 |
| |
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:18
|
|
Regarding obstructionism against Clinton, right after he got the chair, Hatch had changed the rules of the Judiciary Committee to allow any single (rather than requiring both) Senator to block nominees from his state, the "blue slip" rule. So the Republicans gained vetoes on nominees from many, many states, and they used it to great effect. So while filibustering wasn't that prevalent (though still happening), huge numbers of Clinton nominees (far more than the number of Bush nominees) were even more anti-democratically (whereas with a filibuster 41 Senators could prevent a vote with a lot of effort, under Hatch's rules, with a blue slip one Senator could prevent a vote with practically no effort) prevented from being brough to a vote. Interestingly enough, Hatch reversed the decision and required both Senators for blue slips when Dear Leader came to office.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:18
|
|
Oerdin, I read your links. The filibuster was seldom used by either party until the present. It's first use in this century was by Southern Democrats to block LBJ's ultra-liberal nominee Abe Fortas. Then the Dems went mad, and began blocking a lot of conservative appointees, including Bork.
In either of your links, there is only one filibuster of a Democrat nominee since LBJ, and that was in 2000. Just one.
Read this:
Sometime this year, or maybe next, a vacancy will occur on the Supreme Court. When it does the pundits will remind everybody of the bruising battle over Robert Bork. They will all say that Bork forever changed the politics of judicial appointments. They will all be wrong.
They won't be completely wrong. Bork was big. But by focusing on Bork, they will be missing the larger picture. Step back and you see that standing next to Bork is a long line of failed Supreme Court nominees: Abe Fortas, Homer Thornberry, Clement Haynsworth, G. Harold Carswell, and Douglas Ginsburg.
And as you study our little group portrait, you begin to notice something: All of these nominees failed to win confirmation because their nominations raised social questions about which Americans were deeply divided.
You also begin to notice something else: The fights waged against our little group were vicious and they were vicious beginning with Fortas. It's not Bork whom the pundits should mark as the turning point. It's Fortas.
Civil Rights Battles: The Fate of Fortas, Haynsworth, and Carswell
The six failed nominees listed were nominated by three relatively recent presidents: Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan, each of whom failed to get two of his nominees confirmed by the Senate.
Not since the Nineteenth Century, when the Senate took a far more independent role in court appointments, have presidents been handed this many defeats. Indeed, LBJ was the first president since Herbert Hoover to see a nomination fail. The last president before Hoover to lose a Supreme Court nominee was Grover Cleveland.
LBJ wanted to elevate Fortas to the position of Chief Justice to replace retiring Chief Justice Earl Warren. Warren had, of course, been closely associated in the public mind with the liberal Warren Court's decisions on race and crime. Billboards in the South featured the message "Impeach Earl Warren."
Fortas's nomination failed because he evoked the same angers Warren had. Russell Long referred to Fortas as one of the "dirty five" on the Warren Court who voted for criminals. Fellow Southerner James Eastland observed during the battle that he had "never seen so much feeling against a man as against Fortas."
After Strom Thurmond mounted a successful filibuster against Fortas–killing Fortas's chances as well as that of the liberal Thornberry, who had been nominated to take Fortas's seat–Democrats vowed they would not soon forget what had happened. And they did not, though it was not until Nixon's second nomination that they had their revenge.
On the campaign trail in 1968, Nixon castigated the Warren Court for going "too far in weakening the peace forces as against the criminal forces." After Nixon won the presidency, he was determined to put a so-called strict constructionist on the Court.
Nixon's first nominee, Warren Burger, slipped through quickly during the traditional presidential honeymoon. But the following year Haynsworth, a Southerner, was defeated after suspicions were raised about his commitment to civil rights.
The defeat of Haynsworth served as payback for Fortas: As Senator Gale McGhee (D-WY) conceded, "[h]ad there been no Fortas affair … a man of Justice [sic] Haynsworth's attainments … undoubtedly would have been confirmed."
After Haynsworth's defeat, Nixon, furious, told advisor Harry Dent, "I want you to go out this time and find a good federal judge further south and further to the right." Dent found G. Harold Carswell, who in 1948 had publicly endorsed segregation (and whose nomination was promptly quashed).
From Fortas to Bork: A Marked Increase In Partisanship
We all know about Bork. He was supposed to be the conservatives' fifth vote in a different battle: the battle to overturn Roe v. Wade.
