Perfect crystallization of what's wrong with the Democrats

[Ramo]

If the Republicans were simply out for their own power they would indeed be looking to nuke the filibuster in every instance rather than only for presidential nominees. Then they could run things like they do in the house. But they aren't trying to do that, they are simply trying to keep the president's nominees from being denied a vote by the minority party. This is a new phenomenon which apparantly requires a new rule to ensure that our courts can function in the long run.

1. This is certainly not a new phenomenon. See above.
2. Legislation and non-judicial nominees are transient, and can easily change with a new Congress or President. Judicial appointments are far, far more powerful. And that's what Frist and co. are after.

Filibusters can't trump the constitution. They shouldn't be capable of blocking the senate from fulfilling any of its enumerated duties.

Where in the Constitution does it say that a simple majority of the Senate confirms a nominee?

[Bosh]

WTF?!? The Democrats get their way and the GOP caves like girly men. This isn't supposed to happen

Has anything gone right polically for the GOP during the last couple of months?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601295.html

GOP to Reverse Ethics Rule Blocking New DeLay Probe
January Change Led Democrats to Shut Down Panel

By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 27, 2005; Page A01

House Republican leaders, acknowledging that ethics disputes are taking a heavy toll on the party's image, decided yesterday to rescind a controversial rule change that led to the three-month shutdown of the ethics committee, according to officials who participated in the talks.

Republicans touched off a political uproar in January by changing a rule that had required the ethics committee to continue considering a complaint against a House member if there was a deadlock between the committee's five Republicans and five Democrats. The January change reversed this, calling for automatic dismissal of an ethics complaint when a deadlock occurs.

Democrats rebelled against that and other changes -- saying Republicans were trying to protect House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) from further ethics investigations -- and blocked the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, as the ethics panel is officially known, from organizing for the new Congress.

Republicans on the committee say they will launch an investigation of DeLay's handling of overseas trips and gifts as soon as the impasse over the rules is broken. The Washington Post reported last weekend that Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff charged DeLay's airfare to London and Scotland to his American Express card in 2000.

House ethics rules bar lawmakers from accepting travel and related expenses from registered lobbyists. DeLay said that he will meet with the committee chairman and the ranking Democrat, and that his staff is assembling documents to turn over to the committee. The panel admonished DeLay three times last year for what it deemed inappropriate official behavior.

The officials participating in talks about restarting the committee said Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) has agreed to ask the House to vote later this week on a rollback of the rule change. A Republican adviser said the decision "is the speaker's way of trying to put this behind us and get us back to regular order."

"There will be a [political] cost to this, but if he had not done this, the cost would continue to increase," said the adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because Hastert had not announced his decision.

This morning, at a weekly meeting for all House Republicans, Hastert will present options for the rollback package, officials said. The officials, who demanded anonymity because the negotiations were confidential, said the proposal will include a reversal of the January rule that would automatically dismiss an ethics complaint after 45 days if the committee is deadlocked.

"It's gone," an official said of the automatic-dismissal rule as he emerged from the negotiations.

A House Republican leadership aide said that the automatic-dismissal rule is "the rule that is most commonly believed to be designed to protect Tom DeLay" and that it was "impossible to win the communications battle" on it.

Leaving his office last night, Hastert would not say what form his recommended changes will take and suggested that one option might be to lengthen the time before the automatic dismissal occurs, to perhaps 90 or 120 days.

"Sooner or later, there has to be a resolution -- people can't be dangled out there forever," Hastert said. "I think [the January changes] were good, fair things for the Congress -- everybody. But, you know, that is the point of contention. We can't move forward, we can't organize, we can't do the work that the ethics committee needs to do."

The ethics committee's top Democrat, Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (W.Va.), said that if the Republicans rescind all three rules changes made in January, Democrats would vote to let the ethics committee operate. "That would return you to rules that were fashioned in a bipartisan way," he said. Without a full reversal, Democrats will demand creation of a bipartisan ethics task force, he said.

The ethics committee's chairman, Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), will support a vote on rule changes because he believes it is the only practical way to get the committee functioning, sources said. Hastings recently sought -- and received from the GOP leadership -- a large increase in the committee's budget and staff.

