GOP set to push nuclear button on Judges

[Bubba Wheels]

Dawgfan, this headline ok? Don't want to give anybody 'unnecessary jitters' or anything. ;) Fox news reporting that GOP will go ahead with changing the filibuster rules tomorrow at 9am if I heard correctly. Democratic response by Reid was if that happens, Dems will 'shut down congress." Anybody care?

[Easy Mac]

Strom Thurmond would be proud.

[rkmsuf]

no

[gstelmack]

Yes. Shutting down Congress is what the public has been asking for for a LONG time. I might even vote Democrat in the next election if they promise to sit around and do nothing for 4 years ;)

[DaddyTorgo]

personally I guess I'm looking forward to this. The republicans did it during the Newt years, and if the Dems can do it and can get public opinion on their side (which IMO they ought to be able to do...or at least the opinion of the educated people who realize that the filibuster is a time-honored and important part of the American political landscape), then it could prove very harmful to the Republicans. Not to mention the fact that it increases the enmity between the sides in Congress, which honestly is always a little bit amusing to watch.

[Galaxy]

What exactly is filibuster?

[Arles]

I think most people that can be swayed will just roll their eyes at both sides on this. Count me as one enjoying the government shutdown and seeing how all this plays out.

[Bubba Wheels]

Oops...off to spelling police jail I go again...

[RainRaven]

Eh.. Republicans whining about the same thing that they pull when it's a democrat as president and a democrat controlled congress. I hope the public demands that the republicans step down and shut up.

[flere-imsaho]

What exactly is filibuster?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-37,GGLD:en&oi=defmore&q=define:Filibuster

I think it's outrageously short-sighted by the Republicans. Should the Democrats ever regain the Senate, the Republicans will just have shot themselves in the foot.

[HomerJSimpson]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-37,GGLD:en&oi=defmore&q=define:Filibuster

I think it's outrageously short-sighted by the Republicans. Should the Democrats ever regain the Senate, the Republicans will just have shot themselves in the foot.


Much of what the Republicans have done in the last few years have "shot themselves in the foot" once they are out of power. I really don't think they believe they ever will be.

[digamma]

Fox news reporting that GOP will go ahead with changing the filibuster rules tomorrow at 9am if I heard correctly. Democratic response by Reid was if that happens, Dems will 'shut down congress." Anybody care?
As I understand it, debate on one of the judges up for confirmation will begin tomorrow. If they are not able to get an up or down vote by early next week, then the Republicans would move forward with the rule changes.

[stevew]

I think its pretty lame you cant get an up or down vote on a judicial appointment. But I also think the whole "tyranny of the majority" bullshit is gonna eff the republicans hard some day, and a lot sooner than people think.

[amdaily]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-37,GGLD:en&oi=defmore&q=define:Filibuster

I think it's outrageously short-sighted by the Republicans. Should the Democrats ever regain the Senate, the Republicans will just have shot themselves in the foot.
As if they wouldn't do it anyways :rolleyes:

[judicial clerk]

ON VASQUEZ wired and intense.

VASQUEZSen. Nelson D-Neb
All right, we can't blow the fuck
out of them...why not roll some
canisters of CN-20 down there.
Nerve gas the whole nest ?

HUDSONSen. Kerry D-Mass
Look, man, let's just bug out and
call it even, okay?

RIPLEYSen. Clinton D-NY
(to Vasquez)
No good. How do we know it'll
effect their biochemistry? I say
we take off and nuke the entire
site from orbit. It's the only
way to be sure.

BURKEHoward Dean
Now hold on a second. I'm not
authorizing that action.

RIPLEY
Why not?

Burke senses the challenge in her tone and backpedals
flawlessly into conciliatory mode.

BURKE
Well, I mean...I know this is an
emotional moment, but let's not
make snap judgments. Let's move
cautiously. First, this physical
installation had a substantial
dollar value attached to it --

RIPLEY
They can bill me. I got a tab
running. What's second?

BURKE
This is clearly an important
species we're dealing with here.
We can't just arbitrarily
exterminate them --

RIPLEY
Bullshit!

VASQUEZ
Yeah, bullshit. Watch us.

HUDSON
Maybe you haven't been keeping up
on current events, but we just got
out asses kicked, pal!

Ripley faces Burke squarely and she's not pleased.

RIPLEY
Look, Burke. We had an agreement.

Burke moves in, lowering his voice. He takes her aside
from the others.

BURKE
I know, I know, but we're dealing
with changing scenarios here. This
thing is major, Ripley. I mean
really major. You gotta go with
its energy. Since you are the
representative of the company who
discovered this species your
percentage will naturally be
some serious, serious money.

Ripley stares at his like he's a particularly
disagreeable fungus.

RIPLEY
You son of a bitch.

BURKE
(hardening)
Don't make me pull rank, Ripley.

RIPLEY
What rank? I believe Corporal Hicks
has authority here.

BURKE
Corporal Hicks!?

RIPLEY
This operation is under military
jurisdiction and Hicks is next in
chain of command. Right?

HICKSSen. Reid D-Nev
Looks that way.

Burke starts to lose it and it's not a pretty sight.

BURKE
Look, this is a multimillion
dollar operation. He can't make
that kind of decision. He's just
a grunt!
(glances at Hicks)
No offense.

HICKS
(coolly)
None taken.
(into mike)
Ferro, you copying?

FERRO
(voice over; static)
Standing by.

HICKS
Prep for dust-off. We're gonna
need an immediate evac.
(to Burke)
I think we'll take off and nuke
the site from orbit. It's the
only way to be sure.

He winks. Burke looks like a kid whose toy has been
snatched.

Its funny when you read it as if the aliens are republicans and the marines are democrates. Make Hudson be John kerry

[JPhillips]

The Repubs may yet win, but if they haven't forced a vote yet its because they aren't sure they have the votes. If they could have won they would have done this weeks ago.

