Compromise on the Filibuster.

[ShamMol]

I suggest you read the info on her, she has an amazing story, not to mention being at Harvard law and passing with honors (which means she is really really smart and knows the law really really well.)

We are seeing exemplary nominees unnecessarily delayed for months, and vacancies persist into judicial emergencies. We are seeing outstanding nominees nitpicked, probed, and delayed to the point where one wonders why any man or woman would subject themselves to such a process or even allow themselves to be nominated for a Federal judgeship.

Instead of reforming the confirmation process to make it more respectful of the privacy of the nominee, something that we all claim we want to do, the Republican majority in the Senate is moving decidedly in the other direction. They are approaching the imposition of political litmus tests, which some have openly advocated under the guise of opposing judicial activism, even though some of these same Members were the ones who said that nobody should impose a litmus test on judges .

Even conservatives like Bruce Fein, in his recent opinion column in the New York Times, reject this effort. Actually, so do the American people. We have not had a time when any President or any Senate should be asked to impose litmus tests on an independent judiciary.

I recommend my colleagues read the excellent commentary by Nat Hentoff on this new political correctness that appeared in the April 19, 1997, edition of the Washington Post. I have spoken in broad generalities, although each are backed up by dozens of cases. But let me be specific on one.

The nomination of Margaret Morrow to be a Federal judge for the Central District of California is an example of the very shabby treatment accorded judicial nominees. The vacancy in this Federal court has existed for more than 15 months, and the people in central California--Republican, Democrat, Independent--are being denied a most needed, and in this case a most qualified, judge.

Ms. Morrow's nomination is stuck in the Senate Judiciary Committee again. I am appalled by the treatment that Margaret Morrow has received before the Judiciary Committee. Ms. Morrow first came before the Judiciary Committee for a hearing and she was favorably and unanimously reported by the committee in June of 1996, almost exactly a year ago--a year ago less a couple of weeks. Then her nomination just got caught in last year's confirmation shutdown and she was not allowed to go through. So she has to start the process all over again this year.

Let me tell you about Margaret Morrow. She is an exceptionally well qualified nominee.

She was the first woman president of the California Bar Association, no small feat for anybody, man or woman. She is the past president of the Los Angeles County Bar Association. She is currently a partner at the well-known firm of Arnold & Porter, and she has practiced law for 23 years. She is supported by the Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan, who, incidentally, is Republican, and Robert Bonner the former head of the Drug Enforcement Administration under a Republican administration. Representative James Rogan from the House joined us during her second confirmation hearing and, of course, she is backed and endorsed by both Senators from California.

Despite her qualifications, she is being made an example, I am not quite sure of what, but this woman who has dared to come forward to be a Federal judge is being made an example before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

At her second hearing before the committee on March 18, even though she already has gone through a committee hearing and even though the committee last year unanimously voted to confirm her with every single Republican and every single Democrat supporting her, even though she had gone through it once before, she was made to sit and wait until all the other nominees were questioned, as though she were being punished. `We have these men who want to be heard, and even though you had to do this before, you, woman nominee, sit in the back and the corner.' She was then subjected to round after round of repetitive questioning.

Then came a series of written questions from several members, and they were all Republican members of the committee. I objected when Ms. Morrow was asked about her private views on all voter initiatives on the ballots in California for the last decade. Basically, she was being asked how did she vote in a secret ballot in the privacy of a voting booth on 160 initiatives on the ballot in California over the last 10 years.

I defy any Member of the Senate, if they were given a list of 160 items in their local elections, State elections, that have been on the ballot over the last 10 years, to be able to honestly say how they voted on every single one of those. But even before they got to the question of could they say how they voted, I would stand up and say, `What has the Senate stooped to when we ask people how they voted in a secret ballot?"

When I challenged the question, it was revised so as to demand only her private views on 10 voter initiatives on issues ranging from carjacking to drive-by shootings to medical use of marijuana and the retention election of Rose Bird as chief justice of the California Supreme Court.

Ms. Morrow previously stated she did not take public positions on these voter initiatives, so asking for her private views necessarily asked how she voted on them. We are, thus, quizzing nominees on how they voted in their home State ballot initiatives. Why we need this information, even if we were allowed to follow someone into the ballot box and see how they voted--something none of us would allow anybody to do to us--even if we are allowed, to say while we would not do it to any of us, we would do it to this woman.

Why do we need this information to determine if she is qualified? In fact, she explained to the committee that she is not anti-initiative, and in response to written questions, she discussed an article she wrote in 1988 and explained:

"My goal was not to eliminate the need for initiatives. Rather, I was proposing ways to strengthen the initiative process by making it more efficient and less costly, so it could better serve the purpose for which it was originally intended. At the same time, I was suggesting measures to increase the Legislature's willingness to address issues of concern to ordinary citizens regardless of the views of special interests or campaign contributors. I don't believe these goals are inconsistent.

The initiative process was a reform championed by California Governor Hiram Johnson in 1911 to ensure that the electorate had a means of circumventing the Legislature when it could or would not pass legislation desired by the people because of the influence of special interests. As envisioned by Governor Johnson and others, the initiative was designed to complement the legislative process, not to substitute for it. This is my understanding of the role of the initiative process, and this is what I had in mind when I wrote the 1988 article. The reasons that led Governor Johnson to create the initiative process in 1911 are still valid today, and it remains an important aspect of our democratic form of Government."

