Should the Senate eliminate the filibuster?

[albionmoonlight]

It's something that will come up sooner or later. I'm curious as to what a self-selected sample of the board thinks.

[sachmo71]

No, it's a valid political tool. Silly, but valid.

[ISiddiqui]

No... it prevents the Senate from devolving into the House. The Senate is supposed to be more about consensus than forcing your agenda over the minority.

[Arles]

No, but I do think the use of them on judges is a little silly.

[Klinglerware]

No, but I do think the use of them on judges is a little silly.

But as ISiddiqui states, it encourages consensus. The threat of filibuster (coupled by the fact that the majority party currently does not have the 60 vote super-majority needed to close debate) forces the executive branch to select candidates that aren't too extreme politically and are palitable to both sides...

[Fonzie]

No... it prevents the Senate from devolving into the House. The Senate is supposed to be more about consensus than forcing your agenda over the minority.

Bingo.

Eliminating the filibuster is the worst idea ever. Even worse than the idea for Ishtar.

[SackAttack]

Simple way to solve it, I think. If the Senate is supposed to be about building consensus, require a 2/3 majority in order to pass a bill. Not coincidentally, that's what you need to break a filibuster.

This way, though, you don't have a Senator holding up the normal business of the Senate by doing something silly like reading the Random House Dictionary for 48 hours just because he doesn't like a judicial candidate.

Just my two cents.

[SackAttack]

Dola,

Obviously, I meant require the 2/3 majority in conjunction with eliminating the filibuster.

[cartman]

No, but I do think the use of them on judges is a little silly.

I think it is a perfect use of it on judges. I think the vote on judges should be a super-majority anyway.

My reasoning for this is that being appointed a judge is for life. There is no renewal. The only way to not be a federal judge anymore is by dying, resigning, or being impeached. Impeachments of federal judges, or anyone for that matter, is a rare thing. Once the legislative branch confirms a judge, that's pretty much it for that decision. So there should be a thorough discussion of the nominees, and no sort of railroad process to fast track them in.

[Arles]

I think it is a perfect use of it on judges. I think the vote on judges should be a super-majority anyway.
To me, this is a seperation of powers issue. Allowing the senate to fillabuster judges would be akin to allowing the president to line-item veto every bill. The role of appointing judges was given to the president and it has been done that way for over 100 years. Just now, because there seems to be a bigger divide on certain social/political issues does not mean we should abandon this process because some are afraid of who the other side may nominate and that side may be able to get 50 votes from the senate.

The senate's role is specifically described as "advise and consent". To me, if 51 senators say yes and 49 say no, that's consent.

[cartman]

To me, this is a seperation of powers issue. Allowing the senate to fillabuster judges would be akin to allowing the president to line-item veto every bill. The role of appointing judges was given to the president and it has been done that way for over 100 years. Just now, because there seems to be a bigger divide on certain social/political issues does not mean we should abandon this process because some are afraid of who the other side may nominate and that side may be able to get 50 votes from the senate.

The senate's role is specifically described as "advise and consent". To me, if 51 senators say yes and 49 say no, that's consent.

The president only nominates the candidates, the Senate are the ones who make the appointment.

And I'm all for the line item veto for the President as well. It would elimate these extra riders that get attached to almost every bill that have nothing to do with the actual reason for the bill.

[Arles]

So there should be a thorough discussion of the nominees, and no sort of railroad process to fast track them in.
What about people like Alberto Gonzalez and Janice Rogers Brown who are kept in this process for years with no real basis. If that's the main objection, the put a couple month limit on its use in judicial nominees. I think it's extremely dangerous, though, to start a consistent pattern of not allowing up or down votes on presidential nominees to the federal appeals court. If someone is that much of a "looney" or "danger", it's doubtful they will get 51 votes.

[ISiddiqui]

The senate's role is specifically described as "advise and consent". To me, if 51 senators say yes and 49 say no, that's consent.
Consent is not defined in the Constitution being as 50%+1. Therefore the Senate can have its own rules on what constitutes proper consent.