The year before, pro-choice forces had let Antonin Scalia slip by without a fight (only to later regret the day Scalia joined the Court). But when Bork was nominated, the same forces mounted a grassroots campaign the likes of which the capital had never before witnessed in connection with a judicial nomination. The hostility against Bork was so aggressive, it became a verb: All nominees after Bork would have to fear being "Borked."
What changed between the Fortas and the Bork fights, and why? For one thing, the partisanship got worse as the years went by. By the time of Bork's nomination, the battle lines over controversial nominees divided neatly along party lines. Earlier, they had not. For example, seventeen Republican senators voted against Haynsworth — a departure from party loyalty unthinkable a decade later. Just six Republicans voted against Bork.
By the 1980s, the parties had become more ideologically uniform than they ever had been. The conservatives had left the Democratic Party; the liberals had been driven out of the Republican Party.
In 1970, Nixon had made war on moderates like New York's Charles Goodell. By the 1980s, Goodell and all his ideological soul mates–Edward Brooke, Clifford Case, John Sherman Cooper–had either left the party or changed their stripes (like one-time moderate George H.W. Bush).
Pretending That Ideology Is Not the Issue
The sharpening of partisanship in recent years isn't exactly news. But the establishment has been reluctant to accept it. Official Washington likes to pretend that ideology doesn't play the role we all know it does.
That's why senators almost never publicly admit that they oppose a nominee on ideological grounds. Far better to oppose Fortas because he had taken large lecture fees from businesspeople likely to have cases before the Court; to oppose Haynsworth because he had heard cases involving companies in which he held stock; to oppose Carswell because he may have lied to the Senate about his views on race; and to oppose Ginsburg because he had smoked dope with his students at Harvard. (The Democrats actually did not care that he had, but the Republicans did, forcing his withdrawal so that they could remain the party of solid values.)
Only Bork was opposed expressly on ideological grounds, once he had been tarred as an extremist. And still many Democrats claimed that Bork was considered unacceptable because he had concealed his true beliefs — not because of the beliefs themselves. As wags put it, Bork was guilty of "confirmation conversion."
Senators should admit they take ideology into account; there is no shame in that. Nominees' ideological character would not matter if the Court were a mere bystander in the culture wars still raging in America. But the Court is, of course, no mere bystander. The current Court, under its conservative leadership, is now every bit as activist as the liberal Warren Court conservatives once vowed to reel in.
As long as the parties remain internally ideologically uniform, and the Court remains a battleground in ideological wars, our little group of six, beginning with Abe Fortas, is likely to grow larger and larger.
What Do You Think?
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commen...9_shenkman.html
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
I can't accept that it was just those three but I do know of at least three which were filibustered by Republicans during the Clinton presidency. The filibuster was relatively rare before that mainly because it was easier to tie nominees up in commitee and thus prevent an up or down vote. That was the main tactic of the minority, however, when Republicans went from being the minority to the majority they didn't want Democrats using the same tricks they had used so they changed the commitee rules.
Thus the recent increase in filibusters. It's one of the only tools the minority has left. Ned, would you agree it is dishonest for a group of people who used proceedural tricks to prevent an up or down vote on 54 judges to now complain when a mire 10 of there judges out of 211 get blocked by precedural tricks? |
Your thesis would be correct if one were to assume that the Republicans controlled the Senate for the last 100 years so that they could tie appointments up at the committee level. But the truth, as usual, lies elsewhere. The Republicans controlled the Senate only rarely since Hoover as the Democrats became the majority party in the US. Republicans were in the minority for the bulk of the last 100 years. Yet, in all that time, apparently, they filibustered only three Democrat appointees, again, accepting your figures.
Three.
Only three in more than 100 years.
Just three.
Now, being fair, this could be because the filibuster rules have changed. Now, one can conduct a filibuster by just placing a hold on a matter. Before, one had to actually hold the floor of the Senate, which was physically exhausting. Now holds are common where before filibusters were rare on all sorts of matters. This may justify a rule change to actually require a true filibuster to restore the balance that one existed where filibusters were rare.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
I'm all for Liberty and Justice for all, I'm a diehard Capitalist who believes strongly in free enterprise, and I'm...eh...definitely not RABIDLY patriotic, but I count myself as fairly so.
Sadly, these are not the things I identify with the Republican party currently in power.
When I see what they do day-to-day...when I listen to them talk about their plans for my future, I hear their words, laced through with sinister whispers.
