as I said, I like this. I think denials and filibusters filter out those who are too extreme on either side for the federal bench.
It's a system that will ensure moderation.

Not really. Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer are as extreme as you can get. And they flew through the nomination process

Superbelt · 03-16-2005, 11:24 AM

That's your personal interpretation, not the nations.
Scalia and Renhquist similarly had no problem getting their nomination. I view them as about as far right as you can get. But I also realize that's from my own perspective.

dksuddeth · 03-16-2005, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Not really. Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer are as extreme as you can get. And they flew through the nomination process

if you want to blame somebody for ginsberg and breyer, blame trent lott. He made a deal with clinton to get them passed.

As it stands, the GOP senators are acting like a bunch of cry babies. 95% of the nominees that Bush has sent up have been confirmed. 95%. The highest in history. What right do the republicans have to bitch about that?

The breaking laws part, thats a laughable argument at best. If they had broken laws they wouldn't even have been nominated.

Mojo_PeiPei · 03-16-2005, 03:17 PM

I want some off the wall, crazy conservative's to have a seat, the liberals have the 9th circuit, I want my slice too damnit!

Superbelt · 03-16-2005, 05:39 PM

Good lord I hate the 9th circuit meme crap.

The 4th circuit, has more of it's decisions overturned as a percentage than any other circuit. It is widely regarded as a highly conservative bench.

The 9th, has a quite lower overturn percentage.

pan6467 · 03-16-2005, 06:21 PM

I truly wonder if we have gotten to a point where we can just amend the Constitution to allow voters to elect judges (Supreme, your Circuit and your Appelate).

OR at the very least put limits on how long they may serve and after every so often look at their attendance, whom they associate with and who donates money to them/their causes etc. and do this by a strictly 50/50 bi-partisan panel.

In high school many years ago, one of my teachers taught us that our nation is truly an oligarchy in that the justices on the SCOJ actually could set the tone of government by what laws they allow and what laws they overturn.

fibber · 03-16-2005, 07:31 PM

"These people just aren't appropriate or qualified for America."

I coudn't find this in the encyclopedia.

Maybe it's opinion and not fact?

Willravel · 03-16-2005, 08:19 PM

Can anyone remind me why the president is involved in any way in the justice system? (Maybe there should be different political parties for each branch of the government....just a thought) The Constitution, my most favorite document ever, is really vague about judicial qualifications, despite the fact that it is very specific when outlinign qualifications for the House, Senate and President. In fact, basically the only problem I've ever had with the constitution is the president's role in the federal judicial nomonation process. Where does the president get his nomination ideas from? Well, most say they come from anywhere from the FBI, Department of Jusitce, members of congress, sitting justices, and the ABA. Now the president, FBI, and Department of Justice are all on the executive branch, and the Senate is obviously on the legislative branch...is this checks and balances, or is this just making it easier to pick and choose who runs each of the three branches? Maybe I'm just being paranoid (I've been knwon to do that from time to time), but shouldn't there either be an election by the people, or simply have the decision made by the sitting supreme court?

Seaver · 03-16-2005, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Can anyone remind me why the president is involved in any way in the justice system?

So the Executive branch could check the power of the Judicial branch. Just as the Judicial branch checks the Legislative, and the Legislative checks the Executive.

And yes I believe you are being paranoid.

pan6467 · 03-16-2005, 08:45 PM

Personally, I've always wondered how it's a check and balance when you appoint the justices for life.

They can be great judges in the system and know the Constitution inside and out and have both sides loving them ...... then get appointed, know it's for life and let the power get to them or sell decisions or whatever..... and noone can really do much about it.

Also, even if I am a liberal (because right now liberal justices are doing it.... just as during Clinton, conservative justices did it) I truly despise the fact that you can have judges practically on their deathbeds, falling asleep during hearings and senile yet stay on the bench until a president from "their side" can appoint a replacement. I think that in and of itself decries change as necessary.

Willravel · 03-16-2005, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

So the Executive branch could check the power of the Judicial branch. Just as the Judicial branch checks the Legislative, and the Legislative checks the Executive.

And yes I believe you are being paranoid.