[Blackadar]

No. It's a valid and extremely important political tool.

[QuikSand]

Interestingly, I am at this very moment listening to the Maryland Senate, and they are amidst a mini-filibuster.

[cartman]

What about people like Alberto Gonzalez and Janice Rogers Brown who are kept in this process for years with no real basis. If that's the main objection, the put a couple month limit on its use in judicial nominees. I think it's extremely dangerous, though, to start a consistent pattern of not allowing up or down votes on presidential nominees to the federal appeals court. If someone is that much of a "looney" or "danger", it's doubtful they will get 51 votes.


I think it would be a strengthening of the seperation of powers, to make it harder for presidential picks to be confirmed. If there were any kind of process to automatically approve judges after a certain period of time, that would give an unhealthy balance, IMO, to the President, who could stack the courts with his unchallenged picks. Again, since the judges are appointed for life, I think the nominees should be ones that both parties agree with, to eliminate as much as possible the taint of political appointment to the bench.

That's why I am for the idea of a super majority vote, since that would require significant amounts of members from both parties to agreee on the nominee.

[SackAttack]

Of course, upon further reflection, if the Republicans tried to nuke the filibuster, couldn't the Democrats just block it...with a filibuster?

[CamEdwards]

I think it would be a strengthening of the seperation of powers, to make it harder for presidential picks to be confirmed. If there were any kind of process to automatically approve judges after a certain period of time, that would give an unhealthy balance, IMO, to the President, who could stack the courts with his unchallenged picks. Again, since the judges are appointed for life, I think the nominees should be ones that both parties agree with, to eliminate as much as possible the taint of political appointment to the bench.

That's why I am for the idea of a super majority vote, since that would require significant amounts of members from both parties to agreee on the nominee.

In this day and age, dont you think that would just lead to more and more recess appointments, taking the Senate out of the process entirely?

[cartman]

In this day and age, dont you think that would just lead to more and more recess appointments, taking the Senate out of the process entirely?

Unfortunately yes. There is so much partisian crap that needs to be fixed, that it never, ever will. I'm for getting rid of the recess appointments as well, for the same reasons I mentioned in my previous post. Anytime one person can appoint someone to a powerful, lifelong post without 3rd party approval is a bit too much for me. Democrat, Republican, independant, or alien overlord, it doesn't matter.

[albionmoonlight]

Of course, upon further reflection, if the Republicans tried to nuke the filibuster, couldn't the Democrats just block it...with a filibuster?
I'm a bit hazy on this, but from what I heard on the radio, the way it would work would be for the Vice President, acting as President of the Senate, to declare that he interperts the filibuster rule to mean you only need a simple majority (he would probably limit this interpretation to judicial nominees in order to make it seem more palatable). Then, his interpretation of the Senate rules can go to the Senate for a vote, and a simple majority adopts that interpretation.

Even though that interpretation of the filibuster rule would be "wrong" to an objective observer, at the end of the day, the Senate rules mean what the Senate says they do, not what an objective observer says they do.

And, though it is certainly not clear, I think that separations of powers concerns would prevent the Supreme Court or the Executive Branch from disturbing that judgment.

In short, the Senate could do this as long as the Vice President and a majority of Senators agree to it.

[SackAttack]

I'm a bit hazy on this, but from what I heard on the radio, the way it would work would be for the Vice President, acting as President of the Senate, to declare that he interperts the filibuster rule to mean you only need a simple majority (he would probably limit this interpretation to judicial nominees in order to make it seem more palatable). Then, his interpretation of the Senate rules can go to the Senate for a vote, and a simple majority adopts that interpretation.

This is where I'm fuzzy, though. If a filibuster currently requires 2/3+1 to break, and he interprets it differently, and they have to vote to approve that interpretation, couldn't a fillibuster still kill the effort to kill the filibuster?

[SackAttack]

Dola,

especially if he limits it to only being used for judicial nominees?