[QuikSand]

Honestly, I think those who are forecasting "doom and gloom" for the GOP on this are overestimating the public's ability to understand this. I think the GOP strategists are absolutely correct when they suspect that the phrase "up or down vote" will, as usual, hold more water with Jonh and Jane Purplestate than will the 200-word response they hear from John Kerry or Harry Reid about the sanctity of the minority voice and the tyranny of the majority.

I think this eventually plays well for the Republicans... but betting on them on battles of ideology has been a safe bet for some time now. Just look how many blue collar types say they support getting rid of the "death tax."

[digamma]

Honestly, I think those who are forecasting "doom and gloom" for the GOP on this are overestimating the public's ability to understand this. I think the GOP strategists are absolutely correct when they suspect that the phrase "up or down vote" will, as usual, hold more water with Jonh and Jane Purplestate than will the 200-word response they hear from John Kerry or Harry Reid about the sanctity of the minority voice and the tyranny of the majority.

It's funny because it's true.

[dawgfan]

More like "It's sad and disturbing because it's true"...

[Schmidty]

Eh.. Republicans whining about the same thing that they pull when it's a democrat as president and a democrat controlled congress. I hope the public demands that the republicans step down and shut up.

You could exchange the word "Republican" with "Democrat" and you'd still sound like a moron. Party-liners will be the fall of democracy. Mark my words.

[Whar]

"Extremist power grab" is as short as "up or down vote". Fear always plays better than principle, Republicans have taught us that at least. The Republicans were spectacularly wrong regarding the public's reaction over the Schiavo case and the Nuclear option is even less popular. For me this is a win-win ... the extremist elements of the Republican party will look foolish and the Senate grinds to a halt.

[Glengoyne]

Those saying that the Republicans are doing the "same thing" are wrong. Yes the Republicans have done everything they could historically to prevent Democratic Nominees from being approved. Often not even because of differences in ideology. Often just because the nominee was a Democrat. This was pretty much a two way street. The Dems have historically done the same. Previously the minority party could bounce a nominee automatically just by having a Senator hold office in the Judge's home state. Almost all of of the stifling of nominees was done in the committee process, not once the nomination was brought up for a vote before the whole Senate.

The difference now is that the Dems are doing something relatively unprecedented. As I understand it prior to 2000, the number of times either party had filibustered or even planned to filibuster can be counted on one hand, possibly with an additional finger or two on the second hand.

I don't see this as tyrrany of the majority, I see the Dems selecting a few judges that they claim are "out of the mainstream" of America. I really haven't seen any evidence of this. At least not evidence that has stood up to minor scrutiny. The female Judge from Texas, her name escapes me, has been held out as an opponent to abortion rights. The record is that the only times she has opposed "abortion" was in rulings upholding the law requiring minors needed parental consent before the procedure. She didn't even always find against the minor seeking an abortion. If the Democratic leadership thinks that the "American Mainstream" doesn't think minors should have parental permission before having an abortion, then I think they are doomed for the near future.

It boils down to the Democrats disagreeing not with the competency of a nominee, but with the nominee's politics. I don't think that is a reasonable litmus test for a judge. I felt the same way when the Republicans were stifling Clinton's choices. I said that it would come back and bite them, of course when I said that, I thought it would be when the Dems won back the Senate.

[Glengoyne]

Dola,

...The Republicans were spectacularly wrong regarding the public's reaction over the Schiavo case and the Nuclear option is even less popular. .... I don't think the Nuclear option is less popular than the Schiavo case. In the Schiavo case there was almost NO support in public opinion. I believe the Republicans are on much sounder ground here, if only because of the reasons mentioned by QS.

[Glengoyne]

double dola,

Oh and QS I hate the "death tax"...I have no chance to inherit a million dollars from someone, but I'm seriously opposed to applying taxes on money that has already been taxed and then saved. The Government doesn't have any right to that money, it already got its share.

[Daimyo]

. . . public opinion . . . the opinion of the educated people . . .

Unfortunately those seem too be two completely disparate things right now with the latter pretty much outnumbered.

[digamma]

The difference now is that the Dems are doing something relatively unprecedented. As I understand it prior to 2000, the number of times either party had filibustered or even planned to filibuster can be counted on one hand, possibly with an additional finger or two on the second hand.


But, Glen, why are they doing something unprecedented? Could it be because other avenues previously used to defeat appointments have been taken awayfrom them?

Sure the spoils may go to the victor, but in a sense, isn't that exactly what the concept of preventing the tyranny of the majority is all about?

[digamma]

More like "It's sad and disturbing because it's true"...
Fair enough, but I was just trying to quote the Simpson's.

[Radii]

Any reports of this on the net anywhere? It's not on the main CNN/Fox sites at the moment.

[JPhillips]

From an article by American Enterprise Institute fellow Norman Ornstein:

Let us put aside for now the puerile arguments over whether judicial filibusters are unprecedented: They clearly, flatly, are not. Instead, let's look at the means used to achieve the goal of altering Senate procedures to block filibusters on judicial nominations.
Without getting into the parliamentary minutiae--the options are dizzying, including whether points of order are "nested"--one reality is clear. To get to a point where the Senate decides by majority that judicial filibusters are dilatory and/or unconstitutional, the Senate will have to do something it has never done before.

Richard Beth of the Congressional Research Service, in a detailed report on the options for changing Senate procedures, refers to it with typical understatement as "an extraordinary proceeding at variance with established procedure."

To make this happen, the Senate will have to get around the clear rules and precedents, set and regularly reaffirmed over 200 years, that allow debate on questions of constitutional interpretation--debate which itself can be filibustered. It will have to do this in a peremptory fashion, ignoring or overruling the Parliamentarian. And it will establish, beyond question, a new precedent. Namely, that whatever the Senate rules say -- regardless of the view held since the Senate's beginnings that it is a continuing body with continuing rules and precedents -- they can be ignored or reversed at any given moment on the whim of the current majority.