What I mean is we vote for the president and vice president and we vote for senators and representatives, thus we directly vote for those in power in two of the three branches. Why don't we vote for federal justices? We are trusted in choosing the leaders of the executive and legislative branches, but not the judicial? It's a bit confusing. The executive branch checks by controling the military and police and federal defence and investigation organizations. The legislative branch makes the laws that rule the land. The judicial branch interprits the laws and passes (ta dah) judgment. Those are the checks and balances. Why does someone with obvious party bias get to choose the heads of a different branch?

If by some fluke, we had a terrible, evil president elected (no comments from the peanut gallery), and he chose several evil judges, he could control a majority of the governmental power, and checks and balances would die.

Seaver · 03-16-2005, 10:12 PM

Quote:

What I mean is we vote for the president and vice president and we vote for senators and representatives, thus we directly vote for those in power in two of the three branches. Why don't we vote for federal justices? We are trusted in choosing the leaders of the executive and legislative branches, but not the judicial? It's a bit confusing. The executive branch checks by controling the military and police and federal defence and investigation organizations. The legislative branch makes the laws that rule the land. The judicial branch interprits the laws and passes (ta dah) judgment. Those are the checks and balances. Why does someone with obvious party bias get to choose the heads of a different branch?

If by some fluke, we had a terrible, evil president elected (no comments from the peanut gallery), and he chose several evil judges, he could control a majority of the governmental power, and checks and balances would die.

That's why the Legislative branch has to approve the appointments first. And about being for life? It's because the founding fathers feared a true democracy as much as a king. They wanted some separation of the people and everything else. So that if the majority of people suddenly came up with the idea to exterminate all (insert name of people here) there would be some people there to put a big rubber NO stamp on it.

Now, not to say we havent done things like this legally, but that's what it was intended to be IMO.

Willravel · 03-16-2005, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

That's why the Legislative branch has to approve the appointments first. And about being for life? It's because the founding fathers feared a true democracy as much as a king. They wanted some separation of the people and everything else. So that if the majority of people suddenly came up with the idea to exterminate all (insert name of people here) there would be some people there to put a big rubber NO stamp on it.

Now, not to say we havent done things like this legally, but that's what it was intended to be IMO.

Have you ever agreed with someone who was taking the opposite stand on something, yet you still feel like you might be right? I'm so confused.

host · 03-17-2005, 01:29 AM

I thank God that there are still a few decent Republicans remaining in the senate.

Quote:

<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/index.ssf?050307fa_fact">http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/index.ssf?050307fa_fact</a>
.......................Frist’s enthusiasm may not be enough to get the fifty Republican votes he needs to change the rules. On February 10th, Frist told the Washington Times that he had fifty-one votes, but a few days later, to me, he said, “I’m not going to talk about vote counts.” Senator John McCain, of Arizona, seems likely to oppose the idea. “We Republicans are not blameless here,” McCain told me. “For all intents and purposes, we filibustered Clinton’s judges, by not letting them out of committee. Making this change would put us on a slippery slope to getting rid of the filibuster altogether. It’s not called ‘nuclear’ for nothing.” Several other Republican senators also expressed reservations about the idea, often using similar language. Chuck Hagel, from Nebraska, said that he was undecided, and added, “I think the judges deserve up-or-down votes, but the filibuster is an important tool for the minority in the Senate.” Susan Collins, a moderate from Maine, who is also undecided, said, “It’s wrong for the Democrats to filibuster judges, but I’m concerned about the effect on the work of the Senate if the constitutional, a.k.a. nuclear, option is pursued.” John Sununu, a first-termer from New Hampshire, and Lamar Alexander, Frist’s junior colleague from Tennessee, have not made up their minds, either. Even Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina who supports the rules change, seemed to speak for many when he said, “Nobody wants to blow the place up.”

That—or something close to it—is what Democrats are threatening. “On both sides of the aisle, even among a good number of Republicans who are quite conservative, they know the nuclear option dramatically changes this place,” said Charles Schumer, the New York Democrat, who has been a leader for his party on judicial confirmations. “It makes the Senate into the House of Representatives. We are no longer the cooling saucer. The whole idea of the Senate is you need a greater degree of bipartisanship, comity, than in the House. And there are many conservative senators, particularly the ones who’ve been around a long time, who will not change that.” As Richard Durbin put it, “Several of the Republican members have been in the minority, and they know they will not be in the majority forever. They don’t want to do this to the institution.” But on every important vote of the past four years the Republicans have ultimately rallied to support the President.