[JPhillips]

You are correct. One of the oddities here is that the rule can be changed with a simple majority.

I would be against the filibuster if there were any other remaining methods for the minority party to oppose nominations. The "blu slip" has been abolished by the Republicans and now they want a system where the Democrats have zero say in lifetime judicial appointments. Right now Dems in the senate represent more people than do Repubs, so shouldn't they have some say?

This is really a fight about very little in the end. Only ten of over two hundred judges have been blocked. While its hard for me to believe these ten are far more conservative than the others, I also don't understand why Repubs are bitter about a 95%+ success rate in judicial appointments.

[SackAttack]

You are correct. One of the oddities here is that the rule can be changed with a simple majority.

Okay, but it's still subject to a fillibuster, isn't it? That's the part I'm not getting. If the Democrats can still fillibuster, and the filibuster requires a supermajority to break until the rule is changed, couldn't they effectively forestall the rule change?

[Solecismic]

We've had judges appointed for decades with the filibuster rules in place. Senators realize that the tactic is limited in its use, and they risk backlash if they do it either too often or on issues that require resolution (let's say, funding for the war).

I don't much like it, but I like even less the reasons right now for getting rid of it.

[Arles]

I think it would be a strengthening of the seperation of powers, to make it harder for presidential picks to be confirmed. If there were any kind of process to automatically approve judges after a certain period of time, that would give an unhealthy balance, IMO, to the President, who could stack the courts with his unchallenged picks.
But this isn't the case. In order to get his picks through, he needs a majority vote in the senate. And with the number of moderates on both sides, it's doubtful he would get that for any kook he nominates. The "process" for the as long as I can remember is that there is an up-or-down vote by the senate for appeals court nominees. It was done that way for Carter, Reagan, Bush I and Clinton - even when the democrats had the presidency and most of congress (late 70s and early 90s). Just recently it was changed to essentially require 61 votes to get a federal appeals court nominee through - which abuses this role of "consent", IMO.

Again, since the judges are appointed for life, I think the nominees should be ones that both parties agree with, to eliminate as much as possible the taint of political appointment to the bench.
To me, requiring 61 votes to get a presidential nominee through means you let the partisans decide who gets through. It's much easier for a "liberal" or "conservative" fringe group of 39 senators to block reasonable candidates in this case. Do you honestly think that a democratic president would have a stone's throw chance in hell of getting anyone through this congress in 2008 (if he wins)? Requiring 61 votes basically takes the role of appointing judges from the president and hands it to the senate.

And, remember, it's not like people were "debating" the qualifications of Alberto Gonzalez for two years. The debate was for a couple months, then they simply refused to allow a vote for the next 20 months. That is directly opposed to the spirit of a filibuster - which is to encourage more debate to figure out the reason for the existing differences. The problem here was that the left did not want Bush to have a conservative-minded judge who is a minority and would be a good choice for the Supreme Court at some point - all because there was a *chance* he might relook at Roe V. Wade on a federal level if it ever came back to the Supreme Court.

That's why I am for the idea of a super majority vote, since that would require significant amounts of members from both parties to agreee on the nominee.
But that is not how our constitution works, nor is it the principles our representitative republic is based on.

[QuikSand]

Okay, but it's still subject to a fillibuster, isn't it? That's the part I'm not getting. If the Democrats can still fillibuster, and the filibuster requires a supermajority to break until the rule is changed, couldn't they effectively forestall the rule change?

At one point, I used to be quite facile with parliamentary procedure. Here's what I think is the answer to this well-placed question.

If the presiding officer makes a declaration (like the V.P. declaring a new interpetation of the cloture rule), the body may entertain a motion to "appeal the decision of the chair." The question then becomes "shall the decision of the chair stand?" and it requires a majority in the negative to, effectively, overturn the original decision.