I ask, Mr. President, does that response sound like somebody who is antidemocratic? Yet, she has been forced to answer questions about how she views the initiative process in written questions and, again, in revised follow-up written questions over the period of the last month.

Again, I remind everybody, this is a woman who was voted out unanimously last year by the committee. No objective evaluation of the record can yield the conclusion that she is anti-initiative. No fair reading of her 1988 article even suggests that. I might add, parenthetically, and what should be the only really important question, there is nothing in her record that suggests she would not follow the precedents of the court of appeals for her district or the U.S. Supreme Court. There is nothing to suggest that she does not believe in stare decisis or that she would not follow it.

Recently, I received a letter from a distinguished California attorney, and a lifelong Republican, who wrote to protest the unfair treatment being accorded Margaret Morrow. He wrote that he was `ashamed of [his] party affiliation when [he sees] the people's elected representatives who are Republicans engaging in or condoning the kind of childish, punitive conduct to which Ms. Morrow is being subjected.' He asks us to stop permitting the harassment of this nominee. I join with this distinguished Republican, and I ask the same thing: Stop harassing this nominee. I don't care if the harassment is because she is a woman, I don't care if the harassment is based on some philosophical difference, the fact of the matter is, she is one of the most qualified people I have seen before the committee in 22 years, Republican or Democrat, and she ought to be voted on and confirmed with pride--with pride--by the U.S. Senate.

We have heard nothing but praise for Ms. Morrow from those who know her and those who worked with her and litigated against her. In fact, the legal community in and around Los Angeles is, frankly, shocked that Margaret Morrow is being put through this ordeal and has yet to be confirmed. The Los Angeles Times has already published one editorial against the manner in which the Senate is proceeding with the Morrow nomination. I ask, to what undefined standard is she being held? What is this new standard --it is kind of hidden--which has never shown up before? It has not shown up for any male nominee that I know of.

This was printed into the record. Souce-Women's Lawyers

 

[ShamMol]

An honors graduate from Harvard Law School, a civil litigator for more than 20 years, winner of numerous legal awards, and the first female president of the California Bar Association, Morrow has the breadth of background and experience to make her an excellent judge, and in the words of one of her sponsors, she would be `an exceptionally distinguished addition to the federal bench.' Morrow has also shown, through her numerous pro bono activities, a demonstrated commitment to equal justice. As president of the Los Angeles County Bar Association, she created the Pro Bono Council, the first of its kind in California. During her year as bar president, the Council coordinated the provision of 150,000 hours of previously untapped representation to indigent clients throughout the country. Not surprisingly, the American Bar Association's judicial evaluation committee gave her its highest rating.

Despite her outstanding record, Morrow has become the target of a coordinated effort by ultraconservative groups that seek to politicize the judiciary. They have subjected her to a campaign of misrepresentations, distortions and attacks on her record, branding her a `judicial activist.' According to her opponents, she deserves to be targeted because `she is a member of California Women Lawyers,' an absurd charge given that this bipartisan organization is among the most highly respected in the state. Another `strike' against her is her concern, expressed in a sentence from a 1988 article, about special interest domination of the ballot initiative process in California. Her opponents view the statement as disdainful of voter initiatives such as California's term limits law; however, they overlook the fact that the article outlines a series of recommended reforms to preserve the process. It is a stretch to construe suggested reforms as evidence of `judicial activism,' but to search for this members of the Judiciary Committee unprecedentedly asked her to disclose her personal positions on all 160 past ballot propositions in California.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r105:S09FE8-317:

You still think she is an activist? You still think she is a lousy candidate? Not surprisingly, neither did the Senate who voted her in with great support. 67-Y, 28-N...

 

[ludahai]

Interesting. Just a few days after the filibuster compromise, they begin the filibuster on John Bolton. HYPOCRITES!

Imagine how hotheaded the Democrats are going to get when there is a Supreme Court vacancy to be filled. Then those on the right can say, we didn't block Ruth Bader Ginsburg, you need to vote on our choice now. If the Democrats don't, they surrender what tiny iota of credibility they have left.

 

[vandree]

Don't know if anyone is familiar with Directv's lawsuit campaign, but judge Margaret Morrow is one of the few judges who understands the laws in question and hasn't automatically ruled in favor of the big corporation

 

[ShamMol]

Don't know if anyone is familiar with Directv's lawsuit campaign, but judge Margaret Morrow is one of the few judges who understands the laws in question and hasn't automatically ruled in favor of the big corporation

Yes, that is true. That is because she is actually going through the case. That doesn't mean that she will automatically rule against them either though, she is just being thorough, which I can't say for a lot of the people on her court. Some of those judges really just take what is given to them by their law clerks and stamp it with the signature.

 

[GPS_Flex]

McCain has sealed his fate when it comes to getting the Republican nomination for 2008.

originally posted by ShamMol
The Republicans you speak off didn't jump ship, they preserved the tradition that is the Senate of working together.

I’m sorry but the Republicans were going to restore senate tradition by ending the new trend of senate filibusters of a president’s judicial nomination. That is the exact clause in the senate rules that they were using.

Had there ever been a filibuster of a judicial nomination, they couldn’t use the rule and would need 60 votes to change the filibuster rule.