There have been times in the past when Senate leaders and presidents have been frustrated by inaction in the Senate and have contemplated action like this. Each time, the leaders and presidents drew back from the precipice. They knew that the short-term gain of breaking minority obstruction would come at the price of enormous long-term damage -- turning a deliberative process into something akin to government by the Queen of Hearts in "Alice in Wonderland."

Rule XXII is clear about extended debate and cloture requirements, both for changing Senate rules (two-thirds required) and any other action by the Senate, nominations or legislation (60 Senators required). Ignored in this argument has been Senate Rule XXXI, which makes clear that there is neither guarantee nor expectation that nominations made by the president get an up-or-down vote, or indeed any action at all.

It reads: "Nominations neither confirmed nor rejected during the session at which they are made shall not be acted upon at any succeeding session without being again made to the Senate by the President; and if the Senate shall adjourn or take a recess for more than thirty days, all nominations pending and not finally acted upon at the time of taking such adjournment or recess shall be returned by the Secretary to the President, and shall not again be considered unless they shall again be made to the Senate by the President."

By invoking their self-described nuclear option without changing the rules, a Senate majority will effectively erase them. A new precedent will be in order--one making it easy and tempting to erase future filibusters on executive nominations and bills. Make no mistake about that.

[Mr. Wednesday]

double dola,

Oh and QS I hate the "death tax"...I have no chance to inherit a million dollars from someone, but I'm seriously opposed to applying taxes on money that has already been taxed and then saved. The Government doesn't have any right to that money, it already got its share.There's exactly one solution to this "problem" -- have the government take a cut of the money as it leaves the mint. Then you won't have any problems with any money getting taxed more than once.

[JPhillips]

Glen: Apologies for threadjacking, but do you also support an end to the sales tax and to the tax on Social Security income and to tariffs and to flat fees and to property tax and to state tax and locality tax? Afterall all this income has been taxed already.

This comes to a point that I have been longing to make. We can't look at any tax individually. We have to look at all the taxes and all the government expenses. Since I think we can agree that this group of Repubs isn't about to cut spending in any meaningful way, we have to tax in various forms to pay the bill. (well as least part of the bill)

What tax would you increase to make up for the loss of inheritance tax? Wat tax is "more just"?

[Glengoyne]

But, Glen, why are they doing something unprecedented? Could it be because other avenues previously used to defeat appointments have been taken away from them?

Sure the spoils may go to the victor, but in a sense, isn't that exactly what the concept of preventing the tyranny of the majority is all about?
Well yes, they did get rid of the Green Slip or Blue Slip rule(which ever of those it was), and I'm not entirely opposed to that because it was an arbitrary measure. I really truly believe that the only, and I mean only measure of a judge should be their competency to apply the rules of law while on the bench. That should be it. It shouldn't matter if they are pro-choice or pro-death penalty or any other such thing. Their politics shouldn't matter.

And again, I don't really think that nominating and appointing qualified judges to positions qualifies as Tyranny of the Majority. I do think that filibustering qualified judges to prevent their appointment is pretty much Tyranny of the minority. Now...Unilaterally changing the rules of the Senate...THAT is Tyranny of the majority.

While I'm not happy with the Democrats tactics, and want the filibustering to stop. I'm not sure that the ends would justify the Republican's means.

[MrBigglesworth]

From an article by American Enterprise Institute fellow Norman Ornstein:
Exactly. What makes it the 'nuclear option' is that it is not a rules change. A rules change requires a 2/3 majority. What the GOP is trying to do is
ignore the rules. That is the unprecedented thing in this whole affair, and a terrible precedent. It is tyranny by the majority, pure and simple.

[digamma]

Now...Unilaterally changing the rules of the Senate...THAT is Tyranny of the majority.

Yup, that's exactly my point.

[Lucky Jim]

Up or down vote works for me, democracy being the worst form of government and all that. :D

[MrBigglesworth]

It boils down to the Democrats disagreeing not with the competency of a nominee, but with the nominee's politics. I don't think that is a reasonable litmus test for a judge.
I don't understand you here. A nominee making political decisions is exactly what should disqualify someone. And that is exactly what Janice Rogers Brown does. In 1996 when she was nominated to the State Supreme Court the local bar association found her unqualified because of her politically motivated rulings. As a member of the State Supreme Court she was often the only dissenting opinion in a ruling. She refers to the "Socialist revolution of 1937" and calls liberal tolerance a 'lie'.

Two of the judges being filibustered are also not being filibustered for their politics, but because of the tactics used by the GOP to keep those seats from being filled by Clinton.

[MrBigglesworth]

While I'm not happy with the Democrats tactics, and want the filibustering to stop. I'm not sure that the ends would justify the Republican's means.
Getting rid of the filibuster would not be good for the GOP in the long term. Their major policy goal, tax cutting, is not subject to a filibuster and can be easily repealed. On the other hand, Democrat initiatives (civil rights, national health care, SS) have a ton of inertia once they are put into place, and even if the Dems are in charge of congress for 2 years we could see national health care and the GOP would never be able to get rid of it (nobody in Canada is clamoring for an end to national health care, nobody would be here either once it comes).

[Lucky Jim]

Getting rid of the filibuster would not be good for the GOP in the long term. Their major policy goal, tax cutting, is not subject to a filibuster and can be easily repealed. On the other hand, Democrat initiatives (civil rights, national health care, SS) have a ton of inertia once they are put into place, and even if the Dems are in charge of congress for 2 years we could see national health care and the GOP would never be able to get rid of it (nobody in Canada is clamoring for an end to national health care, nobody would be here either once it comes).

One, the nuclear option applies solely to judicial filibusters. Two, a number of countries that have national healthcare programs have begun moving toward privatization (Great Britain for example) as it simply isn't all that efficient. And I guess three (cause isn't it always better to have three of something?), would everything be alright if the evil tyranny of the majority consisted of 60 republicans (the number needed for cloture and an up or down vote) instead of their current 55? This seems to be a big flaw if the Senate is really set up to allow minority parties to indefinitely delay action on pending decisions.