The possibility of a Democratic retaliation—the Party’s own attempt at all-out war—is real. Even without the filibuster, Senate rules give a minority the chance to make life miserable for the majority. A single member can gum up the legislative machinery, as Tom Daschle, the South Dakota Democrat, who was his party’s leader for a decade in the Senate, explained. “The Senate runs on ‘unanimous consent,’” Daschle said. “It takes unanimous consent to stop the reading of bills, the reading of every amendment. On any given day, there are fifteen or twenty nominations and a half-dozen bills that have been signed off for unanimous consent. The vast work of the Senate is done that way. But any individual senator can insist that every bill be read, every vote be taken, and bring the whole place to a stop.” Daschle also doubted that the limitations on filibustering would in the future be applied only to judicial nominations. “Within ten years, there’d be rules that you can’t filibuster tax cuts,” he said.

Last November, Daschle became the first party leader in a half century to be defeated for reëlection. In a strongly Republican state, he lost a close race to John Thune, a telegenic former congressman, who made effective use of the fact that Daschle had once referred to himself as a District of Columbia resident. But another of Thune’s arguments was that Daschle had become the “obstructionist-in-chief.” Daschle’s defeat may make a strategy based on tying up the Senate appear less than promising for the Democrats.

Specter has done his best to try to avoid a confrontation. He plans to bring up some of Bush’s less controversial judicial nominees first, in an attempt to build momentum for compromise. But on February 14th Bush formally resubmitted to the Senate seven nominees whom the Democrats had filibustered in the previous two years. The confrontation may be delayed, but now, clearly, it can’t be avoided. Specter’s appetite for a fight may be lessened for personal reasons. On February 16th, he announced that he had Hodgkin’s disease. Last week, Specter told the Washington Post,“If we go to the nuclear option . . . the Senate will be in turmoil and the Judiciary Committee will be hell.”

One day outside the Senate chamber, I saw John Warner in an uncharacteristic pose for a politician. He had squeezed himself up against one of the old stone walls in an attempt to remain out of camera range while another senator talked to the press. In the first few years following his election in 1978, Warner was known more for being Elizabeth Taylor’s sixth husband than for any legislative achievements. (The marriage lasted from 1976 to 1982.) But Warner, who is now seventy-eight, patiently moved up through the ranks, and today chairs the Armed Services Committee and is an important source of institutional memory for the Senate. “When I came to the Senate, I studied the history of the filibuster,” he told me, “and unlimited debate has been an essential part of what we do since the inception of the body. Of course, the Democrats have pushed too hard and stopped too many judges, and I still don’t know what I’ll do if this thing comes up for a vote. I’m worried about it, and I’m worried about what’s happening to the Senate. You see, I’m a traditionalist. That’s my party.”

CShine · 03-17-2005, 09:14 AM

Looks like the GOP is making the move to force the Dems to put up a fight. Won't be long now before it gets ugly. Should be fun to watch.

Quote:

Republicans on Thursday cleared the first of President Bush's blocked judicial nominees for Senate approval, a move that Democrats say could lead to a filibuster confrontation that could shut the chamber down. The GOP-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee on a 10-8 party line vote agreed to send the nomination of former Interior lawyer William Myers to the full Senate for approval.

While Republicans say Myers, who now is in practice as a private lawyer in Boise, Idaho, would make a good judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Democrats claimed that he is too anti-environment.

Democrats blocked Myers's nomination during the last Congress, and say they will do the same this year. "The Myers nomination is likely to be used as the trigger for the nuclear option," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

Republicans have threatened to change the Senate rules to stop Democrats from blocking judicial nominees, a move Democrats have dubbed the "nuclear option" because they say it would blow up Senate relations.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada on Tuesday threatened to cripple Senate operations if Republicans tried to stop them from filibustering Myers and other court nominations.

The Myers nomination will not be considered by the full chamber until after senators return from their Easter recess.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp.../senate_judges

Seaver · 03-17-2005, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Have you ever agreed with someone who was taking the opposite stand on something, yet you still feel like you might be right? I'm so confused.

I agree with you that there is a LOT of power given to these people, especially considering it's for life. BUT, this allows them to (ideally) take the right path and vote cases based on their true interpretation of the Constitution instead of what the majority wants. Now this could be really bad if they get in and say "fuck yall, I'm in it now"... but that's why two branches have to approve of the appointments first.