The Republicans were using the senate rules to change the senate rules the same as the democrats have done and the senate has done for generations.

I agree with stump overall and would reiterate his point by claiming that the filibuster is the real nuke option being used here. Senators have used loopholes in the law and senate rules from the day the Senate was formed to get what they want.

Let them fight it out and pull senate rules out of a hat all they want. I do wish they would return to the real filibuster rules though. There’s a reason they made the conditions for a filibuster nearly unbearable for senators that would use it.

 

[GPS_Flex]

And did you understnad the consequences of the nuclear option?
What the republicans in congress were trying to do is to take away any opportunity for any opposition, and turn congress into a "rubber stamp" of sorts for the president

No, Republicans were trying to restore Senate tradition. The Democrats have already used the nuclear option by resorting to filibustering judicial nominations that will clearly get a majority vote on the floor. That’s what’s unprecedented and that’s the real “nuclear option”.

I don’t see how a majority vote in the Senate can be considered a “rubber stamp”. If this is the case, nearly every piece of legislation that has come out of that governmental body has been “rubber stamped”. It’s a rather moronic assessment of the Senate if you ask me.

Doesn't that just **** you off, that winning an election did turn us into a one party nation, with a leader that gets to do whatever he wants? That we can't become a eutopian nation of unchecked power like Germany in the 30s and 40s, or Iraq in the 70s, 80s, and 90s?

I’m not sure what planet you live on but the checks and balances are very much in place. The fact that the Republicans can use Senate rules to end the exploitation and abuse of Senates rules by Democrats is a testament to the checks and balances being alive and well.

or the nominee for head surpreme court justice nominated by Lyndon Johnson that was filibustered by republicans, they don't count, do they?

24 Republicans and 19 Democrats voted against ending debate after one week in the Abe Fortas case you refer to and Johnson withdrew the nomination because he knew Fortas didn’t have majority support.

You’re comparing apples to oranges and this is indicative of the dishonesty so prevelant in the news media and the left today.

Fortas resigned as a Supreme Court Justice under pressure of investigation and prosecution due to the ethical cloud surrounding him. He was suspected of taking bribes etc. Today, being Catholic seems to be cause for a filibuster by the Democrats.

The Fortas nomination had bipartisan supporters and detractors on both sides of the isle. It WASN’T a Republican filibuster and moreover it wasn’t a even a filibuster because the nomination was withdrawn by Johnson within one week of when the debates began on the floor and it was an extended debate both political parties voted for. That’s very different than filibustering.

the democrats would have brought forward every imaginable bill in democratically controlled comitees, bringing congress to standstill, meaning nothing would be done from here on out.

If that’s the case, they will lose the next election by landslides that will make the filibuster debate obsolete.

This is the first time that judicial nominees with clear majority support are being denied an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor through an unprecedented use of the filibuster. Unlike your misrepresentation of history with the Fortas nomination, this is a fact that is so solid, the Republicans can use the “restoration of Senate tradition” rules to counter the nuclear option Democrats in the Senate have already used.

The Democrats are the ones who went nuclear first. Now they threaten to shut down the government if they don’t get their way? They’d be shot for such treasonous plans in most countries around the world.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Are you serious? I mean, really, are you serious? Did you type that with a straight face?
Do you understand that, regardless of the fact that republicans are the majority, congress did not take away its status as a check and balance of the president? And did you understnad the consequences of the nuclear option?

What you don't understand is that one party has not accepted that they have lost power and now want to claim that minority status deserves special treatment, the dems aren't getting their way so they want to amend the rules to assure them victory, that is childish, wrong, and immoral.

What the republicans in congress were trying to do is to take away any opportunity for any opposition, and turn congress into a "rubber stamp" of sorts for the president,

No, they were tying to make sure the check process wasn't obstructed by a bunch of crybaby losers.

and the reason it's such a big deal when it comes down to the judicial nominations is that the judicial branch is the one remaining branch not republican dominated.

we want constructionists in the court, not judges that will legislate from the bench, what's so hard to understand?

Doesn't that just **** you off, that winning an election did turn us into a one party nation, with a leader that gets to do whatever he wants? That we can't become a eutopian nation of unchecked power like Germany in the 30s and 40s, or Iraq in the 70s, 80s, and 90s? It just pisses you off, doesn't it?

Unlike Democrat control of the house, senate, and presidency in the 40's, 50's, early/late 60's, mid 70's, and mid-nineties?

The consequences of the nuclear option were that once Bill Frist and **** Chaney got rid of this senate tradition that prevented up or down votes on judicial nominees, who obviously all deserved an up or down vote (except for all those judicial nominees under clinton who were kept from up or down votes by republican controlled comitees, or the nominee for head surpreme court justice nominated by Lyndon Johnson that was filibustered by republicans, they don't count, do they?)

Your civics and history teachers should be terminated asap.

the democrats would have brought forward every imaginable bill in democratically controlled comitees, bringing congress to standstill, meaning nothing would be done from here on out.

And, this is what you are supporting with the fillibuster.

So I feel betrayed that our president listens to people like you more than people like me.

We'd all be in trouble if the opposite were the case.

 

[teacher]

[

QUOTE=GPS_Flex]No, Republicans were trying to restore Senate tradition.