[MrBigglesworth]

One, the nuclear option applies solely to judicial filibusters.
What's the logic that says that up and down votes are good for judges, but not for legislation? Ending the judicial filibuster is just a step in the direction.

Two, a number of countries that have national healthcare programs have begun moving toward privatization (Great Britain for example) as it simply isn't all that efficient.
NHS would not be the system that I would support, I like something like the French system, and I would agree that some aspects of national health care should be market based. But the fact is that we spend more on health care than any other country in the world and get worse results than most countries with national health care. Therefore, national health care has been found to be very efficient.

And I guess three (cause isn't it always better to have three of something?), would everything be alright if the evil tyranny of the majority consisted of 60 republicans (the number needed for cloture and an up or down vote) instead of their current 55? This seems to be a big flaw if the Senate is really set up to allow minority parties to indefinitely delay action on pending decisions.
60 is an arbitrary number, for sure (it used to be 2/3), but 60-40 is a lot different than 50-50. I like the idea that major initiatives should be bipartisan, and than presidents should be forced to make moderate choices in their nominations.

[ISiddiqui]

Two, a number of countries that have national healthcare programs have begun moving toward privatization (Great Britain for example) as it simply isn't all that efficient.
Though it's far more efficient than our system where 50% is spent on overhead.

[Lucky Jim]

They're currently looking at a compromise proposal that would send all but three of the nominees to the floor for a vote, and this looks to have Democratic approval. I guess the only thing I don't understand is how Reid can appeal for five "profiles in courage" from Republicans that will stand up to do what is right and vote down the nuclear option, but he doesn't believe that he could somehow convince those same five to simply vote down an "unqualified" judge in a vote. If Democrats are comfortable essentially with all but three of the nominees you would think they would be comfortable convincing a small minority of Republicans of why these three (of some two hundred previous nominations) are unworthy of being approved. Clearly these three have somehow heinously distinguished themselves and if there is any reasonable weight to Dems' arguments then a handful of Repubs will cross the aisle.

They'll compromise I'm sure, and Frist will look good almost no matter what happens. This is all the culmination of the last few years, with Hatch getting basically owned in committee, memogate, etc, and Dems finding a way to come off looking victimized at every turn. As a pretty neutral observer (I know it seems hard to believe from this thread) I can say that this is just as much Democrats' fault as it is Republicans. The Dems have outmaneuvered the GOP on judiciary stuff for the last few years and they haven't really taken the high road in doing it, so one good turn deserves another I guess.

And as far as healthcare, I haven't been to a doctor in almost six years so the added taxes of a nationalized system don't really appeal to me. I recognize that might put me in a minority, and that I may one day be subject to the tyrannical forces of democracy. ;)

[Glengoyne]

Glen: Apologies for threadjacking, but do you also support an end to the sales tax and to the tax on Social Security income and to tariffs and to flat fees and to property tax and to state tax and locality tax? Afterall all this income has been taxed already.

This comes to a point that I have been longing to make. We can't look at any tax individually. We have to look at all the taxes and all the government expenses. Since I think we can agree that this group of Repubs isn't about to cut spending in any meaningful way, we have to tax in various forms to pay the bill. (well as least part of the bill)

What tax would you increase to make up for the loss of inheritance tax? Wat tax is "more just"?
I think we should blame QS for the thread jack.

Just about any tax, in my opinion, is more "just" than the estate tax. Also Mr. Wednesday, I'm not opposed to physical dollars being taxed multiple times. That would be a fairly ridiculous thing to be opposed to.

I'm opposed to an individual earning and saving enough wealth to be passed on to their family when they die. That individual accumulated that wealth over a lifetime of toil, and they paid their taxes on that wealth over that time. That money belongs to them and those they decide to leave it to. The Government already got its share. The rest is private property.

Sometimes it isn't just cash a family has to pay. Sometimes a family has to sell off the very assett that earned the wealth being inherited. It is unreasonable to force heirs to sell off the business they have inheirited just to pay the inheiritance tax.

Oh and one more thing...don't even begin to blame only the Republicans for the deficit. It isn't like the Democrats are working to tighten the Government's belt. Neither party is genuinely interested in solving that particular problem...they all have their own interests to protect.

[ShaqFu]

What exactly is filibuster?

Watch "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" with Jimmy Stewart.

Unilike the House, the Senate rules don't set time limits on how long someone is allowed to speak. Once a Senator begins talking, he may talk as long as he pleases and may yield to fellow party members. They can read the dictionary, encyclopedia, a dusty law book, the Sunday newspaper, or this forum aloud.

It's an effective tool, because you can stall controversial bills and confirmations. In the end, the Senate is likely to reach a compromise or vote against.

Bush and many Republicans want to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominations. Eliminating the filibuster would allow Bush to easily push his nominees (including those forthcoming for the Supreme Court) through to the bench.

[MrBigglesworth]

That individual accumulated that wealth over a lifetime of toil, and they paid their taxes on that wealth over that time.
That is incorrect. In most cases taxes were never paid on this wealth, that's why the estate tax was implemented. Taxes on stock, real estate appreciation, business appreciation, etc, are not taxed until the asset is sold. Therefore, if you die with it in your possession any capital appreciation has not had taxes paid on it.

[MrBigglesworth]

The Dems have outmaneuvered the GOP on judiciary stuff for the last few years and they haven't really taken the high road in doing it, so one good turn deserves another I guess.
How long a time period is 'the last few years'? The Dems haven't gotten anyone appointed to the Supreme Court since Carter, and most of the chicanery in recent years was done by the GOP to my knowledge. The GOP got rid of any non-filibuster techniques when they got into power.

