Presuming Frist pushes through a rules change, what do you think will be the fallout?
Some judicial nominations might get confirmed, which may or may not unravel the very fabric of constitutional law. Probably the most relevant fallout will be payback when the dem’s regain the majority.
You really think people will still remember this in a hundred and fifty years?
The longest single-party control we’ve had was 1932 to 1968, right?
This turns the Senate into the House, and pretty much puts an end to genuine political debate in this country.
Once the filibuster is out of the way the Repubs also don’t have to worry about their own moderates either.
The Senate is not based on population, so the idea that you can allow a minority to control the majority with no protections or circuit breakers at all is pretty much as unamerican a thing as I can imagine happening in our government.
I really don’t understand why the fillibuster is somehow a cornerstone of democracy all of a sudden. I’m not in favor of getting rid of it but nobody has made a compelling case to me why it just HAS to be retained. What is it about the ability of a few members of the minority party to completely halt a proceeding until 60 people vote to end the debate? Where is this enshrined as sacred?
:?:
It preserves the right of the minority against the power of a small majority. A large majority can still override it, but it gives the minority a chance to take a principled stand on issues where there is no clear consensus about what the nation should do.
The senate is all about preserving the rights of the minority. If we’re going to abandon that principle, the next step should be to get rid of the idiotic 2-senators-per-state system as well. Give California the 10 Senators it deserves and I’ll be less inclined to worry about the filibuster.
Exactly. It’s an example silly procedure evolution that basically perverted simple behavioral rules about who could speak and how and when in congressional debate and turned them into a powerful tool for blocking action in the senate. Hardly a cornerstone of our government.
Funny how the constitution failed to mention any of that. Bit of an odd oversight by our founding fathers.
The constituition is quite clear about what specific cases supermajorities are required for. Nowhere were “filibuster”, “cloture”, or “protecting minorities” listed.
Surely the GOP wouldn’t mind postponing the removal until 2009? And removing all filibusters, not just for judges?
Exactly. It’s an example silly procedure evolution that basically perverted simple behavioral rules about who could speak and how and when in congressional debate and turned them into a powerful tool for blocking action in the senate. Hardly a cornerstone of our government.[/quote]
I agree, I think that’s true. But I don’t think it has exactly been abused either. I belive, and Jason will undoubtedly correct me if I’m wrong, but only 5% of the last 120 judicial nominees have been filibustered away. So it hasn’t exactly been abused recently. My guess is that most people are concerned because this is a Republican majority that changing the rules to suit themselves, much of like what they did with the House ethics committee.
The few remaining Republican moderates are agains it, I believe, not because they fear that the Democrats will regain the Senate soon, much less hold a significant majority, but that this is yet another abuse of power by a Republican majority that isn’t even remotely concerned with governing by consensus or a system of government that was designed to promote bipartisan cooperation.
[quote=“Nick_Walter”]
Funny how the constitution failed to mention any of that. Bit of an odd oversight by our founding fathers.[/quote]
Why are you bringing up the founding fathers? The constitution says slaves should count as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of representation; are you in favor of that as well? If not, please stop trying to derail the discussion by pretending that our system has not evolved over time.
If the GOP was trying to eliminate the filibuster while in a minority position, I could accept their position as sincere. As it is, it reeks of hypocrisy.
I say again; give me, as a citizen of California, my right to vote on 10 Senators, and I won’t complain about the filibuster. You folks in Nebraska can share 1 Senator with Kansas and both Dakotas :)
I agree there is certainly a self-interested short-sighted motive for pushing a rule change now. It just doesn’t bother me. What goes around comes around and I’d rather see judicial benches filled and the senate moving on to more important matters. If someone can get a majority approval vote in the Senate, especially a vote that comes down along straight party lines, that tells me that the person is competent and real disagreement is over their political opinions.
I cannot believe I just got accused of derailment for referencing the U.S. constitution in a discussion over the workings of the U.S. government.
The constitution does evolve, and the current fully evolved form is the one I was referring to. Go google the words “constitution” and “ammendment.” Put a little “+” sign in front of each word. Read a few of the results.
What makes you think Priscilla Owen is competent, for example?
[quote=“Nick_Walter”]
I cannot believe I just got accused of derailment for referencing the U.S. constitution in a discussion over the workings of the U.S. government.
The constitution does evolve[/quote]
I said the system has evolved, not the constitution. Thanks for the google advice anyway, I never heard of that site before!