I hear the echoes of paranoia and fundamentalist thought behind their ideas.
I see evidence of rabid, senseless nationalism the likes of which we have not seen since the 40's, and I see a party who, having come to fully control the Congress and the office of the President, seems hell bent on re-writing the rules book in order to maintain their power.
This is not...is NOT in the democratic tradition.
It is dangerous and it is short-sighted.
Further, I see a nation that once could count numerous friends and allies around the world, now standing increasingly alone.
This is a grave mistake.
Part of our greatness lies in the fact that we have never sought to go it alone, but to forge strong partnerships.
Part of our greatness lies in the fact that until recently, we have made an effort (sometimes more than others, granted) to act from the moral high ground.
Those things are eroding, and they are eroding more quickly than ever under our present leadership.
I am not alone in counting down the days until we are rid of this disease that inhabits the White House, and I hope that the damage he and his croonies cause while there can be undone by the next President, who will surely have his work cut out for him.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
PAX, it is amazing you are here, is it not, given that you were born after Roe v. Wade to a single mother. (I believe I have your family history correct.) Somehow, I suspect your liberalism on the issue of judges is misplaced. |
My parents were married when I was born. My little sister was born after my parents divorced. Just because a woman is single or married does not mean she will or will not get an abortion. There are many single mothers and many married women who have had an abortion while married.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
My point was not directed at the Nomination process only the voting process.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:18
|
|
Vel, I have seen you argue forcefully for free enterprise here in this forum in many debates about communism. That is why I found it very strange for you to be supporting a party who seems to have lost its way on the issue of capitalism.
But I see in your response that you are very suspicious of the current White House when you say these words:
"I hear the echoes of paranoia and fundamentalist thought behind their ideas.
I see evidence of rabid, senseless nationalism the likes of which we have not seen since the 40's, and I see a party who, having come to fully control the Congress and the office of the President, seems hell bent on re-writing the rules book in order to maintain their power.
This is not...is NOT in the democratic tradition.
It is dangerous and it is short-sighted.
Further, I see a nation that once could count numerous friends and allies around the world, now standing increasingly alone.
This is a grave mistake.
Part of our greatness lies in the fact that we have never sought to go it alone, but to forge strong partnerships.
Part of our greatness lies in the fact that until recently, we have made an effort (sometimes more than others, granted) to act from the moral high ground."
It is strange at you and I can look at the same events and come the wholly different conclusions. By expelling one of the worst dictators since Hitler, and in bringing democracy to 45 million people in the Middle East (both Afghanistan and Iraq), it is hard to imagine that the current administration has done anything but take the moral high ground. When you accuse the current administration of not seeking alliances, it is hard to imagine what you mean when we formed a very large coalitions for our operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq. We are hardly going it alone, we are just going without France and Germany in Iraq. But if you want to be fair about this, at least France was bribed by Saddam. But for that bribery, France may have been there with us.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
No it isn't, a majority of that committee blocked the candidate from an up or down vote by the Senate. The Constitution says the Senate will "advise and consent", not some committee... Both parties don't like it when committees block nominees since a small majority on a committee can block a nominee who has the support of a majority of the Senate. But once one party does use the committee to reject nominees, the other party will typically seek revenge by using the rules to block the other party's nominees. |
Berserker, it looks like I might have tangled my words in that response. But from a my understanding, Senate committee makeups parallel the whole body. If Republicans have a majority of the Senate, they also comprise the majority of the committee. Thus, if the Republicans who have the majority in the Senate blocked a nominee at the committee level they do so because they have a majority vote on the committee.
Now, if it is your contention that the committees must merely pass on to the whole Senate every nominee, then I ask you whether judicial nominees ought to be vetted by committees at all?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
But, I hope you would agree that it is far more likely for an unwed single mother to have an abortion that it is for a married woman. |
I think it's more likely for americans to lose their democracy if we keep giving away our rights and giving more and more power to the government. The primary use of the government should be to allow individuals the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. My comments are about limiting governmental powers. Keeping the feds out of my bedroom, out of my video rental decisions, and out of my mail. I also think that instead of passing laws on the one end to prevent death and passing laws on the other to produce death we should start figuring out how we are going to educate the living, reduce polution, increase employment and standards of living and find alternative fuel systems. These would be some of my goals that come before war and abortion.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-11-2004 08:47
|