Frist's alma mater stages a filibuster against him!

[Imran Siddiqui]

... or filibuster the crazy ones .

Your example is silly though. Every Bush appointee save 10 (IIRC) have been confirmed, and by decent margins.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


Hopefully, the Republicans will still have a simple majority in the Senate by which they can block them. If the Democrats hold both the Presidency and the Senate, then yes they can go ahead and appoint those liberal judges.

So do you draw a distinction between Judicial nominees being filibustered, and being killed in committee? Do you believe that every nominee deserves an up-or-down vote? If there is a difference between a nominee failing in committee, and failing in a filibuster, what is it, pray tell?

And just for comparisons sake, here's a quote from Chuck Hagel: "The Republicans' hands aren't clean on this either. What we did with Bill Clinton's nominees - about 62 of them - we just didn't give them votes in committee or we didn't bring them up."

So, let's break down the logic of some on the right:

Democrats = bad, because they're filibustering 10 of Bush's nominees, and denying them an up or down vote.
Republicans = good, because they bravely blocked 62 of Clinton's nominees from destroying the America we know and love.

Or am I wrong?

[Shi Huangdi]

What you have to remember is that the Republicans were the majority party in the Senate. If they were being blocked in committee because they did not realalistically stand a chance of being approved by the Senate, then that's fine. Blocking unfavorable bills and motions in committee is a regular practice done by both parties.

Is this an abuse of majority power? Possibly. But the party that the people gave a majority to through elections controlling the business of the Congress is not anywhere near as big a problem of a minority having an unconditional right to block whatever it feels like.

Oh, and I would still like an answer from someone besides Imran, who has shown he has a very consistent position, if they would still treasure the filibuster as much in the context of the scenario I posted earlier, with the filibuster sucsessfully blocking the Civil Rights Act.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What you have to remember is that the Republicans were the majority party in the Senate. If they were being blocked in committee because they did not realalistically stand a chance of being approved by the Senate, then that's fine.

Bull****. Most of them would have passed in the full Senate, which is why the Republicans used the blue-slip, where one Senator from the state where the court was in could shelve the person in commitee. It was a filibuster of one.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
What you have to remember is that the Republicans were the majority party in the Senate. If they were being blocked in committee because they did not realalistically stand a chance of being approved by the Senate, then that's fine. Blocking unfavorable bills and motions in committee is a regular practice done by both parties.

There are a few problems with this argument as I see it. First, while they may not have been approved in an up or down vote, we don't really know, because they didn't have an up or down vote.. Along the same lines, partyline votes, while increasing of late, are still rather rare. Democrats like Lieberman and Miller (though some may not consider them Democrats) have a history of voting with Republicans. Similarly, there are Republican senators who do not always stick to party line votes.

The second problem concerns the idea of regular practice. Yes, blocking bills is regularly done in committee. However, on a Democratic level, what is the difference between that and the filibuster? Both involve using Senate rules to achieve an undemocratic end. Regardless of whether or not that is a good end, I don't think that you can hold a consistent position if you favor death-through-committee, but oppose the filibuster.

Oh, and I would still like an answer from someone besides Imran, who has shown he has a very consistent position, if they would still treasure the filibuster as much in the context of the scenario I posted earlier, with the filibuster sucsessfully blocking the Civil Rights Act.

Again, two points. First, there has been no mention of legislative filibusters. The nuclear option is solely designed to prevent filibusters of judicial nominees. As such, your example is not really relevent.

Second, where do you draw the line between respect for an institution, and doing the Right Thing? If we say, "here is clearly evil, we are justified in changing the rules," to us we may be doing the Right Thing, but others may disagree. Others may also do the same, and attempt to change the rules so that they could do the Right Thing, which we might oppose. In the particular example, this debate is driven by the Christian Right. They consider abortion to be one of the great evils of our time, and may rank it more important than they would have ranked Civil Rights.

My point is that there is no outside, objective group that can go and draw the line. Therefore, we are presented with only two options: having the rules be always changable, which is to say having no rules; or, respecting the rules, even if we disagree with the positions they put us into. It is for this reason that I will always support the filibuster, even if I may disagree with those who wield it. To answer your question, yes, yes I would, yes.

[Shi Huangdi]

Does the Blue Slip apply to court of Appeals or just District Court? IIRC it applies to district court where the Senior Senator can block a judicial nominee for judges in his home state. I don't think that's quite as bad, since the judicial districts are in that state and the senator is democratically elected from that state. I don't agree with having the Blue Slip, though, since the federal judiciary should be decided by the full congress IMO and shouldn't be subject to one Senator's motion. I would say though the blue slip at least has some democratic justification, unlike filibustering court of appeals justices.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't think that's quite as bad, since the judicial districts are in that state and the senator is democratically elected from that state.

So a filibuster of 1 isn't as bad as a filibuster of 40? I think you are showing your political bias heavily.