The system includes things that aren’t directly mentioned in the constitution, such as the filibuster, or the existence of committees that can bottle up legislation before it ever hits the floor.
Why do you personally think every state gets two senators regardless of population, Nick? You think that protecting the rights of the minority has nothing to do with it?
The American Bar Association? Or is that a bad example?
Honestly, what’s the big hangup over this lady, anyway? I’ll admit I haven’t been following the ordeal very closely, and the first hit Google turns up is Independent Judiciary.com.
The following organizations have taken an official position on this nominee:
Organization Position
ADA Watch/National Coalition for Disability Rights Opposes
AFL-CIO Opposes
Alliance for Justice Opposes
American Association of University Women Opposes
American Association of University Women of Texas Opposes
Americans for Democratic Action Opposes
California Women’s Law Center Opposes
Central Conference of American Rabbis Opposes
Coalition of Labor Union Women Opposes
Coast Alliance Opposes
Defenders of Wildlife Opposes
Earthjustice Opposes
Endangered Species Coalition Opposes
Feminist Majority Opposes
Friends of the Earth Opposes
Gray Panthers of Texas Opposes
Greater Dallas Coaltion for Reproductive Freedom Opposes
Labor Council for Latin American Advancement Opposes
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Opposes
Legal Momentum Opposes
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund Opposes
Moveon.org Opposes
National Abortion Federation Opposes
National Association of Postal and Federal Employees Opposes
National Association of Women Business Owners - San Francisco Chapter Opposes
National Council of Jewish Women Opposes
National Council of Jewish Women, Texas Opposes
National Employment Lawyers Association Opposes
National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association Opposes
National Organization for Women Opposes
National Organization for Women, Texas Chapter Opposes
National Partnership for Women and Families Opposes
National Women’s Law Center Opposes
Oceana Opposes
People for the American Way Opposes
Physicians for Social Responsibility Opposes
Planned Parenthood Federation of America Opposes
Planned Parenthood of Cameron and Willacy Counties Opposes
Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas Opposes
Planned Parenthood of Lubbock Opposes
Planned Parenthood of North Texas Opposes
Planned Parenthood of San Antonio & South Central Texas Opposes
Planned Parenthood of South Texas Opposes
Planned Parenthood of the Texas Capital Region Opposes
Planned Parenthood of West Texas Opposes
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice Opposes
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice in Texas Opposes
Texans for Public Justice Opposes
Texas Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (TARAL) Opposes
Texas AFL-CIO Opposes
Texas Association of Planned Parenthood Affiliates Opposes
Texas Civil Rights Project Opposes
Texas Employment Lawyers Association Opposes
Texas Freedom Network Opposes
Texas State Conference of NAACP Branches Opposes
Texas Watch Opposes
Texas Women’s Political Caucus Opposes
Union of American Hebrew Congregations Opposes
Women’s Health and Family Planning Association of Texas Opposes
Women’s Issues Network-Dallas Opposes
They certianly appear to be independent.
Good point, I didn’t know she got a high rating from them. That’s a surprising example, however, seeing how the GOP basically eliminated “ABA approval” from the list of things that’s part of the nomination process. Suddenly it matters again.
Perhaps “unable to separate her ideology from her professional duties” would be more accurate, considering her history of abortion-related cases. As a certain Alberto Gonzales said:
In In re Jane Doe, the majority includes an extremely unusual section explaining its view of the proper role of judges, admonishing the dissent joined by Justice Owen for going beyond its duty to interpret the law in an attempt to fashion policy, and in a separate concurrence, Justice Alberto Gonzales says that to the construe law as the dissent did, “would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism.”
http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/05/05/ale05070.html
Anyway: virtually all of Bush’s nominations have been waved through. The Democratic opposition is reserved for the true cranks in the list. There is no terrible shortage of judges on the bench, and I particularly don’t want to hear that short of thing after all the rule-changing shit the GOP pulled back in the 1990s to block Clinton’s nominations.
Oh, a bit more poking reveals that it was Janice Brown I was thinking of when I originally commented: she’s truly batshit. Priscilla’s no where near that bad.
Jesus. Amanpour, would you please do a “word of the day” on derail? This is like two threads in a row where a related but unexpected thought on a thread has been called a derail, quite incorrectly.
Already have it. It’s called the House of Representatives.