The catch here is that the "appeal the decision of the chair" motion is itself non-debatable. Therefore, procedurally, nobody else may actualy gain the floor while that is the question. Since a filibuster essentially involves ongoing debate due to the lack of votes needed to cut off debate (cloture), a necessary precondition to a filibuster is that there actually is debate in the first place. In standard parliamentary procedure, there are a number of non-debatable motions -- when they are entertained, they go immediately to a vote. The cloture motion itself is such a motion, and so (I believe) is the motion to "appeal the decision of the chair." (It may have another technical term in the U.S. Senate, but the motion would amount to the same thing)

So - how can you eliminate the filibuster without overcoming a filibuster? Find a parliamentary trick that eliminates any opportunity for debate on the essential motion, therefore there's no debate to close. I think they have done so this way.

[cartman]

But this isn't the case. In order to get his picks through, he needs a majority vote in the senate. And with the number of moderates on both sides, it's doubtful he would get that for any kook he nominates. The "process" for the as long as I can remember is that there is an up-or-down vote by the senate for appeals court nominees. It was done that way for Carter, Reagan, Bush I and Clinton - even when the democrats had the presidency and most of congress (late 70s and early 90s). Just recently it was changed to essentially require 61 votes to get a federal appeals court nominee through - which abuses this role of "consent", IMO.


To me, requiring 61 votes to get a presidential nominee through means you let the partisans decide who gets through. It's much easier for a "liberal" or "conservative" fringe group of 39 senators to block reasonable candidates in this case. Do you honestly think that a democratic president would have a stone's throw chance in hell of getting anyone through this congress in 2008 (if he wins)? Requiring 61 votes basically takes the role of appointing judges from the president and hands it to the senate.

And, remember, it's not like people were "debating" the qualifications of Alberto Gonzalez for two years. The debate was for a couple months, then they simply refused to allow a vote for the next 20 months. That is directly opposed to the spirit of a filibuster - which is to encourage more debate to figure out the reason for the existing differences. The problem here was that the left did not want Bush to have a conservative-minded judge who is a minority and would be a good choice for the Supreme Court at some point - all because there was a *chance* he might relook at Roe V. Wade on a federal level if it ever came back to the Supreme Court.


But that is not how our constitution works, nor is it the principles our representitative republic is based on.

As it has been already mentioned, 95%+ of the nominees have been approved. So there has to be SOMETHING there that gives pause to that 5% or percent of the nominees.

As for the supermajority not being in the constituion, check it again. It is definitely mentioned several times for various actions by Congress. To say that a supermajority is against the principles we are based on is just plain wrong.

[Barkeep49]

Quik hits the nail on the head on how the so called nuclear option would work, but it should be noted that the chair can only make rulings on certain issues after being asked. One such issue is the Constitutionality of a rule so the first part of it would be some senator (most likely Frist as majority leader) getting up to ask for the chair to make a decision. This then starts the process Quik described.

[SackAttack]

At one point, I used to be quite facile with parliamentary procedure. Here's what I think is the answer to this well-placed question.

If the presiding officer makes a declaration (like the V.P. declaring a new interpetation of the cloture rule), the body may entertain a motion to "appeal the decision of the chair." The question then becomes "shall the decision of the chair stand?" and it requires a majority in the negative to, effectively, overturn the original decision.

The catch here is that the "appeal the decision of the chair" motion is itself non-debatable. Therefore, procedurally, nobody else may actualy gain the floor while that is the question. Since a filibuster essentially involves ongoing debate due to the lack of votes needed to cut off debate (cloture), a necessary precondition to a filibuster is that there actually is debate in the first place. In standard parliamentary procedure, there are a number of non-debatable motions -- when they are entertained, they go immediately to a vote. The cloture motion itself is such a motion, and so (I believe) is the motion to "appeal the decision of the chair." (It may have another technical term in the U.S. Senate, but the motion would amount to the same thing)

So - how can you eliminate the filibuster without overcoming a filibuster? Find a parliamentary trick that eliminates any opportunity for debate on the essential motion, therefore there's no debate to close. I think they have done so this way.