The vote planned for later this week will mark the second time in four months that House Republicans have changed a rule but then changed it back under public pressure because the changes were perceived as designed to protect DeLay.

Last November, Republicans rewrote an 11-year-old party rule that required a party leader to step aside if indicted, and instead made it possible for such a leader to maintain the party position. A grand jury in Austin was investigating the campaign finances of a political action committee created by DeLay and his political associates. After public objections to the maneuver, DeLay asked his party colleagues to rescind that change when they returned to Washington on Jan. 3 for the 109th Congress, and they did.

The next day, the full House approved -- on a largely party-line vote of 220 to 195 -- changes that Democrats contended would make it harder to launch investigations and would undermine their effectiveness.

A congressional aide said that changing the rules will mean "a couple of great days for Democrats" but that Republicans have calculated this will deny them long-term use of the ethics issue heading into next year's midterm elections.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Bosh
WTF?!? The Democrats get their way and the GOP caves like girly men. This isn't supposed to happen

Has anything gone right polically for the GOP during the last couple of months?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601295.html

This has been a bad spring for the Republicans. Also, to respond to the idea that the Democrats are being wimpy about the filibuster debate, I give you

by kos
Tue Apr 26th, 2005 at 12:33:11 EST

So Frist says:
"Reacting to a Democratic offer in the fight over filibusters, Republican leader Bill Frist said Tuesday he isn't interested in any deal that fails to ensure Senate confirmation for all of President Bush's judicial nominees."

Reid just engaged Frist in a game of chicken, and Frist blinked first.
Reid has been extremely effective in whipping up opposition to the Nuclear Option, garnering strong grass- and netroots support, editorial board support, and popular support (as the latest polls show scant appetite for ending the filibuster).

But in order to avoid looking like obstructionists, Demcorats had to make efforts to "find a compromise", lest the chattering class get the vapors from such Democratic intransigence.

Had Frist accepted the offers for compromise, Bush would've gotten the majority of his judges through, and Democrats would've gotten -- who knows what. All published compromise offers didn't seem to give our side anything.

So Democrats would've faced a sea of criticism from our own side for snatching defeat out of the hands of victory. Frist and Co. would've finally gotten a procedural victory against Reid (who has run circles around them thus far). And all that good will Reid had built in the netroots over the past four months would've evaporated in one fell swoop.

It was one heck of a gamble, but the Senator from Nevada played his cards right.

Frist painted himself into a corner, having whipped up the forces of wingnuttery into a froth, he could not back down without damaging his White House aspirations for 2008. He's banking on the crazies to get him the nomination.

So Reid got the Democrats to look conciliatory, forcing Frist and his Republicans to look even more inflexible than before.

Damn the guy is good. I'm glad he's on our side.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Regarding Senate rule changes and the effect in the past 30 years.

1975 - Change from 2/3 to 3/5 supermajority to end fillibuster completed via majority senate vote - responsible party Dems

1977 - Change to eliminate post cloture fillibusters via Senate majority - responsible praty Dems (Byrd)

1979 - Limitation of Amendments to Appropriations bills via Senate majority = responsible party Dems (Byrd)

1980 - Precedent for consideration of nominations (order of executive calendar) via Sente majority = responsible party Dems (Byrd)

1987 - Change in voting procedures (essentially elimination of delay tactics) via Senate majority = responsible party Dems (Byrd)

CONCLUSION
Article I, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution empowers the Senate
to “determine the Rule of its Proceedings.” In 1917 and on many
occasions since 1917, the Senate has debated whether this
constitutional rulemaking power allows a simple majority to alter the
Senate’s Standing Rules at will. At least four times, changes to the
Senate Standing Rules were influenced by attempts to use the
constitutional option. And throughout Senate history, a simple
majority has changed Senate procedures governing debate by setting
precedents or adopting Standing Orders that altered the operation of
the Standing Rules without amending their actual text. Over two
centuries, the Senate’s constitutional rulemaking power has been
exercised in a variety of ways to change Senate procedures. As
Senate parliamentary process further evolves, this power plainly will
be exercised again. At issue is when, how, and to what effect.