(In the voice of Marv Albert) He shoots he scores.

 

[GPS_Flex]

There isn’t any debate over the rights Republicans have to change the Senate rules under the clause they would use to change them. I don’t hear any Democrats explaining how the rule they are using is any less constitutional than the filibuster.

I’d really love to entertain that argument though.

 

[LaMidRighter]

The senate wasn't just set up for the majority to always get its way, it was set up for the minority to be able to put in its two cents, which is the purpose the filibuster serves.
And stop acting like democrats filibustered every judicial nominee, they filibustered like 10 out of over 200, so just stop pretending to be such a damn victim.

Actually, you are right, it used to be a 50 vote in the senate to end a fillibuster, the dems changed it to 60 the last time they had control, I guess the mid nineties surge in republican elections kinda scared them. And yes, the minority does have the right to debate, not obstruct as is the current case, they are the ones screaming about minority rights, I don't ever remember this much bellyaching from a republican minority. Currently, you have a smaller voice screaming like brat children till they get their way.

I've accepted completely that the republicans have control of the house, senate, and the presidency. What you haven't accepted is that there are still 44 democratic senators, and almost half the voters in this country voted against George W. Bush. The way you have proposed this government to be run is that all of those people, in senate a full 22 states, go completely unrepresented, essentially.

And 44 a substantial minority in the senate which is what your side wants to deny, and I love this argument about the 48%, let's look at the flip side, 51% voted for G.W.B which is a greater number, only the urban areas had the Democrats back on this with a few rural areas chiming in, middle America voted for George W. Bush and even with those urban areas, the Dems got outvoted by about 4 million people.

And the judicial filibuster itself was not the nuclear option, and if you had read a newpaper at ANY POINT IN THE LAST 2 MONTHS you would have known that. The nuclear option was that, after a judicial filibuster, Cheney was going to declare that he has deemed the judicial filibuster unconstitutional,

Many constitutional scholars would disagree with you and that paper(journalist opinions mean nothing) and it was Senator Frist who brought up the cloture option, not Cheney, thanks.

at which point deciding only a simple majority is needed to declare it unconstitutional, and had that passed,

As per a two century old tradition

the democrats would have brought forward all of their little pet issues that are destined to fail in a republican filled congress, and through this keep congress from doing anything till at the very least 2007, when the new congress convenes.

Pet issues can just be excluded from the agenda since the senate sets debate, nice try.

Since you have admitted that Abe Fortas, a judicial nominee, was filibustered back in the 60s, it really just makes my head hurt to try to figure out how you can say judicial filibusters have never happened before! I mean, do you even think before you type, or do you just regurgitate what you heard Bill Frist say, because I hate to be the one to let you know that, he typically doesn't really know what he's talking about.

This was already explained and no, he was debated on, not fillibustered, and he was ultimately withdrawn as a nominee, that is not the same thing as denying a vote by fillibuster.

Congress is an extremely complex legislative body, far more complex that you or I, or most congressmen will ever completely understand. You wanna know why? It was made for this specific purpose, that in the situation where one party wants complete, unchecked power, especially in the situation where the one party is only supported by a small majority of the country.

First of all, we are talking about the Senate, not Congress were the fillibuster does not exist because of time limits on speech, you are also confusing the concept of "checks and balances" there never was an intent to check parties within a governing branch, it is meant to be a balance between an executive, judicial, and bi-cameral legislature(house and senate), not between the senate dems and repubs. Thanks for the liberal propoganda though, it was amusing.

So you can sit around and try to change the rules, but keep in mind when the republicans are no longer the majority, don't expect them to change back.

The Democrats are the ones asking for special treatment and also the ones trying to abuse senate rules, Republicans are just trying to bring order to the whole thing. And as far as the Democrats becoming a majority again, as long as they keep insulting, berating, and ignoring America outside of the Northeast and Pacific Northwest, it will not happen.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Excuse me, but which is more bratty, fighting to have a voice, or complaining and trying to change the rules when you don't get your way?
And debate is pretty useless in a 2 party system, where party officials decide before debate even begins where their party needs to vote. The filibuster, which is typically not used, is the one thing that prevents this from becoming a 1 party system, where republicans just run whatever they want right on through.

Here's the thing, the Democrats did have a voice during the debate phase of the nominating process, it became crystal clear that these judges would be voted in, so the other side panicked and fillibustered to delay the vote, essentially, they pushed these candidates out of the agenda in the first term and thus denied them a rightful acceptance or denial confirmation

Right, republicans won, namely because democrats tend to be idiots, and ran stupid candidates. And you missed my point, I've acknowledged that democrats are a minority, what I am saying is that 48% of the nation deserves to be represented, and not just in words, but in some sort of action, which the republicans have done little, if anything, to do.

Don't mistake what I am saying for anything but this, the 48% that voted the other way are represented by those they elected, this also means they are in the minority and therefore are not in themselves representing the whole of America, therefore, after their voice is expressed in debate, it is time to vote on the floor and accept the results, the left has not done this.

I was explaining how the nuclear option worked, and Cheney, as president of the senate, would have to declare judicial filibusters unconstitutional to get the nuclear option rolling. And since democrats control a number of comittees, they would be able to send pet issues to the floor, so to quote you, nice try jackass.

