Perfect crystallization of what's wrong with the Democrats

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap
Using the power to fillibuster to hold up a vote is infinately better than the travesty of a single committee chairman not letting a nominee come up to vote- having to make sure 41% of the Senate agrees that a nominee is bad to hold off a vote is better than one senator deciding they don't like somone, yet people are arguing against one but saying nothing about the other?

If we were to list every problem with the senate it would take all of our time. Here's my view: Every appointment should be given an up or down vote. No filibusters, pocket vetoes by committee chairmen or blackballing by same state senators.

Originally posted by GePap
The constitutional arguement is absurd- the Constitution says the Senate reviews candidates- it also says the Senate makes its own rules. Therefore what is going on is totally constitutional, since the Senate is using its own rules to carry out its consitutional duty. Last time I looked one thing defnitelly was NOT in the consitution about the make-up of government, and that is political parties-maybe we should have that voted away too....

I'd love to make political parties illegal, it most definitely should be done. As for the Senate rules, they don't trump the constitution, which states that the senate will give its advice and consent on presidential appointments. No mention is made of a supermajority being necessary in this case, so it's obvious the framers intended a simple majority to carry the day.

Originally posted by GePap
So this debate boils down to the rules of the senate-and the fact is we have yet another example of a party hell-bent on exploiting its time in the sun- back in 1960 the democrats were changing the rules on themselves (since most southerners were democrats), so obviously the changes put in at the time were bipartisan to some extent. This current move is just a naked power grab, trying to make sure the minority has as little power in washington as possible. Once you decide with judicial nominees, it becomes clear to repugs that we might as well cut back the fillibuster in other issues as well, because the fact is, this selective cutting of the filibuster is nonsensical- if a filibuster is good to ward of other nominees (like keeping gays out of our embassies like Mr. Hormel), why not judges?

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

This isn't a naked power grab, its the result of almost 20 years of deteriorating relations between the two major parties, especially in regards to judicial appointments. The bitterness has made serious inroads into the traditions of the senate to the extent that we have a crisis brewing in the judiciary as well. Make parties illegal and people will have to talk to one another again rather than simply noting which letter comes after the other guy's name.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by 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.

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.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I can't believe I'm in agreement with the LA Times...

Ever time I hear a conservative claims the LA Times is a lefty paper I can't help but laugh. The paper has to appeal to buyers from Venura County (Republican), LA County (Democrat), Riverside County (Democrat), and Orange County (republican as can be) so they can't stray to far or else they lose sales. The paper always has had a policy of opposing editorials where left and right get to duke it out over a wide range of issues so for every liberal editorial that's printed a conservitive editorial is also printed on the same subject.

[Bosh]

so it's obvious the framers intended a simple majority to carry the day.

No it isn't. Is says in the constitution that the Senate gets to make its own rules for how decisions get made. I'm not saying that filibusters are particularly good things, but to say that they violate the constitution doesn't make any sense.

[Dinner]

Boshko when did you change your name?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Bosh

No it isn't. Is says in the constitution that the Senate gets to make its own rules for how decisions get made. I'm not saying that filibusters are particularly good things, but to say that they violate the constitution doesn't make any sense.

Why would the constitution enumerate all of the cases where a supermajority was required except for in this case? The senate can make its own rules except when they clash with the constitution, that's the reason they even bothered to put any provisions in it in the first place. The senate has to give its advice and consent (or dissent) on the president's candidates, period.

[Dinner]

Sorry, but no one is buying into the claim that the Senate has been breaking the Constitution for the better part of a hundred years. Republicans loved the filibuster when they were the minority party but now that their own tacic is being used against them suddenly it is unconstitutional? Sure...

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Sikander


Why would the constitution enumerate all of the cases where a supermajority was required except for in this case? The senate can make its own rules except when they clash with the constitution, that's the reason they even bothered to put any provisions in it in the first place. The senate has to give its advice and consent (or dissent) on the president's candidates, period.

Right there are some cases where a super-majority is mandated. However, in no cases does it mandate that the senate cannot make its own rules to mandate a super majority in other instances.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Boshko when did you change your name?

Last night. Kind of a belated decision to reduce the amount that my real last name is floating around on the internet, especially considering how powerful google is and how rare my last name is.

Just made it Bosh because I wanted it to be easily-recognizable without being my real last name.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sikander


Why would the constitution enumerate all of the cases where a supermajority was required except for in this case? The senate can make its own rules except when they clash with the constitution, that's the reason they even bothered to put any provisions in it in the first place. The senate has to give its advice and consent (or dissent) on the president's candidates, period.

If a nominee is so offensive to a significant number of senators, obviously the senate is giving it's advice to the president: pick someone else, cause you don't have our consent as a body. No consent, and advice. Nowhere does it say the consent need come from a majority of the senators, but from THE SENATE, and the senate gets to make its rules on what it's consent means. If a nominee can't even make it to a vote, that pretty obviously a lack of consent exists.

That the president has chosen to stick with ten nominees that have not been able to get through the body, as opposed to looking to fill those 10 post with the same type of candidates he has gotten through the Senate in 200+ times is a political choice of the president, but it holds 0 constitutional importance.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Bosh

Right there are some cases where a super-majority is mandated. However, in no cases does it mandate that the senate cannot make its own rules to mandate a super majority in other instances.

They aren't mandating a super majority for advise and consent purposes. That's still is a simple majority if and when the votes ever take place.

Amending the rules of parlimentary procedure to do away with the filibuster ( or break a filibuster with a simple majority) on nonlegislative topics is not the same.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Sorry, but no one is buying into the claim that the Senate has been breaking the Constitution for the better part of a hundred years. Republicans loved the filibuster when they were the minority party but now that their own tacic is being used against them suddenly it is unconstitutional? Sure...

Examples?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


They aren't mandating a super majority for advise and consent purposes. That's still is a simple majority if and when the votes ever take place.

Amending the rules of parlimentary procedure to do away with the filibuster ( or break a filibuster with a simple majority) on nonlegislative topics is not the same.

It seems pretty obvious that if a candidate can't even get a vote, the Senate as a body has failed to give its consent and the advice the president should take is nominate someone else.

[Ramo]

Examples?

# Year Nominee Position Cloture Motions
# 1968 Abe Fortas, Supreme Court 1*
# 1980 William Lubbers, NLRB 3
# 1980 Don Zimmerman, NLRB 3
# 1980 Stephen Breyer, 1st Circuit 2
# 1987 Melissa Wells, Ambassador 1
# 1987 William Verity, Commerce 1
# 1993 Walter Dellinger, Justice 2
# 1993 Five State Department Nominees 2
# 1993 Janet Napolitano, Justice 1
# 1994 Larry Lawrence, Ambassador 1
# 1994 Rosemary Barkett, 11th Circuit 1
# 1994 Sam Brown, Ambassador 3*
# 1994 Derek Shearer, Ambassador 2
# 1994 Ricki Tigert, FDIC 2
# 1994 H. Lee Sarokin, 3rd Circuit 1
# 1995 Henry Foster, Surgeon General 2*
# 1998 David Satcher, Surgeon General 1
# 2000 Marsha Berzon, 9th Circuit 1
# 2000 Richard Paez, 9th Circuit 1

In particular, you might want to notice all the filibusters between 1993-1994, during which the Republicans were the minority party in the Senate, under a Democratic President.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Examples?

The fillibuster of nominee James Hormel as ambassador to Luxembourg since he was gay.

Frist fillibustered a Clinton Judicial nominee in 2000.