433. Id.; see also 146 CONG. REC. S11,856 (2000) (statement of Sen. Byrd).
434. Consolidated Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2001, Pub. L. No. 106-554, § 903
(2000), 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A-198.
272 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy [Volume 28

[Boris Godunov]

Speaking of boneheaded GOP moves, how about Bush threatening to veto the highway spending bill?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/26/highway.spending.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest

First, Bush has never vetoed anything, so threatening such--twice--is bound to make headlines. But the kicker here is that the bill is extremely popular, passing a Senate procedural vote 94-6. There's a veto-proof majority that supports to bill.

So threatening the veto was politically stupid. Either it will be overridden, further driving home the image of Bush as a lame duck, or he'll have to renege and sign it, which would make him look even more foolish. Was this Rove's idea, or was Bush off script again?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

With respect to filllibustering in times past and the political posturing:

NY Post

April 26, 2005 -- IN 1955, William F. Buckley Jr. famously declared that the purpose of conservatism was "to stand athwart history, yelling 'Stop,' at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it."
That astoundingly witty remark was a rueful acknowledgement of the uphill challenge facing the nascent American right, half a century ago — trying to halt the forward movement of a self-confident liberal left that was utterly certain it could make the world a better place through government action and forced social change.

Who could have imagined, reading Buckley's words in 1955, that 50 years later the liberal left would have adopted Buckley's screaming "Stop" as its mantra? Only there's nothing whimsically philosophical about the Democratic "Stop," as there was in Buckley's case. Rather, there's something primal about it, something desperate, something heartbroken and enraged.

Judges appointed by a twice-elected president who received the greatest number of votes in American history? STOP!

Find new sources of domestic oil to combat our dependence on Middle East petroleum? STOP!

A nominee for U.N. ambassador who has been confirmed four times previously by the Senate and whose views clearly dovetail with the president who nominated him? STOP!

And on and on it goes. How else to explain the wild enthusiasm, indeed the almost romantic praise, expressed by Democrats and their cheerleaders in the media for the Senate filibuster — a legislative maneuver created by a quirk in Senate rules that was most famously used to block civil-rights laws in the 1940s and 1950s?



After all, the filibuster is the ultimate "stop" — a device that has no other purpose and no other effect other than to halt the passage of a piece of legislation or a nomination for high office that has succeeded in getting through a Senate committee and has the support of a majority of senators.

It's a sensible tactical approach in some ways. The Democrats find themselves with an 11-seat deficit in the Senate, a 30-seat minority in the House of Representatives, and they face a Republican president who won the first absolute majority vote in 16 years. They have no hope of getting through legislation they would like.

Negativity is one of the few ways they have to express their policy views — or, let us say, to express their disapproval of Republican policy views. It's a classic approach for a minority party.

At times that negativity can be a powerful rallying point, as it was when Republicans in Washington decided they were going to do everything they could to kill the 1993 Clinton health-care proposal — and used the momentum from that negative victory to create the conditions for the landslide midterm election in 1994 when they took control of the House and Senate.

Certainly, Democrats and liberals will be thrilled and emboldened if they succeed in their disgraceful and repellent efforts to torpedo John Bolton's nomination as U.N. ambassador through venal acts of character assassination. But Bolton's defeat will only lead the ornery Bush to appoint someone else Democrats might despise even more — and they will only be able to rally their energies to this cause once.

Certainly they will be thrilled if Senate Republican leader Bill Frist is unable to muster the 50 GOP senators he will need to rewrite the rules and end the ability of Democrats to filibuster judicial nominees.

But what will they have to show for it? The defeat of the Clinton health-care plan depressed and debilitated Democrats and the Clinton administration. The defeat of Bolton and the continuing filibuster of judicial nominees will only serve to enrage the Republican base — and Bush won't change his foreign policy because Bolton isn't at the United Nations to help advance it.

The difference between Democrats in 2005 and Republicans in 1993 is that the GOP did more than yell "Stop." Yes, they defeated the Clinton health-care bill. But they also offered a highly detailed series of proposals for reform in Washington that offered voters a sense that Republicans weren't just reacting against Clintonism but were ready to supplant it with something better.

By contrast, Democrats and liberals are screaming themselves hoarse as they yell "Stop" continuously. And when it comes to explaining, advancing or even imagining positive, forward-thinking policies for change, there's only silence.