Cheney casts the tying vote on the Senate floor, the majority leader is the one who brings up the agenda and regulates the floor. The only way to declare fillibusters illegal is for a vote(formerly a simple majority) by the Senate as brought up by the majority leader-Bill Frist, finally, there are instances in which the fillibuster is already illegal(such as budget bills and declaration of war, etc.) it is not that the Republican party is trying to end all fillibusters but only to add nominations as a case.

He was withdrawn as a nominee because he was filibustered.

No, after debates it was obvious that both parties would vote him out, in other words, he was not forced out of the agenda by the fillibuster, rather, it was a decision by the nominator.

It strikes me as a bit odd that someone who simply says the exact same thing as Bill Frist can accuse someone who hates both parties, and considers himself a conservative (an actual conservative) of being a liberal propagandist.

I don't think I said you were a propogandist, just that one statement you uttered was in fact passed along from a source of it, sorry if you mistook that.

It is true that in forming the government checks and balances were set up to balance power between the three branches of government, but in setting up the congress checks and balances were set up to prevent one party from taking complete power unless it is willed by a very large majority of the country (and no, 51% doesn't cut it).

Actually, since we are talking about the fillibuster, it is not a constitutional check, it is a loophole in senate protocol, therefore, it is subject to being closed as an option if abused. Also, there are other options, such as finding party defectors which have been proven time and time again to exist.

And dude, you totally just argued in favor of a one party nation. You're like two steps away from being a complete facist.

Now you are jumping to a conclusion there, I don't want 1 party rule, what I want is sane, rational, honest decorum from politicians and the mainstream Democrats of the last thirty years have largely failed to qualify.

Oh so that's why the republicans proposed the nuclear option, because they wanted to restore order? Oh I apologize, I didn't understand something that disrupted senate for months, and prevented more pressing issues from coming to light was to RESTORE ORDER! MY BAD!

It could have been ended with civility. I'll turn the tables a little bit, if you were being denied your constitutional nomination priveledge and that hindered your duty to the judicial, how would you feel, especially when the other side will not budge, sometimes you have to send a message and honestly, some of these liberal senators have made comments that should bring censure.

The democrats are extremely flawed, flawed enough that I almost voted for Bush. They are hypocrites. That doesn't make the republicans the good guys, because they are also hypocrites. Republicans claim to stand for states rights, yet a republican white house just went to teh supreme court to take away the states' rights to legalize medical marijuana, and also tried to pass an ammendment to the constitution banning gay marriage, so that states couldn't decide that for themselves. The democrats claim to stand for civil rights, yet believe in gun control, which made the top 2 in the bill of rights.

We are pretty much in agreement on this one.

In our political system today neither side is good, and as a whole, both parties are completely worthless, and it's only a few individuals speckled throughout congress, on either side of party lines, that are good in of themselves.

True, but sometimes you have to choose between getting screwed or getting completely screwed.

But it's just flat out ignorant to believe that the democrats will never regain the majority. Right now the republican controlled congress has an approval rating of just above 30%, and Bush isn't doing much better, and there are no right wing republicans that can match his charisma. You are making the exact same mistake the democrats made, which is assuming that the majority is your birthright, and you can abuse it in anyway you want, but that has NEVER worked.

I am not saying it will never happen, that's like saying Boston couldn't win the world series again(unfortunately I was wrong on that) but as long as they don't offer non-tax solutions and big government they will have a more difficult time in taking back the legislative, they may have a shot at the executive however. All it takes is to look at what happened in my region in the last couple of years, Democrats owned the south for close to a century and now there are only four senators in D.C. from this area. This trend might get worse nationwide for the Democrats if they don't tone down the rhetoric and allow Republicans the continued momentum currently experienced.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I am not arguing for the democrats to get their way all of the time. I just think that, since democrats represent 48% of the country, then a compramise between the two groups should be THE ONLY way to get things done, and considering that otherwise the republicans could just hammer anything they want right on through, the filibuster is the last line of defense to require a compramise, and some sort of representation. Considering that it seems these democrats don't represent you, I can understand why you don't want them to have any control over what happens in senate, but they represent me, and I want them to filibuster everything until the republicans learn to compramise. And I mean EVERYTHING!

I'm not against compromise in most cases, in the judiciary though is of great concern to me, I don't believe in judges on either side assuming a position of "lawmaking by precedent". Alot of the judges that the Dems are currently fillibustering are constructionists and I believe they are absolutely the best type of justice, I want judges who apply law rather than create it.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I read through the judges, and I agree that I don't think that most of them are all that bad, which made me kind of pissed at the democrats for leading to this coming to a head over Priscilla Owens, who really seems to be a good judge. I can't say that I completely agree with a concept of a legal system based solely on common law, but I do agree that judges are there to uphold the law, not change it, but I'm also quite certain that democrats don't hold a monopoly on judges that would prefer to rule the way that they'd like the law to be as opposed to how the law actually is.
But as far as the filibuster, regardless of what judges are being filibustered, I believe the actual filibuster must be upheld, and it makes me really nervous to know that the most powerful republicans are actually upset that they weren't allowed to remove rules that require compramise, and don't have any interest in making sure everyone is at the very least somewhat represented. And I'm sure I would've felt the same way when the democrats tried too, but I was like 8 at the time.
Call me paranoid, but there is no way I will support anything that will bring us closer to a 1 party system, as removing the judicial filibuster would. I think that having 2 parties is bad enough, considered both of them, and the majority of their constituencies, are complete and utter fools, and I can count on one hand the politicians that I trust. John McCaine, Barrack Obama, Jim Leach, and Wesely Clark (does he even count?). That's it, and so there's NO WAY I'm into giving any large group of people that I trust only the smallest fraction of them more power over my life. Not gonna happen.