Thanks for the explanation. I'd been racking my brains since the possibility of the "nuclear option" was first broached, trying to figure out how it would be possible.

Still don't think they should do it, but at least now I have a sense for how they can.

[albionmoonlight]

But this isn't the case. In order to get his picks through, he needs a majority vote in the senate. And with the number of moderates on both sides, it's doubtful he would get that for any kook he nominates. The "process" for the as long as I can remember is that there is an up-or-down vote by the senate for appeals court nominees. It was done that way for Carter, Reagan, Bush I and Clinton - even when the democrats had the presidency and most of congress (late 70s and early 90s). Just recently it was changed to essentially require 61 votes to get a federal appeals court nominee through - which abuses this role of "consent", IMO.

Just to correct a couple of factual misconceptions. First, the process has never been an up-or-down vote by the senate for judicial nominees. The Blue Slip policy was actively used by the minority to keep the most objectionable nominees from ever reaching floor debate. The reason you never heard about this was because the majority never made a media issue out of it. (For example, have you ever heard of Elizabeth Gibson? She was my (very good) law school professor who was appointed by President Clinton for a 4th Circuit seat. She never got an up-down vote because Senator Helms did not want to approve any Clinton appointees. That's a minority of one who was able to block the president's nominee, if you want to talk about things that seem unfair on their face.) Now, the Blue Slip is now gone, and the minority needs to look at other avenues to have its voice heard.

Also, as someone has noted, over 95%+ of the president's judicial nominees have been approved by the Senate. And President Bush had more judicial appointments go through in his first term than did Clinton, Regan, or Bush I in their first terms. To argue that "just recently" it has become more difficult for the president to get his judicial nominees through is simply incorrect as a factual matter. It has actually been easier for Bush than for any president in the last quarter century.

Of course, even if you beleive that Bush has somehow gotten a raw deal on his nominees, the real question is whether correcting that raw deal is worth getting rid of the filibuster.

[QuikSand]

And what, pray tell, brought about the demise of the informal "blue slip" policy?

[albionmoonlight]

And what, pray tell, brought about the demise of the informal "blue slip" policy?
The short answer is that the same party got in control of the Senate and White House and wanted to eliminate avenues of dissent.

I tried and tried to find a non-partisan cite for this, but then remembered that I was looking on the internet. Here is a cite for what it is worth.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/wp-print.php?p=440

[QuikSand]

Oh, I see. What do you know?

[albionmoonlight]

FWIW, I do not find abusing parlimentary rules to be anymore the province of Republicans than Democrats. In the current political climate, I beleive that a Democratic White House and Congress would be abusing the system just as badly.

[QuikSand]

Well, for what it's worth -- amidst the current hubbub about judicial filibusters, understand that most of the "statistics" being tossed around about judicial nominees being approved over the years manages to ignore the fact that the elimination of the blue slip process (for better or for worse) has really changed the rules of the game. Today's nomination process is awfully diffrent from that of just a few years ago, and perhaps any time in the country's history.

[ISiddiqui]

The short answer is that the same party got in control of the Senate and White House and wanted to eliminate avenues of dissent.

I tried and tried to find a non-partisan cite for this, but then remembered that I was looking on the internet. Here is a cite for what it is worth.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/wp-print.php?p=440
Yep. I find the Republican 'outrage' over filibustering of judicial nominees to be quite hypocrtical since they used the Blue Slip rules throughout the entire Clinton Presidency where one ONE Senator could block a judge from going out of committee. The Republicans gained control of the Presidency and Senate and decided to eliminate the Blue Slip... at least until they still had control. If Kerry won, I'd bet the Blue Slip would have returned this Congress.

It's shameful really.

[BrianD]

I don't think a fillibuster should be used to prevent a vote. I'm fine with making the number of votes needed to approve a judge be higher than just a simple majority, but I do think that a vote needs to be taken. Our government seems to waste enough time as it is.