[Mr. Wednesday]

I'm opposed to an individual earning and saving enough wealth to be passed on to their family when they die. That individual accumulated that wealth over a lifetime of toil, and they paid their taxes on that wealth over that time. That money belongs to them and those they decide to leave it to. The Government already got its share. The rest is private property.(Foreword: I will admit to an incomplete understanding of the estate tax, any misunderstandings or inconsistencies in my position may arise from that.) The problem I have is that this analysis ignores the other side of the equation. You are seeing the money taxed when the individual earned it and taxed again when he dies (notwithstanding some capital gains that don't get taxed at all -- surely you would want to see this fixed). I am seeing the individual's heirs make a windfall of unearned and untaxed income, and I think that is extremely unfair.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Bush and many Republicans want to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominations. Eliminating the filibuster would allow Bush to easily push his nominees (including those forthcoming for the Supreme Court) through to the bench.More precisely, they want to determine that cloture rules in the Senate do not apply to votes on judicial nominees, so that they can do this with a simple majority vote rather than the 2/3 vote required to actually change their rules.

[sterlingice]

Honestly, I think those who are forecasting "doom and gloom" for the GOP on this are overestimating the public's ability to understand this. I think the GOP strategists are absolutely correct when they suspect that the phrase "up or down vote" will, as usual, hold more water with Jonh and Jane Purplestate than will the 200-word response they hear from John Kerry or Harry Reid about the sanctity of the minority voice and the tyranny of the majority.

I think this eventually plays well for the Republicans... but betting on them on battles of ideology has been a safe bet for some time now. Just look how many blue collar types say they support getting rid of the "death tax."
The other thing that really helps them is that before the GOP loses power, there will be a time when they are still in the majority but less powerful and at that point, they'll see the writing on the wall and turn it on the Democrats that the "time-honored filibuster should be brought back" or some such nonsense. Isn't this like how much of the "Contract with America" stuff is being erased because it was "a different generation" of Republicans and people have short memories?

This has as much danger written on it for the Dems as it does for the GOP. The GOP caught a ton of flack for shutting things down under Clinton.

SI

[Flasch186]

If Democrats are comfortable essentially with all but three of the nominees you would think they would be comfortable convincing a small minority of Republicans of why these three (of some two hundred previous nominations) are unworthy of being approved.

The party - line can be so intimidating and sometimes threatening that it makes it difficult to agsainst it for both sides, even if you wanted to. At the city council level, my city councilwoman told me that the Republican Womens club dropped a loyalty oath on her desk and suggested she sign it before a big vote....she wouldnt do it and the club told her that she is ending her own career. So instead of bowing out she is going to leave the city council and run for senate. I will vote for her since she has back bone....Republican or not, having two feet to stand on with the special interest or party line clouding your judgement is mucho respectable.

[Glengoyne]

Yup, that's exactly my point.
Well yes...while completely ignoring my point that what the Dems are doing is nearly as bad as what the Republicans are contemplating.


Also, and this isn't directed at you Digamma; this isn't the first step toward getting rid of the filibuster. It is a procedural change related to nominee confirmations, more likely only judicial nominee confirmations. As I understand it, by calling it a procedural change, they can pass it with a bare majority. I don't understand the semantic differences between rule change and procedural change, but that is the explanation as I understood it. Again this isn't a move to remove the filibuster...if it were I don't seriously believe that more than a handful of individuals would be supporting the idea.

I'm not supporting the action being threatened, I'm just addressing some of the thoughts touched on above.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Again this isn't a move to remove the filibuster ...

Which is the most important point that seems to be carefully pushed aside or ignored in most conversations about this topic.

[Glengoyne]

That is incorrect. In most cases taxes were never paid on this wealth, that's why the estate tax was implemented. Taxes on stock, real estate appreciation, business appreciation, etc, are not taxed until the asset is sold. Therefore, if you die with it in your possession any capital appreciation has not had taxes paid on it.
Then let the heirs pay taxes on those items when they sell them, Not simply because they have had them left to them.

[albionmoonlight]

Again this isn't a move to remove the filibuster
I'll be the first to admit that the slippery slope argument is way overused these days. But once the party in power decides that it's OK to remove the filibuster sometimes, we have pretty much given up the filibuster as a credible tool.

One may agree or disagree with the filibuster, but one cannot correctly argue that the nuclear/constitutional option is not the death of it.

[Barkeep49]

Actually it is not being passed as procedural change. This was covered in a thread a while back but the Republicans are suggesting that the filibuster for judges is not constitutional. The chair of the Senate, in this case Dick Cheney, will make a ruling, saying that the filibuster is indeed unconstitutional and a ruling of the chair on this sort of matter is upheld as long as half the Senate agrees. They are not trying to change the rules so much as say that an existing rule shouldn't be a rule because it violates the Constitution.

[QuikSand]

Barkeep, I agree with your description... but fail to see where you're drawing the line between a "procedural change" and something else. Isolating a current procedure, and eliminating it for whatever reason is, in fact, a procedural change by my reckoning.

But that's esoterica beyond the level of most who give any thought to this, I suspect.

[Barkeep49]

Quik I was responding to this

As I understand it, by calling it a procedural change, they can pass it with a bare majority.

I just forgot to quote it in my reply, but I would agree with you that we're trolling the depths esoteria here.

[Barkeep49]

Dola -- Found the thread I referred to earlier in which the mechanics of this are explained. Look at posts 20, 27 (and if you feel like it 28) to see this.

The thread is http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=37703

[Arles]

How long a time period is 'the last few years'? The Dems haven't gotten anyone appointed to the Supreme Court since Carter, and most of the chicanery in recent years was done by the GOP to my knowledge. The GOP got rid of any non-filibuster techniques when they got into power.
Clinton nominated (and got) Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993 and Stephen Breyer in 1994. Clinton got both his nominees fairly easily - compare that to what happened to republican nominees for the supreme court over the past 10-15 years. The democrats tried to tar and feather both Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork under Bush I, the latter with which they suceeded in removing and forcing Bush to replace him with (the much more liberal) David Souter. The democrats have had runaway victories on three of the last four nominees, with the lone "winner" for the republicans being subject to perhaps the biggest witchhunt since Joe McCarthy.