But see, through debate we found a middle ground, and our views aren't really that different. If only congress could do the same.

I mainly agree with the above and I like debate to find middle ground. The reason I am a mid-righter is because I have traditional values but am not willing to use law to force them on others, I expect the same courtesy from those that disagree, I'm a constructionist and rather like the way things were originally set up.

 

[GPS_Flex]

The senate wasn't just set up for the majority to always get its way, it was set up for the minority to be able to put in its two cents, which is the purpose the filibuster serves.

Not true. The Senate was created by the Constitution and there is nothing in that document that refers to Senate rules or the rights of a minority in the Senate. Please point to anything in the constitution that makes your point. It just isn’t there.

And stop acting like democrats filibustered every judicial nominee, they filibustered like 10 out of over 200, so just stop pretending to be such a damn victim.

They violated Senate tradition when they filibustered the first nominee. They compounded that violation 10 times in one year. If you can’t see how unprecedented this action by the Democrats is, you are refusing to look at the facts.

I've accepted completely that the republicans have control of the house, senate, and the presidency.

No you haven’t. The fact that you are arguing for Democrats who are trying to “control” any one of those branches is evidence that you haven’t come to terms with the fact that the American people have spoken.

The way you have proposed this government to be run is that all of those people, in senate a full 22 states, go completely unrepresented, essentially.

It wasn’t my proposal. It’s what we call the current set of rules. If you don’t like it because your team lost, I suggest you build a better team.

And the judicial filibuster itself was not the nuclear option, and if you had read a newpaper at ANY POINT IN THE LAST 2 MONTHS you would have known that.

Thankfully there are still some of us who don’t let the liberal media tell us what to think. The facts are what they are my friend. I read the newspapers and I see the bias. Do you? Don’t lecture me on what I should read because I probably read more of it than you.

The nuclear option was that, after a judicial filibuster, Cheney was going to declare that he has deemed the judicial filibuster unconstitutional, at which point deciding only a simple majority is needed to declare it unconstitutional, and had that passed, the democrats would have brought forward all of their little pet issues that are destined to fail in a republican filled congress, and through this keep congress from doing anything till at the very least 2007, when the new congress convenes.

I see, the Democrats have broken from Senate tradition by using a Senate rule that isn’t in the Constitution but if the Republicans use the same tactics and overrule them using the same Senate rules that aren’t in the constitution, the Democrats are going to try to destroy the United States of America by making the Senate into a black hole. Is that the plan?

It’s funny, that’s the same plan each of my children tried when they were between the ages of two and three years old. After a few spankings, they learned such childish behavior doesn’t pay off. I think the American people will treat the Democrats likewise if they try to destroy the system just because they can’t have their way after losing control of the government.

Since you have admitted that Abe Fortas, a judicial nominee, was filibustered back in the 60s, it really just makes my head hurt to try to figure out how you can say judicial filibusters have never happened before! I mean, do you even think before you type, or do you just regurgitate what you heard Bill Frist say, because I hate to be the one to let you know that, he typically doesn't really know what he's talking about.

I’m sure it makes your head hurt. Thinking really hard and contemplating reality often has that effect on most of us. It’s just to bad you can’t cross that divide and are left posting such dishonest claims such as this.

Please quote where I admitted Fortas was filibustered. If you can’t find that post, you need to shut your pie hole and stop talking down to me as though I am stupid. Either put up or shut up!

Congress is an extremely complex legislative body, far more complex that you or I, or most congressmen will ever completely understand.

I imagine it must be very difficult to understand for someone who thinks what he reads in news papers is factual and reliable.

You wanna know why?

Not really, not if it involves you explaining how the US Government works. What the heck, it never hurts to listen, unless you’re a liberal who thinks you have a constitutional right to never be offended. Tell me why.

It was made for this specific purpose, that in the situation where one party wants complete, unchecked power, especially in the situation where the one party is only supported by a small majority of the country.

That’s why? I waded through all this to witness your refusal to accept the last election after you told me you accepted the fact that Republican controlled the House, Senate and Presidency?

Who are you trying to convince?

So you can sit around and try to change the rules, but keep in mind when the republicans are no longer the majority, don't expect them to change back.

I’m not sure what rules you are referring to. You wouldn’t be referring to the rule changes Byrd made in his fight against the civil rights and anti lynching laws we have today, would you?

 

[ShamMol]

Yes, but then senate came up with rules and traditions of its own, including the filibuster, and although they weren't in the constitution, the senate viewed them as neccisary.

And if you go back to history, you see why they viewed it as necessary. The British basically had a system like it, but it didn't have all the names and rules that the American system does. They have what is called endless debate.