Seaver · 03-17-2005, 09:30 AM

Already up and going thread on this.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=85505

pan6467 · 03-17-2005, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

I agree with you that there is a LOT of power given to these people, especially considering it's for life. BUT, this allows them to (ideally) take the right path and vote cases based on their true interpretation of the Constitution instead of what the majority wants. Now this could be really bad if they get in and say "fuck yall, I'm in it now"... but that's why two branches have to approve of the appointments first.

Yeah, but when they are chosen NOT for their impartiality but rather how they will vote on certain partisan hot-topics..... then they are not in the job for what is truly in the best interest of the country, but rather what promotes their political party more.

dksuddeth · 03-17-2005, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

I thank God that there are still a few decent Republicans remaining in the senate.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I love this part of your article.

Quote:

Senator John McCain, of Arizona, seems likely to oppose the idea. “We Republicans are not blameless here,” McCain told me. “For all intents and purposes, we filibustered Clinton’s judges, by not letting them out of committee.

Susan Collins, a moderate from Maine, who is also undecided, said, “It’s wrong for the Democrats to filibuster judges

i hear a bunch of crybaby republicans at this point who now don't like their own tactics used against them.

Scipio · 03-17-2005, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyrnel

I grew up thinking the filibuster was an odd mechanism. It wasn't brought up often, it was always regarded in classes as (to be kind) "alternative politics." I don't recall it being used often even by the minority. Now it's all over the place. I've not researched this at all, but am interested in why the filibuster is coming to a head. What is different now? Is this a symptom of our failing cooperation or has something else changed?

Historically, senators acutally had to get up there and talk for hours and hours and the whole idea of a filibuster was somewhat more dramatic. Strom Thurmond once went on for 24 hours in opposition to a civil rights bill. Nobody really knows how he took a leak while he was up there. Now, however, when a senator wants to filibuster someone, they put a "hold" on it, which is essentially a threat to filibuster. Since the senate is very busy, debatable bills and motions on which holds have been placed are not usually brought up for consideration (if they were, the senator in question would speak continuously, and waste the body's time). One consequence of the hold system is that filibusters are somewhat easier to do, as you don't actually have to get up there and talk in most cases.

Quick point: we have to decide whether the senate is going to be a body of unlimited debate (like the senate), or a body where everything gets a clear up or down vote (like the house...sometimes). We can't really have both, as the principle of unlimited debate necessarily creates oddities like the filibuster and cloture rules.

Manx · 03-17-2005, 11:37 AM

The Republicans spearheading this anti-filibuster route are just bastards. There's nothing more to it than that.

Without the ability for a filibuster, we might as well just tell the minority party to go home and stop wasting tax payer money because their vote doesn't count anymore.

Now, if it were the case that every action, or nearly every action was being blocked by a filibuster - then and only then would there be justification for changes to filibuster rules. But as has been demonstrated, 95% of Bush's judicial nominations have not been met with a filibuster. It is a clear cut case that the Republicans who would like to see the filibuster eliminated are in direct opposition to democracy - they simply don't want to have to deal with the reality of a non-exclusive right to make decisions. They are bastards.

NCB · 03-17-2005, 11:59 AM

I haven't seen the Dems fight this hard in a long while. I just wish they showed this sort of verocity in helping to fight the war on terror

Codename47 · 03-17-2005, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

I haven't seen the Dems fight this hard in a long while. I just wish they showed this sort of verocity in helping to fight the war on terror

The war in Iraq isn't part of the war on terror boss, and as far as I know, that's the only thing that doesn't sit well with them.

The Afghan war is fine in everyone's eyes.

CShine · 03-17-2005, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Which judges did the GOP block?

You must be talking about back in 2000 when Clinton nominees Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon were successfully filibustered by the GOP Senate minority. Feel free to look 'em up.

Lebell · 03-17-2005, 01:11 PM

Threads merged.

