The fact that they are even trying to change it speaks volumes to their states of mind and their far reaching intent. It's disgusting.

Hmm, Disgusting..

You aren't going to find very many cases where I agree with BakerStreet. But this is one. The filibuster is perhaps the most idiotic of all parliamentary tactics employed in our Congress. And I'm against it whether my "party" is in charge or not.

The real way to get your point across is speak to voters. So Republicans speak to the majority of voters? Then let's stop the childish games. If the left has a political strategy that speaks to voters, then that will do the job without this garbage.

Least take a deeper look into what is happening here. The dem's want to stop the appointment of rep judges right. . .yes. Now least look at it another way; the rep's did the same thing when the dem's attempted to place left leaning judges in office. What this is going to work up to is a thing called compromise. I pretty much figure most of you remember some of the great compromises that have taken place in our history, specially during the period that lead us into a war between the states.

Basically the dem's want some say into who is going to be put on a spcecific bench, hence, you use what tools are at your disposal. This is what makes our constitution work. So let see what happens over the next three to four months. Also remember nothing is going to happen until the new house and senate are inplace after the first of the year (2005)

Pam

The filibuster forces the majority to listen to and compromise with the minority. I think the filibuster is a good check on tyranny of the majority. Compromise is the lifeblood of our democratic republican form of govenment. If a minority filibuster forces the majority to compromise with the minority then it is a good thing regardless of which party is in the minority at any given time. I would make the same argument if Republicans were in the minority.

I say "disgusting" because, as others pointed out here, this is a tactic that is intended to force compromise, and gives the minority party at least some modicum of a voice in Congress. Think about the alternative - no filibuster. We would have a government that is very close, if not an actual tyranny. I dunno about you guys, but trashing the Constitution to not necessarily create, but enable a tyranny scares the bejesus outta me.

MANDATE MY ASS

" The filibuster forces the majority to listen to and compromise with the minority."

Not in this case. In this case it imposes a discriminatory standard on people proposed for judges. Is this really a nation where people should fear to openly state their religious beliefs because they will be denied the chance to serve?

Goes to show how hypocritical some Liberals really are about civil rights. They are willing to commit religious discrimination to protect their own imposed moral standard. They simply do not want Abortion "rights" re-evaluated, and are using the silliest of means to ensure that it can't be.

You guys have to reject this view of absolute right and wrong. Legalized abortion isn't a constitutional edict, it is judicial interpretation. No judicial decision should be be written in stone like some commandment. If we weren't allowed to rethink moral standards Roe v. Wade wouldn't have had a chance in the first place. Any number of great wrongs, slavery among them, would be eternally sacrosanct if judges decisions were some Imperial edict...

Preventing persons of particular ideology from the bench is a heinous abuse of power, and needs to stop.

Preventing persons of particular ideology from the bench is a heinous abuse of power, and needs to stop.

Of course, ideally ideology shouldn't be of any concern on the bench. If some laws weren't so open to interpretation a judge wouldn't have to interpret them referencing his/her own background.

But as this is about filibustering I can only say it's one of the strangest forms of politics to me; from what it looks like and from what I can think of, in a two {*1} party system it may well be one of the few ways a minority can influence government. In a system that needs several parties combined to create a majority you'll most likely nog need it because 'hot' topics will most likely already have been debated within the majority. Added to that there's a bigger chance for the opposition to persuade one of the majority factors over to their side.

In short: for the american situation I think it's a good health check - as well as pretty annoying for those being filibustered

*1 (or three, four - at least where a single party can be the majority)

The fillibuster used against judicial appointments is unprecedented. It means that the democrats will not allow a vote (they are not voting yea or nay) on several nominees.

and it is their right to do so. But it is wrong.

If they continue with it this term, then you can bet it is going to be used by republicans when the next democrat occupies the white house. And boy wont this blog reflect a 180 in thinking on the part of all.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. At this rate, there will never be another Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

Reply #18 By: Citizen whoman69 - 12/6/2004 1:32:15 PM I'm sure when the Republicans are in the minority again, they will be pushing to return the filibuster. Rules are only there until they are in the majority.

Like SOl said, it is not going to be changed. SO you dont have to worry about them 'changing' it back. But I suspect a lot of fowl cries when the do the same number on a democrat's nominees.

The use of a filibuster to quash a presidential nomination is not new and it is not limited to Democrats. In 1995, Phil Gramm (TX-R) defeated the nomination of Dr. Henry Foster who was President Clinton's Surgeon General nominee. There was also a filibuster against the judicial nomination of Abe Fortas in 1968. In fact, cloture votes have been necessary to end debates on a number of judicial nominations In 2000, Senator Bob Smith (NH-R) openly declared a filibuster against the nomination of Richard Paez to the Ninth Court. Bill Frist (TN-R), current Senate Majority Leader, even voted against cloture that time (meaning he voted to continue filibustering).

Note I said judicial appointments, and you offer me a surgeon general. if you are going to call me incorrect, do so on the facts, not your interpretation of what someone said.  That is number 1.

Number 2, in 95 and 2000, the Republicans were in the majority.  hence it was an up or down, and they lost.  I did not say that no nominee ever lost, I said the use of the filibuster to prevent a vote is unprecedented, and you give me cases where nominees lost?  By a majority vote?  Not the same.

And Finally, Frist vote was political so that he could re-open it when he knew he did not have the 60 votes to stop it.  It IS unprecedented.  i.e, before Daschle and his ilk, it had never been done.

And I am not pretending the republicans are anything.  I clearly stated that if the democrats continue to use it, then it will be used against them in the future.  That is how the game in DC is played.  I offer no moral judgement on it, just a warning of things to come.

Number 2: In order to confirm a nomination, you need a two-thirds vote (so it is not an up/down vote). Both were filibustered. I should know--I worked for Smith at the time. Regardless of whether or not the Frist vote was political, he voted against cloture, which means he aided in the filibustering of the nomination.

You gave both, and I was criticizing the non judicial one.  And as for #2, no, it is a simple majority.  The only time you need 2/3rds is for an impeachment trial and a constitutional amendment.  Please recheck your facts.

And an OBTW, Abe Fortas was eventually sent to a vote.  How many of the 10 were?

I am not condoning or condeming it.  I am merely pointing out that as you sow, so shall you reap.  And woe be to the democrats when the next democrat president gets elected.  That is not a joyful glee, it is just an observation based upon almost 50 years of experience.  I take no pleasure in it other than an after the fact, 'see I told you so'.

In fact we are both wrong--you need 60 votes, not 2/3rd...here's the senate rule:

Sorry Shadow.  I thought you were talking of the vote on a nominee.  yes, I already alluded to the fact you need 60 votes to break a fillibuster (see response #21).  The only other times the senate needs a super majority were for the 2 I stated.

And I appologize for seeming to tell you were completely wrong, but like most people, I was answering in order without going back and revising.  Your first example was not judicial. Your second was.  I accept your second, but it does not change my dim view of the future should this behaviour continue.  That is not a wish.  That is a resignation to reality.