Oh, well I apologize, I misunderstood. Well then you probably wouldn't mind explaining to me this quote from Sen. Smith of New Hampshire, a republican, after he admittedly blocked and filibustered one of Clinton's judicial nominees:
"But don't pontificate...I don't appreciate being told that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States. I swore to uphold that Constitution, and I am doing it now by standing up and saying what I am saying." (March 7, 2000) Oh, and by the way, Bill Frist voted with that particular filibuster.

Completely agree. This new round of hypocrisy by the Republicans is ridiculous. They indeed did use whatever means they had at their disposal to try and stop many nominees from ever getting a vote on the floor. They did this by fillibustering, stopping it in committee, using tatics to shelve a nomination that they didn't like instead of even taking it up, etc, etc. Judges were stopped time and again that had the highest rating from the ABA and now we are concerned about a judge that has below a 50% from her home state? Gimme a break.

I'm sorry, but the concept of a representative republic is that everyone is represented, it's not winner takes all. Republicans had a say even in the early 90s, when democrats controlled both the congress and the presidency. That's just how it works, and I know you don't like it, for which I have to apologize. If you want a winner takes all, one party run government, you might want to try Iran.

Yes, this is the principle of a republic. It is rule of the majority but not at the expense of the minority (yes, Squak, I quote it wrong, but it is the same principle). And on Iran, there was an interesting article in Newsweek I believe about how the reform party is dwindling, worth a read.

There are a few things that I just don't get. Why would they try and change something that has existed peacefully for so many years and lose a great tool that they have used time and time again? Why would they insist on something that they have never garunteed for those on the other side? Etc, etc.

 

[ShamMol]

Same reason democrats tried earlier, they're in power, and this compramises their power.

If you are referring to 1995, it was my understanding that it did not have the support of the leadership and that it was only a small group of senates, like 19 or 20, who wanted it. Am I wrong? Honestly, my history from when I was seven is a bit rusty.

 

[LaMidRighter]

galenrox, FDR wanted to add 6 justices to the Supreme Court, and the reason the new deal got pushed through was because 2 justices(or 3?) changed their vote.

 

[GPS_Flex]

Yes, but then senate came up with rules and traditions of its own, including the filibuster, and although they weren't in the constitution, the senate viewed them as neccisary.

So you have no objection to the Democrat Senators who portray this as an assault on the constitution? You aren’t offended when they lie to you?

I agree that the Senate views their rules as necessary but I think they consider the ability to adjust and change those rules as even more necessary. The filibuster isn’t a Senate rule. The constitution doesn’t limit the length or topic of debate and as such, Senators began exploiting this fact to delay or defeat issues that they didn’t have majority support of. Since the 1840’s, the filibuster has been used hundreds of times as a political delaying tactic. In 1917, the Senate created cloture rules that stopped this hijacking of the Senate by a few longwinded Senators.

The filibuster wasn’t created to give the minority a check and balance on the majority because it was never created to begin with. It’s simply a term that was used to describe the act of piracy that was eventually applied to what we now consider the filibuster.

In 1917, “Senate Rule 19” created a cloture vote where 67% of the Senate could vote to end debate and it was used in 1919 to end the filibuster on the Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I.

In 1975, “Senate Rule 22” reduced the 67% cloture requirement to 60%.

My point is that Senate rules have always changed and the filibuster isn’t the sacred protection of the minority’s rights you seem to think it is. The constitution is very clear about which issues require a majority vote from the Senate and judicial nominations isn’t among them.

What we have today is a bastardization of the filibuster by both political parties that results in something that really isn’t a filibuster at all. In current practice, Senate rules permit procedural filibusters, in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required. The lockstep formation of Democrats who claim they are “filibustering” is nothing more than a 60% majority requirement for judicial nominees to get a vote on the floor of the Senate. That, I contend, is a distortion of the constitution.

Well then you probably wouldn't mind explaining to me this quote from Sen. Smith of New Hampshire, a republican, after he admittedly blocked and filibustered one of Clinton's judicial nominees:

Sure, I’ll try to explain the difference.

Let us first be clear about the fact that the filibuster is a process by which 40 senators can veto a bill or nominee. Bob Smith made a motion to basically veto a nomination and the Senate voted bipartisan and defeated his motion 31 to 67. There were Republicans and Democrats on both sides of the issue. It wasn’t a filibuster. It was a motion to filibuster that was immediately defeated by Democrats and Republicans.

This new round of hypocrisy by the Republicans is ridiculous. They indeed did use whatever means they had at their disposal to try and stop many nominees from ever getting a vote on the floor.

Sure there’s hypocrisy by the Republicans here. It’s just too bad you can’t see there’s enough hypocrisy to go around here and you refuse to acknowledge the new round of hypocrisy by the Democrats.

I think the Senate should follow the House of Representatives and completely do away with the filibuster.

I'm sorry, but the concept of a representative republic is that everyone is represented, it's not winner takes all.

Who isn’t being represented? Is there a state that didn’t have the opportunity to elect a representative? I’m not sure how “winner takes all” is even applicable here.

On another front, the rules have NEVER been winner takes all, it's always been a majority and a minority, and the minority has certain powers, and the majority has more, and the minority is given these powers solely to force the majority to compramise, and represent everyone in the country, not just their constituency.

What minority powers are you speaking of? The constitution gives no such power to a minority in either branch of congress so please be more specific. If you’re referring to a Senate Rule, which rule are you talking about? I’d love to see that part of the constitution or the Senate Rules that requires a majority to represent anything other than its constituency.

