Perfect crystallization of what's wrong with the Democrats

[DanS]

Anyway, I don't think such a procedural change has any resonance outside of the political chattering class, notwithstanding the WaPo poll.

The Dems will eventually do a deal on this, so it's best to do the deal when it is perceived that you have the upper hand.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sikander
Actually the Repubs didn't to my knowledge filibuster anyone, they didn't need to as they were the majority party and could stall the nominations in committee or simply vote them down. The filibuster is different because it is being used by the minority to quash appointments against the will of the majority.

I believe they were the minority until 94 or 95 and that's where the filibuster occured. After they were the majority they used other tactics to block nominees so you are right about that.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Boshko

Then you would be wrong. Apellate court justices can't overturn Roe v. Wade so it would make absolutely no sense for that to be a litmus test for appointing them.

Apellate courts are where future supreme court nominees will come from so it makes perfect sense. You pack the Apellate court with ideologues then you have a nice farm to produce ideologues for any future higher court openings.

[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?

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....

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?

[Ramo]

If you want to kvetch about the minority obstructing the majority, look at Orrin Hatch's blue slip policy during the Clinton administration (which astonishingly ended with a Republican President), where a single Senator from the state of the nominee could prevent the nomination from coming to a vote. Hell, the Senate is an institution where unpopulated Republican states are over-represented relative to populated Democratic states (and unrepresented DC), but I don't see Frist whining about that. This is all about the consolidation of power by the Republican leadership.

[Guynemer]

What's wrong with the Democratic Party?

They keep bringing boxing gloves to a knife fight. Over, and over, and over.

[Dracon II]

Damn you guys have a good system. The republicans have a majority in both houses of congress and yet the minority party still actually matters for something... in July half our senate will be changed over to reflect the results of last years election, giving the Government a majority in both houses. In a few words? Executive dictatorship over Parliament.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Dracon II
Damn you guys have a good system. The republicans have a majority in both houses of congress and yet the minority party still actually matters for something... in July half our senate will be changed over to reflect the results of last years election, giving the Government a majority in both houses. In a few words? Executive dictatorship over Parliament.

Yep, that's one of the reasons I'm not fond of the Parliamentary system. I'd rather see gridlock than one party running roughshod over the other.

[Dracon II]

Executive power in Australia has tended to be contained (to a certain extent) by a minor party holding the balance of power in the senate (which is elected by proportional representation). It's not as good a system as the US Congress... but it worked fairly well and a lot of Gov't bills were watered down or even blocked. But now it looks like we're back to the "good old days"... the Government is itching to get rid of unfair dismissal laws, sell of our telecommunications network and all sorts of nasty things. And there's not a goddamn thing anyone can do about it.... unless there's a revolt from within the Government... which in Westminster systems is quite rare...

[Seeker]

When did the word 'spin' become conservative code for 'other people's opinions which I don't share'??

[JohnT]

The second the Republicans took power. Before then it was liberal code for "other people's opinions which I don't share."

[Drake Tungsten]

That's what I was thinking...

[Drake Tungsten]

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/editorials/la-ed-filibuster26apr26,0,2889709.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials

I can't believe I'm in agreement with the LA Times...

[Ramo]

The Senate isn't a majoritarian body. That's why Hagel gets as much of a vote as Boxer. Insisting that the simple majority must always get its way in a body that overrepresents underpopulated, generally Republican, states is absurd. Let alone the power of the Judicial Committee Chair or rules such as the blue slip. The nuclear option is being pushed only because the filibuster's the last institutional instrument through which the Republican agenda can be opposed.

And if you want to talk about hypocrisy, the same applies to the Republicans, Frist (see the 2000 filibuster against Paez) on down.

[Dracon II]

Precisely. The malapportionment inherent in the Senate system demands more than a simple majoritarian system of decision-making. Sure there's a place for Federalism and that's the point of the senate, but ultimately these Senators are representing people, not states.
I don't know what a fillibuster fully entails... but if it allows the minority party a marginal amount of influence on policy or Judicial/Cabinet nominations... then I think it's important. De Tocqueville was warning about a Tyranny of the Majority as far back as the 1830's... we should probably heed the warning... even if it makes congressional process a bit difficult sometimes.
In fact I find it surprising that the Republicans are attacking the fillibuster... they'll regret it when they're the minority party.