[QuikSand]

I don't think a fillibuster should be used to prevent a vote.

psssssst!

that's what a filibuster is

[JPhillips]

A little more on the blue slip rule.

For years the procedure was that it would take both senators from any state to block a judicial nomination. That way a circuit in a predominatntly liberal or conservative area could not be loaded with judges of a different ideology than the majority of that state's voters.

First, during the Clinton years, the Rebups altered the rule so that a single senator could block a nomination. Hence, Helms could stop all nominations of judges from South Carolina.

When the Dems regained control of the Senate the Rebups pushed for and got a return to the two blue slip requirement. This way no single Dem could block a nominee of Bush.

Finally, when the Repubs regained control in 2002 they eliminated the blue slip rule entirely. That left the Dems with no choice but to envoke the threat of filibuster to block a nomination.

As QS said, the changing of the blue slip rule has fundamentally changed the process.

[BrianD]

psssssst!

that's what a filibuster is


Oops, I meant that I don't think a filibuster should be used to prevent a vote on judges. Judges are a rather important part in our legal process. They should be voted up or down and we should move on to the next topic at hand. We should certainly have all of the debate that we need, but preventing a vote on a judge shouldn't be done.

[Arles]

As it has been already mentioned, 95%+ of the nominees have been approved. So there has to be SOMETHING there that gives pause to that 5% or percent of the nominees.

As for the supermajority not being in the constituion, check it again.
So why hasn't a supermajority ever been required for the approval of judges prior to 2000?

[Arles]

Just to correct a couple of factual misconceptions. First, the process has never been an up-or-down vote by the senate for judicial nominees. The Blue Slip policy was actively used by the minority to keep the most objectionable nominees from ever reaching floor debate.
But the blue slip policy was in regards to senators from the state of that nominee. it has also been modified numerous times throughout history. In any case, this rule would not apply here.

Also, as someone has noted, over 95%+ of the president's judicial nominees have been approved by the Senate.
This is a little misleading. This 95% number counts all the confirmations. The number approved for the Federal appeals court is significantly lower.

And President Bush had more judicial appointments go through in his first term than did Clinton, Regan, or Bush I in their first terms.
He also had more opening and most of the ferver has been regarding the Fed Appeals court group - arguably the most influential.

To argue that "just recently" it has become more difficult for the president to get his judicial nominees through is simply incorrect as a factual matter. It has actually been easier for Bush than for any president in the last quarter century.
No, what used to happen was that a vote would not occur if:

A) the nominee had less than 50 votes in the senate
B) One of the nominee's two state senators did not approve of him/her

Neither of these will stop Bush's nominees, so the senate had to begin the judicial filibuster process to prevent his judges to get through that have 54-55 senate votes.

Of course, even if you beleive that Bush has somehow gotten a raw deal on his nominees, the real question is whether correcting that raw deal is worth getting rid of the filibuster.
It's been senate policy not to use to filibuster for judicial nominees for decades. It's only been implemented because the minority had no other way to try and stop judges that had the required 50 votes of support.

[Arles]

Finally, when the Repubs regained control in 2002 they eliminated the blue slip rule entirely. That left the Dems with no choice but to envoke the threat of filibuster to block a nomination.
So, why do they continue to filibuster nominees that have support from both their state senators? I mean, if this was only meant to be used in the stead of the "blue slip", why is it being used across the board?

In essence, you are saying that because the minority could no longer dispute the nomination of judges from states where both senators did not agree on it, they decided to filibuster judges from all states including those with two senators that DID agree with the choice. Makes sense :rolleyes:

[Arles]

Triple dola, It's also been a longstanding tradition for the party in power of congress to make slight chances to the senate rules. The dems did it in the early 80s and the reps in the 90s. I can't, however, think of one case before this where the minority changed the rules though.

[cartman]

So why hasn't a supermajority ever been required for the approval of judges prior to 2000?

It's not required now, but it would be a change to the constitution that I would strongly support.