First of all, I don't play for a team, and out of the few politicians that I actually admire and trust, they are almost evenly split between republicans and democrats, and as I whole, I think both parties are completely worthless.

You could have fooled me. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…I tend call it a duck. Perhaps I’m just a simpleton in that way but it’s rather scientific in nature.

See, it's actually quite clever of you to start your attack on the so-called "liberal media", because that means you can read the newspaper, and then pick and choose the facts you like, and then claim everything else isn't true because it was from the "liberal media". I'm gonna try that.

Have you ever noticed how the first thing a telemarketer does when he calls you is begin by asking questions that require an obvious “yes” in reply? If you can’t explain why that is, don’t be so arrogant and condescending in the future. You either own a bunch of useless widgets and timeshares you paid way too much money for or you practice the same jurisprudence I do in evaluating what you read and what you hear.

It’s interesting to see you run to the defense of the “liberal media” after claiming no political affiliation. I could swear I heard another quack.

The nuclear option was that, after a judicial filibuster, Cheney was going to declare that he has deemed the judicial filibuster unconstitutional, at which point deciding only a simple majority is needed to declare it unconstitutional, and had that passed, the democrats would have brought forward all of their little pet issues that are destined to fail in a republican filled congress, and through this keep congress from doing anything till at the very least 2007, when the new congress convenes.

I see, the Democrats have broken from Senate tradition by using a Senate rule that isn’t in the Constitution but if the Republicans use the same tactics and overrule them using the same Senate rules that aren’t in the constitution, the Democrats are going to try to destroy the United States of America by making the Senate into a black hole. Is that the plan?

I think it would be more accurately portrayed as the democrats execizing one of their minority powers to force a compramise, the republicans refuse to compramise, and so instead they're trying to find a way to take away that power, and so the democrats are going to use another power they have to make this rule changing increasingly unattractive.

You keep referring to this “minority power” thing as though it were in the constitution or the senate rules. If you would be so kind as to point to the exact location of this “minority power” rule in either, I’d be very grateful.

So you're saying that Abe Fortas wasn't filibustered?

Using the unprecedented definition of “filibuster” the Democrats are using today, I give an emphatic YES as answer to your question. What you fail to recognize is the difference between the failure to reach cloture in an instance where it was a clearly warranted bipartisan act due to the inappropriateness of the nomination and the partisan hijacking of the confirmation process the Democrats have undertaken.

You know what that failure to invoke cloture means? FILIBUSTER JACKASS!

Jackass? You’re calling me a jackass? You’re the one who can’t get his little mind around the fact that there’s nothing in the Senate rules or the constitution giving those who lose a vote the right to force anything. You’re the one who can’t get his little mind around the fact that there has never been, in the history of the Senate, a partisan filibuster that has effectively made the nomination of judges require 60% vote.

Failure to invoke cloture due to honest debate of the issue is different than people reading a phone book or recipes for cooking clams or Mark Twain on the Senate floor. The Abe Fortas issue wasn’t filibustered in the real sense of a filibuster. It was one of the rare occasions where unlimited debate actually served its purpose.

The skeletons were flying out of his closet and it was the Democrats LBJ had counted on to push him through who put the brakes on Abe’s nomination. If you can’t see the difference, you’re the jackass.

Actually, I'm not exactly what one would call a liberal, I've always considered myself a conservative.

Like I said, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and…..

The government was set up as complex as it is because the founding fathers knew about mob rule, where a bunch of people will get caught up in some stupid idea, and once they do, they become very easily manipulated (i.e. Bush being reelected), and the rules minimize the permanant damage that those manipulators do.

What in the hell are you talking about? Bush being re-elected is the example you use for what the government was set up to avoid? Bizarre.

I bet you got like a 3 on the reading comprehension part of your ACTs.

You lost that bet. I’m sure you’re used to losing such bets though.

 

[GPS_Flex]

What I was saying is that we have the system of checks and balances to prevent one party rule, not one party having more party.

I comprehended as much. I think you are full of crap for thinking that and you have done nothing to make your case for believing such crap.

The checks and balances prevent the republicans from doing everything they want, just as they did when teh democrats controlled both the congress and the presidency.

I must have missed that part in the constitution. You attribute this claim to what?

Who are you trying to convince?

At this point, I would think I’m trying to educate a jackass but I’m beginning to see the futility in such aspirations.

Yes, this is the principle of a republic. It is rule of the majority but not at the expense of the minority

The principal of a republic isn’t transferable to the elected bodies sent to represent the electors. It is through the election of said representatives that the minority has been given a chance to have a voice. If you can’t see this you are blind.

There are a few things that I just don't get. Why would they try and change something that has existed peacefully for so many years and lose a great tool that they have used time and time again?

Because the Democrats have decided 40 senators should have the right to veto anything they want. It’s not new but it’s the first time it has been used straight down party lines in the way it is being used today.

I've just heard democrats have tried similar tactics.

You don’t say! What’s funny is the way you Democrats refuse to admit that the only thing that’s been consistent in the Senate is it’s inconsistency on issues like this.

It’s a senate rules change that has nothing to do with the constitution or your warped vision of some powers the minority of senators have over a majority of senators.