(PS, the blue slip also applied to Circuit Court Justices)

edit:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/blueslips.htm

Here is a listing of 2003 blue slips... see where they applied to Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal?

[Ramo]

What you have to remember is that the Republicans were the majority party in the Senate

What you have to remember is that the Democrats (+Jeffords who voted for Daschle as Majority Leader) were in the majority for the first couple years of Bush's term. And while they had that majority, they didn't enforce Hatch's Clinton-era blue slip rule (Hatch changed his mind with the new President). Incidentally, the Dems were in the majority for the first two years of Clinton's terms as well.

Oh, and I would still like an answer from someone besides Imran, who has shown he has a very consistent position, if they would still treasure the filibuster as much in the context of the scenario I posted earlier, with the filibuster sucsessfully blocking the Civil Rights Act.

Every single legislative procedure, whether defending legislative minorities or supporting legislative majorities, can be used for good things and for bad things. The filibuster included.

What I'm wondering is why the simple majority must always get its way in an institution that over-represents less populated states and doesn't even represent DC? It's an absurd contrivance.

Personally, I'd like to axe the Senate altogether and replace it with a PR body (the House staying FPTP).

[Shi Huangdi]

"
The second problem concerns the idea of regular practice. Yes, blocking bills is regularly done in committee. However, on a Democratic level, what is the difference between that and the filibuster? Both involve using Senate rules to achieve an undemocratic end. Regardless of whether or not that is a good end, I don't think that you can hold a consistent position if you favor death-through-committee, but oppose the filibuster."

You need to somebody to control the Agenda of the Congress though, the order in which Congress does business. I don't think the power of committees is quite the same thing as the power of the filibuster though, as majority power, and the privileges of controlling the agenda, is something that is only obtained through the consent of the people by election. The filibuster, OTOH, is something that is there whereby people can stop any bill or nomination they want to in spite of their losing the elections for the Senate majority.

Now, committee power is abused plenty of times, and I do think there is an obligation to give a presiden't nominees an up-or-down vote, which in the past has not been the case, but ought to be the case. But I don't think as bad an abuse because commitee power is something your party needs to be elected into.

[DinoDoc]

I'm glad Ramo slept it off.

[Ramo]

Still hurting... Worst hangover I've ever had.

[Ramo]

Dem Senators outnumber GOP Senators in the number of people they represent. So if you're going to appeal to popular sovereignty, the Dems should control the Senate. And so all these whackjob judicial appointments ought to be killed.

[Shi Huangdi]

"
So a filibuster of 1 isn't as bad as a filibuster of 40? I think you are showing your political bias heavily."

As I said, in the case when the Senator is the democratically elected leader from the State where the nomination is, then no.

"
What I'm wondering is why the simple majority must always get its way in an institution that over-represents less populated states and doesn't even represent DC? It's an absurd contrivance."

In any FPTP system you are not going to have perfect equality between the seats. In Britain the amount of constituents per seat varies greatly by district and Gibraltar doesn't have MPs, but that doesn't mean they allow minorities to block legislation randomly. There might be imperfection in democracy when you have a good reason for doing so, such as preserving State's rights or whatever, but just because you have an imperfectly democratic body doesn't mean you just go an adding more restrictions agaisnt majority rule without good reason for doing so. Requiring a 3/5 majority for passage of a bill or approval of a nomination is an absurdly high threshold.

[Imran Siddiqui]

As I said, in the case when the Senator is the democratically elected leader from the State where the nomination is, then no.

'Then no'?! I'll quote myself again:

I think you are showing your political bias heavily.

You are being a hack. If it was the other way around, you'd be yelling to the rafters that the filibuster is so important.

[Ramo]

In any FPTP system you are not going to have perfect equality between the seats. In Britain the amount of constituents per seat varies greatly by district and Gibraltar doesn't have MPs, but that doesn't mean they allow minorities to block legislation randomly. There might be imperfection in democracy when you have a good reason for doing so, such as preserving State's rights or whatever, but just because you have an imperfectly democratic body doesn't mean you just go an adding more restrictions agaisnt majority rule without good reason for doing so. Requiring a 3/5 majority for passage of a bill or approval of a nomination is an absurdly high threshold.

No, the reason for the Republican over-represenation has absolutely nothing to do with FPTP. It has to do with the retarded rules that treat every state equally regardless of population that made the Senate the states' house rather than the peoples' house. I don't think there should be a states' house. But I don't see why on majoritarian principles, the simple majority must always win in the states' house.

And what makes 3/5 "absurdly high?"

As I said, in the case when the Senator is the democratically elected leader from the State where the nomination is, then no.

These are federal courts, Shi. The people of California didn't vote for Santorum. Why did he have the right to kill a nominee? And under Hatch's rule, either Senator could kill a nominee - so if the states' Senators disagreed, the nominee gets screwed.