[Arles]

I'll be the first to admit that the slippery slope argument is way overused these days. But once the party in power decides that it's OK to remove the filibuster sometimes, we have pretty much given up the filibuster as a credible tool.

One may agree or disagree with the filibuster, but one cannot correctly argue that the nuclear/constitutional option is not the death of it.
This is silly. The legislative filibuster has been a staple in public policy for eons. The judicial filibuster is somewhat unprecendented and was rarely used to this point (esp in the past 30 years). Saying the loss of the judicial filibuster will lead to the loss of the legislative one is large stretch that is extremely unlikely.

Again, it's not the senate's role to name judges, it's only their role to provide "consent" to the president's choices. Since it is the job of the president to appoint judges (and not congress), there's really no reason why anything more than an up or down vote should be needed.

On legislation, it is the job of the senate to create and pass bills (along with the House). Therefore, it makes sense for them to have more options to use in this area that in simply the consent role they have with judges.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Then let the heirs pay taxes on those items when they sell them, Not simply because they have had them left to them.

No, we can't do that because ... because it ... umm ... well let's be honest, because it'd risk leaving money in the control of those who earned it (and their assignees) instead of in the hands of the government.

[QuikSand]

My apologies for the (predictable) threadjack. Meant just as an illustration, not to create yet another "debate" about the issue of estate taxes. I assume full responsibility for the very foreseeable outcome.

[albionmoonlight]

This is silly. The legislative filibuster has been a staple in public policy for eons. The judicial filibuster is somewhat unprecendented and was rarely used to this point (esp in the past 30 years). Saying the loss of the judicial filibuster will lead to the loss of the legislative one is large stretch that is extremely unlikely.I don't think that it is silly. The filibuster has been is use for eons as a way for the minority voice in legislative debate to have more of a say--for every issue that comes before the body. The majority party can come in and say that "we have not used a 'judicial filibuster' in a while," but at that point you are really just defining the terms with an end in mind. I cannot predict the future, but once the public has digested the idea that "the filibuster" can be broken--do you really think that they will stand up in arms against it being broken again in a slightly different context? Whether your distinction between the judicial and legislative filibuster really exists, do you really expect future majority parties to show restraint and not use the current situation as a precedent in the arena of public debate?

Again, it's not the senate's role to name judges, it's only their role to provide "consent" to the president's choices. Since it is the job of the president to appoint judges (and not congress), there's really no reason why anything more than an up or down vote should be needed.That statement assumes the proposition that you are attempting to prove. The Senate must provide "Advice and Consent" to judicial nominees. The whole debate is over the mechanism though which the Senate chooses to do it. Does the Senate do it through the channels through which it normally conducts business (committees, blue slips, filibusters, etc.)? Does it send every nominee directly to the floor for a vote with no debate? Does it flip a coin? Does it do it alphabetically? There is nothing inherent in "advice and consent" that requires a floor vote, just as there is nothing inherent in it that requires the filibuster to stay. Advise and Consent means whatever the Senate decides that it means. End of story. Accord Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993) (holding that the Senate has almost unchecked power to interpert constitutional provisions governing impeachment proceedings because the Constitution vests the power to impeach in the Senate as a necessary check on the judicial branch).

The question really is--how should the Senate treat judicial nominees as a policy matter. I beleive that, because the system that we have had (things like committees, blue slips, filibusters) has worked for around 200 years, and because the numbers demonstrate that the current executive has not had anything like an unreasonable number of nominess blocked, there is no reason to fix what ain't broke.

You believe that the actions of the current minority party are so egregious that they require, as a policy matter, changing the rules to limit the minority party's ability to abuse the process.

I don't think that either of our positions is unreasonable, though I obviously think that mine is better. I do, not, however, agree that the constitution somehow compells either of our positions. The constitution gives the power to the Senate, and the constitution's role in the process ends there. What the Senate does with that power is simply a matter of public policy.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I cannot predict the future, but once the public has digested the idea that "the filibuster" can be broken--do you really think that they will stand up in arms against it being broken again in a slightly different context?

But if they do, doesn't than indicate their acceptance of such a change? Perhaps even more than "acceptance".

And wouldn't that be an example of government "by the people", after all, a procedural change is just as easily reversed in a fairly short time, simply by changing out the members of the body who made the change in the first place.

Just theorizing a tiny bit, not really arguing strongly for this particular point, just throwing it into play.

[albionmoonlight]

But if they do, doesn't than indicate their acceptance of such a change? Perhaps even more than "acceptance".

And wouldn't that be an example of government "by the people", after all, a procedural change is just as easily reversed in a fairly short time, simply by changing out the members of the body who made the change in the first place.

Just theorizing a tiny bit, not really arguing strongly for this particular point, just throwing it into play.
I agree. Personally, I don't think that the filibuster should end (even when it was used to fight for positions with which I disagree--like thwart civil rights legislation--it had the purpose of giving the minority position a voice).

I may be in the minority, however. Perhaps the people are ready to get rid of the filibuster, and then it just goes away. My point above was simply that I don't think that it is really possible to get rid of it in certain instances, but hold onto it as a "sacred right" in other instances. Either you convince the people that it is a good idea, or you convince them that it is a bad idea.

[John Galt]

Clinton nominated (and got) Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993 and Stephen Breyer in 1994. Clinton got both his nominees fairly easily - compare that to what happened to republican nominees for the supreme court over the past 10-15 years. The democrats tried to tar and feather both Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork under Bush I, the latter with which they suceeded in removing and forcing Bush to replace him with (the much more liberal) David Souter. The democrats have had runaway victories on three of the last four nominees, with the lone "winner" for the republicans being subject to perhaps the biggest witchhunt since Joe McCarthy.