I like how you throw aside parts of your arguement that are proven wrong, and try to twist other statements around.

What is happening is that the current group of Republicans are turning their backs on the ideals of the 1992 era Republicans that won control of Congress. They swore they would not use the same tactics that the Democrats used to hold control over how Capitol Hill was run. Instead, they've embraced those very same measures, and are trying to eliminate the very tools they used as a minority to get their voices heard.

[Arles]

What is happening is that the current group of Republicans are turning their backs on the ideals of the 1992 era Republicans that won control of Congress. They swore they would not use the same tactics that the Democrats used to hold control over how Capitol Hill was run. Instead, they've embraced those very same measures, and are trying to eliminate the very tools they used as a minority to get their voices heard.
Interesting reply, but no mention here of why democrats are using the judicial filibuster on nominees not included in the normal blue-slip process though...

[JPhillips]

Arles: If the blue slip rule is reimplemented I will fully support an end to filibustering of any judge. While the Dems may not be 100% correct, it remains the only avenue for the minority party to be heard.

Remember also, currently Dem senators represent more people than Repub senators. Shouldn't they have a voice in the process?

[digamma]

So, why do they continue to filibuster nominees that have support from both their state senators? I mean, if this was only meant to be used in the stead of the "blue slip", why is it being used across the board?

Republicans would never use delaying or other tactics to avoid an up or down vote on a judicial nominee (even when both Senators from the home state of the nominee support him/her).

Signed,

Roger Gregory

[Arles]

Arles: If the blue slip rule is reimplemented I will fully support an end to filibustering of any judge. While the Dems may not be 100% correct, it remains the only avenue for the minority party to be heard.
Then the democrats should regain the majority in the Senate and change the rules to re-allow the blue slip process.

Remember also, currently Dem senators represent more people than Repub senators. Shouldn't they have a voice in the process?
I think you are switching the role of the House and the Senate. In the Senate, all states are equal by design.

[digamma]

FWIW, I do not find abusing parlimentary rules to be anymore the province of Republicans than Democrats. In the current political climate, I beleive that a Democratic White House and Congress would be abusing the system just as badly.
Completely agree.

I was thinking about this on my drive to work this morning, albeit in a different context. I feel like we've gotten to the point where we're watching a football game and the fans on each side are not just cheering for a win, but rather to run up the score to the nth degree.

[Arles]

Republicans would never use delaying or other tactics to avoid an up or down vote on a judicial nominee (even when both Senators from the home state of the nominee support him/her).

Signed,

Roger Gregory
Gregory was originally blocked under some technicality in the blue slip system towards the end of Clinton's term (never made it out of committee because it was stated Clinton never talked with both senators of his state) . Clinton then used a recess appointment on him. Then, when Bush became president, he renominated Gregory for the 4th circuit and he passed through fairly easily. Hardly an example of republicans being unreasonable.

In a wierd twist of irony, his case was a major reason why many democrats wanted the blue-slip process elimintated.

[st.cronin]

I seriously doubt this will go 'nuclear.' The ramifications are too severe. Smart republicans will realize that someday *they* will be the minority party.

[Arles]

FWIW, I do not find abusing parlimentary rules to be anymore the province of Republicans than Democrats. In the current political climate, I beleive that a Democratic White House and Congress would be abusing the system just as badly.
I wouldn't have one problem if the Democrats regained the majority in the senate and re-instituted the blue-slip policy. I also wouldn't be in favor of republicans using a judicial filibuster in the event they lose the senate.

My concern is the separation of powers in our system. IMO, that means that if a appeals court nominee passes senate rules judgement, gets through committee and gets a majority of the vote, he should be confirmed. Be it if the president/party in power is a republican or a democrat.

The moment we start feeling the "other side" is so dangerous that we need to change the role of the president to protect certain interest groups is the moment that we start losing our system. And I don't doubt for one minute that if this current judicial filibuster method is continued under Bush, the right will use the same avenue on judges named by a democrat if the roles get reversed. And that would also be unfortumate.