03-16-2005, 08:17 AM	#1 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Nuclear option in the Senate: Opinions So, Bush wants to resubmit the failed judicial candidates from last term. The Democrats are, again, threatening to filibuster them. There is much more serious talk now on the Republican side about removing the filibuster provision. If they do that the democrats will almost assuredly "go nuclear" and shut down all senate business until the rule is reinstated. The Democrats have allowed the vast majority of Justices to go through. Only about 10, the most extreme candidates have been filibustered by the dems. I see nothing wrong with this and at the very least can equate it with Senate Republicans denying Clinton's nominees even a hearing. It's basically the same thing. I see the opposition party's weeding out of extreme justices from either side as a good thing and side with the Dems on this issue. The Republicans are acting like little whiney emperors who want to get every last crumb. What says the TFP?

03-16-2005, 11:00 AM	#14 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	Yeah, but NCB, the time for the debate over whether or not filibusters for judicial nominees is acceptable has passed. The Republicans chose their ground on this one. They set the ground rules: that fillibusters can be used to block judicial nominees. Now, they have to live with it. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

03-16-2005, 03:17 PM	#19 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I want some off the wall, crazy conservative's to have a seat, the liberals have the 9th circuit, I want my slice too damnit! __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

03-16-2005, 06:21 PM	#21 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I truly wonder if we have gotten to a point where we can just amend the Constitution to allow voters to elect judges (Supreme, your Circuit and your Appelate). OR at the very least put limits on how long they may serve and after every so often look at their attendance, whom they associate with and who donates money to them/their causes etc. and do this by a strictly 50/50 bi-partisan panel. In high school many years ago, one of my teachers taught us that our nation is truly an oligarchy in that the justices on the SCOJ actually could set the tone of government by what laws they allow and what laws they overturn. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

03-16-2005, 08:45 PM	#25 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Personally, I've always wondered how it's a check and balance when you appoint the justices for life. They can be great judges in the system and know the Constitution inside and out and have both sides loving them ...... then get appointed, know it's for life and let the power get to them or sell decisions or whatever..... and noone can really do much about it. Also, even if I am a liberal (because right now liberal justices are doing it.... just as during Clinton, conservative justices did it) I truly despise the fact that you can have judges practically on their deathbeds, falling asleep during hearings and senile yet stay on the bench until a president from "their side" can appoint a replacement. I think that in and of itself decries change as necessary. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 03-16-2005 at 08:47 PM..

03-16-2005, 09:19 AM	#2 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	How are Republicans able to remove the filibuster provision? The filibuster is not a law, but a traditional respect given to fellow Senators. I'm a big fan of the filibuster, it is a steam valve giving people time to stop and think about what they're really passing. HOWEVER, I think both sides are acting like whiney children. I see this as parallel to the Texas Democratic Representatives bailed when the Reps. won a majority for the first time since the Civil War. Something doesnt go their way so instead of working with them to better represent their own people they throw a fit.

03-16-2005, 09:27 AM	#3 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	But these nominees are pretty bad and pretty far out to the right. We don't need that extremism in our courts. I think it is interesting to note that the Republicans are whining about the will of america being subverted, but the 44 democrats represent 55% of the american population. I did the math. http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...state&Sort=ASC http://geography.about.com/gi/dynami...2000/tab05.txt (I split state population where the party splits the senate) The will of America actually rests with the democrats if they filibuster in unison. 153612160/126620083- by rough count (27 million extra americans rep'ed by the Dems) This is thanks to states like California, New York and Illinois on the Dems side and Wyoming, Kansas and Utah on the Republican side.

03-16-2005, 09:36 AM	#6 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	I agree what's wrong with letting them come up for a vote. The case can still be made and debated to vote them out if they are not qualified.

03-16-2005, 09:38 AM	#7 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	That method, man v. man, doesn't always seem to work correctly *(will of the majority) nationally though. NCB, did you think it was disgusting when the Senate Republicans refused to release Clinton's nominees from committee? The Senate is a check on Bush's choice of judges. The Senate democrats who represent a majority of america (even though all their constitutents didn't vote for them, they still represent a majority) are right to look out for the majority of america's interest.

03-16-2005, 09:41 AM	#8 (permalink)
cyrnel Adequate Location: In my angry-dome.	I grew up thinking the filibuster was an odd mechanism. It wasn't brought up often, it was always regarded in classes as (to be kind) "alternative politics." I don't recall it being used often even by the minority. Now it's all over the place. I've not researched this at all, but am interested in why the filibuster is coming to a head. What is different now? Is this a symptom of our failing cooperation or has something else changed?