I keep saying avoid the politics threads, but this whole issue is too close to my life, so ...

Arles, please try to educate yourself before echoing The Corner's talking points. You really are out of it on this one. Facts:

1) The federal judiciary is composed of judges overwhelmingly appointed by republican presidents. The composition is about 70/30 even though America is roughly 50/50 between the parties.

2) The GOP has had more success appointing judges that Dems in terms of political viewpoint and actual success rate. The new talking point seems to be Bush's lower rate of success on Circuit judges which proves absolutely nothing. His District appointments have been overwhelmingly approved at record levels for the modern era.

3) While Bork in many ways started the heavier scrutiny of judges (although Fortas really was the beginning), he was incredibly unique in his congressional hearings (also Reagan nominated Bork and not Bush I as you say). He had a long paper trail and was arrogant to a fault. All he had to do was be political and refuse to answer actual issue questions and he would have been appointed. Instead, he decided to say how he would decide almost every hot-botton issue and lectured Congress on why they were dumbasses. Thomas was also unique because his hearings almost entirely revolved around issues of sexual harassment. Generalizing from those two cases is just foolish.

4) The current right wing idealogue on the bench, Scalia, was overwhelmingly approved. By any objective measure, the current Supreme Court is the most right-wing in modern history.

5) Calling the hearings of Thomas a witchhunt analogous to McCarthyism is just plain offensive. The charges against Anita Hill were certainly more egregious than those against Thomas. Hill had books published against her that were pure fiction (as authors have later admitted). Thomas, on the other hand, had to face a series of allegations that were just a run-of-the-mill sexual harassment allegation. Saying that is McCarthyist just shows you have lost all grip on reality.

[cartman]

My view on this is that many people see this as a power grab my the majority. I think the Republicans would have a much stronger case if the judicial filibuster is something that had never been done before. But that is simply not true. In fact, the current majority leader Frist voted in favor of a judicial filibuster for one of Clinton's nominees, Richard Paez, in 2000. It has been a tool used many times in the past by the minority party in the Senate. What has changed since then? Now the Republicans control the White House and Capitol Hill. That is what doesn't sit well with many people opposed to the rule change.

My take on it is that tradtionally the Senate has risen above most partisan politics, and try to come to consensus agreements as much as possible, and try to avoid close votes. That is why they have procedures like filibusters, supermajority votes and such, to encourage debate and not just "toe the party line". The general thinking is that if 45 or more Senators have objections to a matter, then maybe the 55 should take a closer look and make sure they are making the correct choice.

IMHO, anything that creates any sort of fast-tracking or automatic approval, and eliminates chances for debate is a bad thing for our democracy. Especially when it comes to matters involving a position that is a lifetime appointment.

[chinaski]

If this doesnt officially turn you away from the GOP, nothing ever will. This is complete bullshit on every level. Up or down vote on a lifetime position in the federal courts with no room for dissent? go f' yourself if you think thats even remotely acceptable. The Democrats have approved every nominee accept 10! Thats 219 out of 229. Theres no difference between this and a little kid demanding a box of cookies after theyve eaten 20.

Every Republican: Replace Republican with Democrat in every paragraph of this debate and ask yourself if you still stand behind this.

[MrBigglesworth]

Then let the heirs pay taxes on those items when they sell them, Not simply because they have had them left to them.
Fine, then let's change the current law, because right now when you inherit something, the basis goes up to the fair market value at the date of death. But the GOP doesn't seem intent on changing that part of the code.

Clinton nominated (and got) Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993 and Stephen Breyer in 1994.
Your right about that, I can't believe I forgot about it. I don't know much about the judicial nominees from before I became politically aware, but recently it's been the GOP that has had the upper hand. Just look at the stats a couple of posts up.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Every Republican: Replace Republican with Democrat in every paragraph of this debate and ask yourself if you still stand behind this.

I do. It's a limited-use option as presented, and we can't automatically project the slippery slope. Moreso, it simply adds another reason that we can never allow Democrats to acheive a majority position again (not that I really needed another).

It only bites us if they achieve that majority, in which case, we are well & truly FUBAR regardless of whether this item is passed/failed/forgotten, so the risk is actually very limited.

[cartman]

I do. It's a limited-use option as presented, and we can't automatically project the slippery slope. Moreso, it simply adds another reason that we can never allow Democrats to acheive a majority position again (not that I really needed another).

It only bites us if they achieve that majority, in which case, we are well & truly FUBAR regardless of whether this item is passed/failed/forgotten, so the risk is actually very limited.

So you are in favor of a one party system of government? Recent history has shown that has been a WONDERFUL approach for countries to take (ref: Soviet Union, Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan). I guess if that happens in the next 10 years, we will have to hope for China to intervene and "liberate" us.

[JonInMiddleGA]

So you are in favor of a one party system of government? Recent history has shown that has been a WONDERFUL approach for countries to take (ref: Soviet Union, Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan). I guess if that happens in the next 10 years, we will have to hope for China to intervene and "liberate" us.

Tsk, tsk, I didn't say one-party (remember, I'm a guy who doesn't subscribe to all of the GOP platform either). I do however strongly favor the utter & complete obliteration of the current Democratic party.

[MrBigglesworth]

I do however strongly favor the utter & complete obliteration of the current Democratic party.
Not a big fan of economic prosperity?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Not a big fan of economic prosperity?

I'm doing quite nicely thanks, better now than during any previous administration in my lifetime as a matter of fact.

But economic prosperity at the expense of moral decay, social re-engineering, depleted national defense, and widespread socialism? (just to name a few) -- I'd take the poverty if those are the choices.

[cartman]

Tsk, tsk, I didn't say one-party (remember, I'm a guy who doesn't subscribe to all of the GOP platform either). I do however strongly favor the utter & complete obliteration of the current Democratic party.