It's better for both sides to agree that this method isn't valid for the judicial confirmation process and refrain from using it than either being forced to "go nuclear".

[sterlingice]

Unfortunately yes. There is so much partisian crap that needs to be fixed, that it never, ever will. I'm for getting rid of the recess appointments as well, for the same reasons I mentioned in my previous post. Anytime one person can appoint someone to a powerful, lifelong post without 3rd party approval is a bit too much for me. Democrat, Republican, independant, or alien overlord, it doesn't matter.
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos"

SI

[sterlingice]

Bingo.

Eliminating the filibuster is the worst idea ever. Even worse than the idea for Ishtar. http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

SI

[RendeR]

The moment we start feeling the "other side" is so dangerous that we need to change the role of the president to protect certain interest groups is the moment that we start losing our system.


But you also have to consider that for the first time in a very long time, this nation is under the utter control of one party. They have enough of a majority everywhere to literally railroad this nation into a condition it may never recover from.

If we eliminate the only avenue left for the other side to get their opinions out in the open, then we've already lost "our system" and we might as well nuke washington and start over.

seriously...anyone got a russian nuke???

[SackAttack]

But you also have to consider that for the first time in a very long time, this nation is under the utter control of one party. They have enough of a majority everywhere to literally railroad this nation into a condition it may never recover from.

1976 wasn't all THAT long ago, and we seem to have come through the Democrats' stranglehold on Congress just fine. I think this is just so much fearmongering bluster coming from Democratic leadership, frankly.

[Arles]

But you also have to consider that for the first time in a very long time, this nation is under the utter control of one party. They have enough of a majority everywhere to literally railroad this nation into a condition it may never recover from.
And if that power is abused, the situation will reverse very quickly. I doubt a few appeals court judges are "irreversable" in the grand scheme of things.

If we eliminate the only avenue left for the other side to get their opinions out in the open, then we've already lost "our system" and we might as well nuke washington and start over.
Here's another avenue - Get more senators in the minority party ;)

Let's say that republicans pick up enough senators to stop the judicial filibuster - what then? The people are in charge of voting their representatives and if enough people feel that republicans should control the house, senate and presidency, then so be it. It was the other way a few decades back.

There are enough rules to allow the minority to block legislation and require careful vetting of judicial nominees. But, if people really have a problem with the judges/laws passed by this group, then vote them out. But to not allow them to do what has normally been the case for decades seems a little short-sighted.

[digamma]

Gregory was originally blocked under some technicality in the blue slip system towards the end of Clinton's term (never made it out of committee because it was stated Clinton never talked with both senators of his state) . Clinton then used a recess appointment on him. Then, when Bush became president, he renominated Gregory for the 4th circuit and he passed through fairly easily. Hardly an example of republicans being unreasonable.

In a wierd twist of irony, his case was a major reason why many democrats wanted the blue-slip process elimintated.
I guess it depends on who you believe. That was Orrin Hatch's publicly stated reason for never giving Gregory an up or down vote, but John Warner the Republican from Virginia was on record as calling Gregory an excellent nominee (or something like that). Chuck Robb, the other Virginia senator, was Gregory's sponsor. As you define it, Hatch had no stake in the blue slip process for Gregory (as he was not from Virginia), just as Leahy (or whichever Dem you want to blame) has no stake in the appointment of nominees in question today.

[larrymcg421]

If 41 Senators think a judicial nominee would be very dangerous for the country, then they should do everything in their power to stop that nominee. Whether that be filibuster, blue slip or anything else.

It's extremely naive to expect Senators of either party to allow a nominee that goes against everything they believe in sail through just so they can be honorable by not using a filibuster. In the end, no one will care that the Senator was honorable and that judge will be on the court for life.

The majority party is always gonna try to tear down roadblocks into getting their measures passed and the minority party is always gonna try to enact stronger roadblocks. It doesn't matter what specific method is used and it doesn't matter which party is in control.