All that yelling is leading to a potentially terminal case of laryngitis.


E-mail: podhoretz@nypost.com

Summation:

Difference today vs. yesteryear when the evil Repugs fillibustered, obstructionism only has long term benefits if followed by the minority party with ideas/proposals of their own.

[Ramo]

Summation:

Difference between well-reasoned, honest editorials vs. the NYPost.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Summation:

One trick pony response.

[Ramo]

Excellent summation for that editorial of yours.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Obviously clueless as well considering my summation was not a RESPONSE but moreover a paraphrasing of the article.

Try again. Somehting more intellectual along the lines of your rubber I'm glue might fit the motif.

[Imran Siddiqui]

NY Post.

Anyway, I seem to remember a lot of Dems complaining when Reid became Majority Leader... saying he wasn't really liberal and thus would compromise too much. I guess they don't think the same way anymore .

[Ramo]

I don't know how the Oped has anything at all to do with the filibustering of judical nominations. I'm sure that the Senate Democrats have a plethora of moderate suggestions if Dear Leader actually consulted them. But he doesn't listen to anyone who disagrees with him.

Bolton was delayed in Committee with moderate Republican opposition (see Hagel and Voinovich). What does this have to do with the filibuster? And character assassination?

Dunno what orifice they're pulling AWNR from.

Clinton's Health Care proposal wasn't a judicial nomination either. The Dems have policy proposals as well for a wide variety of issues, BTW. Including SS. They just aren't negotiating unless Shrub takes privatization off the table. Not unlike the Republican position in 1993-94.

And I loved this gem:

Judges appointed by a twice-elected president who received the greatest number of votes in American history? STOP!

How 'bout extremist right-wing judges appointed by a President who lost the popular vote the first time, and won re-election by the narrowest margin an incumbent has since the 19th century, and only through character assassination?

Summation: worst editorial ever. Reading it kills your brain cells.

[Ramo]

Obviously clueless as well considering my summation was not a RESPONSE but moreover a paraphrasing of the article.

Duh. You need to work on your English comprehension skills.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo
I don't know how the Oped has anything at all to do with the filibustering of judical nominations. I'm sure that the Senate Democrats have a plethora of moderate suggestions if Dear Leader actually consulted them. But he doesn't listen to anyone who disagrees with him.

Because my brain cell dying one, its talking to fillibustering in general regardless of whether the topic is executive calendared items or legislative items. But nice try at the parsing.

Regarding counter proposals: Any make the press? Any Dem leader go to the floor with a counter proposal? Hiding behind the facade that "I'm sure they have ideas no one listens" is laughable. Do they have ideas maybe who knows, but they sure don't have the guts to lay them out on the table.

Bolton was delayed in Committee with moderate Republican opposition (see Hagel and Voinovich). What does this have to do with the filibuster? And character assassination?

While technically true, Voinovich & Hagel going wobbly was not of their own accord. Dem pressure and the success in the polls made these two spineless.

Dunno what orifice they're pulling AWNR from.

Nor I since it passed albeit with much threatening at fillibuster by the Dems.

Clinton's Health Care proposal wasn't a judicial nomination either. The Dems have policy proposals as well for a wide variety of issues, BTW. Including SS. They just aren't negotiating unless Shrub takes privatization off the table. Not unlike the Republican position in 1993-94.

Well then, rather than being the spineless cowards they are they need to get them on the table. But my guess is Joe Q Public isn't gonna like to hear the need for SS tax increases, no?

And back in 1994 it was common knowledge the repubs were working on the contract with America and was the basis of that election year.

And I loved this gem:

Judges appointed by a twice-elected president who received the greatest number of votes in American history? STOP!

How 'bout extremist right-wing judges appointed by a President who lost the popular vote the first time, and won re-election by the narrowest margin an incumbent has since the 19th century, and only through character assassination?

Summation: worst editorial ever. Reading it kills your brain cells.

Loverly, could you work up your ire a bit more, the hackery wasn't quite thick enough to cut with a knife.

Summation: The brain cells apparently were dying long before you read the editorial.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ramo 1 - Ogie 0

Sory, Ogie, it's a crap editorial.