 |
|
Guynemer
|
|
What's wrong with the Democratic Party?
They keep bringing boxing gloves to a knife fight. Over, and over, and over.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drake Tungsten
|
 |
Knee deep in alien womyn...
Oct 2001
time: 14:17
|
|
quote:
Nuke the Filibuster
These are confusing days in Washington. Born-again conservative Christians who strongly want to see President Bush's judicial nominees voted on are leading the charge against the Senate filibuster, and liberal Democrats are born-again believers in that reactionary, obstructionist legislative tactic. Practically every big-name liberal senator you can think of derided the filibuster a decade ago but now sees the error of his or her ways and will go to amusing lengths to try to convince you that the change of heart is explained by something deeper than the mere difference between being in the majority and being in the minority.
At the risk of seeming dull or unfashionable for not getting our own intellectual makeover, we still think judicial candidates nominated by a president deserve an up-or-down vote in the Senate. We hardly see eye to eye with the far right on social issues, and we oppose some of these judicial nominees, but we urge Republican leaders to press ahead with their threat to nuke the filibuster. The so-called nuclear option entails a finding by a straight majority that filibusters are inappropriate in judicial confirmation battles.
But the Senate shouldn't stop with filibusters over judges. It should strive to nuke the filibuster for all legislative purposes.
The filibuster debate is a stark reminder of the unprincipled and results-oriented nature of politics, as senators readily switch sides for tactical advantage. Politicians' lack of consistency on fundamental matters — the debate over the proper balance of power between Washington and the states would be another case in point — is far more corrosive to the health of American democracy and the rule of law than any number of Bush- appointed judges could ever be. For one thing, it validates public wariness about politicians professing deep convictions.
Liberal interest groups determined to keep Bush nominees off the bench are in such a frenzy that they would have you believe that the Senate filibuster lies at the heart of all American freedoms, its lineage traceable to the Constitution, if not the Magna Carta. The filibuster, a parliamentary tactic allowing 41 senators to block a vote by extending debate on a measure indefinitely, is indeed venerable — it can be traced back two centuries. But it is merely the product of the Senate's own rule-making, altered over time; the measure was not part of the founding fathers' checks and balances to prevent a tyranny of the majority. The Senate's structure itself was part of that calculus.
The filibuster is a reactionary instrument that goes too far in empowering a minority of senators. It's no accident that most filibusters have hindered progressive crusades in Washington, be it on civil rights or campaign finance reform. California's Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, one of those recent converts to the filibuster, embarrassed herself by hailing Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) as her inspiration at a pro-filibuster rally. At least Byrd is being consistent in his support — he filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
A showdown is looking increasingly likely, though it isn't clear that all Republicans want this fight. Some of them realize they will again be in the minority someday and that the filibuster is a handy brake on the federal government's activism. If their caution prevails, or if Republicans take on the filibuster only in the narrow context of confirmation battles, we will happily weigh in again in the future, still on the anti-filibuster team. |
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...ment-editorials
I can't believe I'm in agreement with the LA Times... 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Using the power to fillibuster to hold up a vote is infinately better than the travesty of a single committee chairman not letting a nominee come up to vote- having to make sure 41% of the Senate agrees that a nominee is bad to hold off a vote is better than one senator deciding they don't like somone, yet people are arguing against one but saying nothing about the other? |
If we were to list every problem with the senate it would take all of our time. Here's my view: Every appointment should be given an up or down vote. No filibusters, pocket vetoes by committee chairmen or blackballing by same state senators.
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
The constitutional arguement is absurd- the Constitution says the Senate reviews candidates- it also says the Senate makes its own rules. Therefore what is going on is totally constitutional, since the Senate is using its own rules to carry out its consitutional duty. Last time I looked one thing defnitelly was NOT in the consitution about the make-up of government, and that is political parties-maybe we should have that voted away too.... |
I'd love to make political parties illegal, it most definitely should be done. As for the Senate rules, they don't trump the constitution, which states that the senate will give its advice and consent on presidential appointments. No mention is made of a supermajority being necessary in this case, so it's obvious the framers intended a simple majority to carry the day.
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
So this debate boils down to the rules of the senate-and the fact is we have yet another example of a party hell-bent on exploiting its time in the sun- back in 1960 the democrats were changing the rules on themselves (since most southerners were democrats), so obviously the changes put in at the time were bipartisan to some extent. This current move is just a naked power grab, trying to make sure the minority has as little power in washington as possible. Once you decide with judicial nominees, it becomes clear to repugs that we might as well cut back the fillibuster in other issues as well, because the fact is, this selective cutting of the filibuster is nonsensical- if a filibuster is good to ward of other nominees (like keeping gays out of our embassies like Mr. Hormel), why not judges? |
Filibusters can't trump the constitution. They shouldn't be capable of blocking the senate from fulfilling any of its enumerated duties.
This isn't a naked power grab, its the result of almost 20 years of deteriorating relations between the two major parties, especially in regards to judicial appointments. The bitterness has made serious inroads into the traditions of the senate to the extent that we have a crisis brewing in the judiciary as well. Make parties illegal and people will have to talk to one another again rather than simply noting which letter comes after the other guy's name.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sikander
Why would the constitution enumerate all of the cases where a supermajority was required except for in this case? The senate can make its own rules except when they clash with the constitution, that's the reason they even bothered to put any provisions in it in the first place. The senate has to give its advice and consent (or dissent) on the president's candidates, period. |
If a nominee is so offensive to a significant number of senators, obviously the senate is giving it's advice to the president: pick someone else, cause you don't have our consent as a body. No consent, and advice. Nowhere does it say the consent need come from a majority of the senators, but from THE SENATE, and the senate gets to make its rules on what it's consent means. If a nominee can't even make it to a vote, that pretty obviously a lack of consent exists.
That the president has chosen to stick with ten nominees that have not been able to get through the body, as opposed to looking to fill those 10 post with the same type of candidates he has gotten through the Senate in 200+ times is a political choice of the president, but it holds 0 constitutional importance.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
# Year Nominee Position Cloture Motions
# 1968 Abe Fortas, Supreme Court 1*
# 1980 William Lubbers, NLRB 3
# 1980 Don Zimmerman, NLRB 3
# 1980 Stephen Breyer, 1st Circuit 2
# 1987 Melissa Wells, Ambassador 1
# 1987 William Verity, Commerce 1
# 1993 Walter Dellinger, Justice 2
# 1993 Five State Department Nominees 2
# 1993 Janet Napolitano, Justice 1
# 1994 Larry Lawrence, Ambassador 1
# 1994 Rosemary Barkett, 11th Circuit 1
# 1994 Sam Brown, Ambassador 3*
# 1994 Derek Shearer, Ambassador 2
# 1994 Ricki Tigert, FDIC 2
# 1994 H. Lee Sarokin, 3rd Circuit 1
# 1995 Henry Foster, Surgeon General 2*
# 1998 David Satcher, Surgeon General 1
# 2000 Marsha Berzon, 9th Circuit 1
# 2000 Richard Paez, 9th Circuit 1 |
In particular, you might want to notice all the filibusters between 1993-1994, during which the Republicans were the minority party in the Senate, under a Democratic President.
Last edited by Ramo on 27-04-2005 at 21:18
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-04-2005 19:51
|