03-16-2005, 10:24 AM	#10 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	While we may disagree with some of their rulings neither Owens or Haynes has broken any laws that I can find with google searches. The American Bar Association gave them both the highest rating of “well qualified.” I'm not convinced that they shouldn't be able to make their case in front of the whole Senate.

03-16-2005, 10:50 AM	#12 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	In 1997, Orrin Hatch suggested that the "judicial ideology and philosophy of nominees be carefully reviewed." "extensive" questioning and investigation and "no set time" to complete the process. This meant that nominees waited years without even being granted a hearing by the Judiciary Committee. Some never got their hearing. "Should we take our time on these federal judges? Yes. Do I have any apologies? Only one: I probably moved too many already." Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott 1998 William Fletcher to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked for 3 years. Richard Paez to the 9th Circuity Court of Appeals blocked for 4 years. Also: Margaret Morrow, Margaret McKeown, Sonia Sotomayor, Enrique Moreno, Elena Kagan, James Wynn, Helene White. In 1998 there were 11 hearings In 1999 there were 7 In 2000 there were 8 http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...ck=1&cset=true "Bush nominated 52 appellate court judges in his first term; Congress approved 35 of them." "Clinton, during his second term, nominated 51 appellate court judges — and the Republican Senate confirmed 35." "The preferred GOP technique for sinking Clinton nominees was to deny them hearings or a floor vote. Since Democrats don't control committees or the floor schedule, they have been compelled to use the more incendiary weapon of the filibuster to stop the Bush nominees they oppose. But the result has been the same: frustration in the White House and rising bitterness in Congress."

03-16-2005, 11:06 AM	#15 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Well first, turnabout is fairplay. And, as I said, I like this. I think denials and filibusters filter out those who are too extreme on either side for the federal bench. It's a system that will ensure moderation.

03-16-2005, 11:24 AM	#17 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	That's your personal interpretation, not the nations. Scalia and Renhquist similarly had no problem getting their nomination. I view them as about as far right as you can get. But I also realize that's from my own perspective.

03-16-2005, 05:39 PM	#20 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Good lord I hate the 9th circuit meme crap. The 4th circuit, has more of it's decisions overturned as a percentage than any other circuit. It is widely regarded as a highly conservative bench. The 9th, has a quite lower overturn percentage.

03-16-2005, 07:31 PM	#22 (permalink)
fibber Tilted	"These people just aren't appropriate or qualified for America." I coudn't find this in the encyclopedia. Maybe it's opinion and not fact?

03-16-2005, 08:19 PM	#23 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Can anyone remind me why the president is involved in any way in the justice system? (Maybe there should be different political parties for each branch of the government....just a thought) The Constitution, my most favorite document ever, is really vague about judicial qualifications, despite the fact that it is very specific when outlinign qualifications for the House, Senate and President. In fact, basically the only problem I've ever had with the constitution is the president's role in the federal judicial nomonation process. Where does the president get his nomination ideas from? Well, most say they come from anywhere from the FBI, Department of Jusitce, members of congress, sitting justices, and the ABA. Now the president, FBI, and Department of Justice are all on the executive branch, and the Senate is obviously on the legislative branch...is this checks and balances, or is this just making it easier to pick and choose who runs each of the three branches? Maybe I'm just being paranoid (I've been knwon to do that from time to time), but shouldn't there either be an election by the people, or simply have the decision made by the sitting supreme court?

03-17-2005, 09:30 AM	#32 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Already up and going thread on this. http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=85505

03-17-2005, 11:37 AM	#36 (permalink)
Manx Loser	The Republicans spearheading this anti-filibuster route are just bastards. There's nothing more to it than that. Without the ability for a filibuster, we might as well just tell the minority party to go home and stop wasting tax payer money because their vote doesn't count anymore. Now, if it were the case that every action, or nearly every action was being blocked by a filibuster - then and only then would there be justification for changes to filibuster rules. But as has been demonstrated, 95% of Bush's judicial nominations have not been met with a filibuster. It is a clear cut case that the Republicans who would like to see the filibuster eliminated are in direct opposition to democracy - they simply don't want to have to deal with the reality of a non-exclusive right to make decisions. They are bastards.

03-17-2005, 01:11 PM	#40 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Threads merged. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!