So it gets obliterated tomorrow. What happens to all of those currently associated with the Democratic party? It will just reform under a different name, but be fundamentally similar to the current incarnation.

Similar thing happened in the past in the country. The Whigs were the opposing party to the Democrats in the early to mid 1800s. The Whigs basically imploded and scattered about. Most of them moved to the Republican party. I know this is overly simplified, but it is the gist of things.

It will never happen, because the two parties are so entrenched, but we really need for at least one or two "3rd" parties to become real players on the scene.

[JonInMiddleGA]

So it gets obliterated tomorrow. What happens to all of those currently associated with the Democratic party?

Well, the first hope would be that those who are beyond any point of return to rational & logical thought would simply fling themselves into the sea in despair.

Splintering the remainder into smaller groups would reduce the chance that they can ever effectively influence policy again, not a bad thing since they've already shown themselves more than capable of associating themselves with failed policies or worse, horrendous policies that succeeded to some degree in accomplishing their intended goals.

Meanwhile, the elimination of considerably organized abhorent opposition might allow more breathing room for the current GOP to reorganize a bit as well, allowing more give and take on finer points without risking the loss of the more important ones.

[cartman]

Well, the first hope would be that those who are beyond any point of return to rational & logical thought would simply fling themselves into the sea in despair.

Splintering the remainder into smaller groups would reduce the chance that they can ever effectively influence policy again, not a bad thing since they've already shown themselves more than capable of associating themselves with failed policies or worse, horrendous policies that succeeded to some degree in accomplishing their intended goals.

Meanwhile, the elimination of considerably organized abhorent opposition might allow more breathing room for the current GOP to reorganize a bit as well, allowing more give and take on finer points without risking the loss of the more important ones.

So then tell me, how is the end result different from a one party system? If one party can do pretty much what is pleases since the other parties are not strong enough to have any influence, isn't that, in effect, a one party system?

[MrBigglesworth]

Well, the first hope would be that those who are beyond any point of return to rational & logical thought would simply fling themselves into the sea in despair.
You listen to a lot of Hannity, don't you?

[Crapshoot]

Guys, Jon has his views. They are... interesting, to say the least. For example, don't ask him on his thoughts about who should have voting rights... :D

[JonInMiddleGA]

You listen to a lot of Hannity, don't you?

Actually, just on odd occasion that I happen to be in the car during his show.

And just to avoid an unneeded dola, I'll do Cartman's question here too.

So then tell me, how is the end result different from a one party system? If one party can do pretty much what is pleases since the other parties are not strong enough to have any influence, isn't that, in effect, a one party system

Different, ultimately, because it allows that breathing room for development of "factions" if you will, and eventually a division of the current GOP. Leaving 2 or more parties of significance that all have at least basic core values in common, leaving room for debate of finer points without risking the loss of more basic tenets in the process.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Guys, Jon has his views. They are... interesting, to say the least. For example, don't ask him on his thoughts about who should have voting rights... :D

Hmm, I think penalties for controlled substances is a better choice there, but I still got a :) out of your observation.

FTR, I really wasn't looking for such a wide sidetrack here (naively perhaps, but I really didn't expect one of even the length-to-date), I just gave a quick answer to a question asked up the thread about "what-if-it-were-reversed" & this sort of snowballed.

[Crapshoot]

Hmm, I think penalties for controlled substances is a better choice there, but I still got a :) out of your observation.

FTR, I really wasn't looking for such a wide sidetrack here (naively perhaps, but I really didn't expect one of even the length-to-date), I just gave a quick answer to a question asked up the thread about "what-if-it-were-reversed" & this sort of snowballed.

No No- I know that. Its just that it is fairly surprising to people when they see your stance on some of these things. Having been involved in discussions with you in the past, the path of discovering JIMGA's views (irrespective of what I think about them) is a familiar one... :D

[Lucky Jim]

How long a time period is 'the last few years'? The Dems haven't gotten anyone appointed to the Supreme Court since Carter, and most of the chicanery in recent years was done by the GOP to my knowledge. The GOP got rid of any non-filibuster techniques when they got into power.

When I said the last few years I was referring to basically the judicial fiascos of the last two years or so, which really weren't all that publicized in the national media but had a profound effect on Republican interest groups especially those involved in judicial happenings. There was basically a small Senate scandal involving leaked Democratic memos, again really not all that well-publicized considering. The memos contained a number of things, but all basically revolved around the idea that Dems in the Senate Judiciary Committee were unduly influenced by certain special interest groups.

For example as a result of these leaks Elaine Jones, former president and chief counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, was forced to resign when it was revealed in these memos that she sought to delay the confirmation hearing of a judge to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals until after the Michigan affirmative action case she was involved in was completed. (This is basically pretty illegal.)

Other memos revolved around DC Circuit Court nominee Miguel Estrada. (When I say "memos," these are basically internal email correspondence both between Senators themselves and Senators and special interest groups.) The memos call Estrada "especially dangerous" and list the fact that he is "latino" as a reasoning for this. They also ask that Senators "hold off on Estrada as long as possible." Basically because the hispanic vote is becoming so important both sides are jockeying for political position. Estrada was seen as threatening because he could one day become a Supreme Court nominee, and Democrats (as well as Republicans) are adamant about appointing the first hispanic justice to the court. Estrada has since withdrawn from consideration after being filibustered and delayed in committe for two years.

And then there were other memos which show that Democratic Senators were scheduling hearings based on the dictates of special interest groups. These groups would basically demand delays on hearings to allow them more time to gather negative information, and advance notice on any nominees that might be controversial. The main players in these memos are Senators Leahy (D-VT), Kennedy (D-MA), and Durbin (D-IL) as well as their staffs. They were leaked to a number of sources and were the subject of a Wall Street Journal editorial in November of '03.

What happens next is what has basically enraged the conservative judicial community. The memos were obtained by a pair of Republican staffers, one of whom was Frist's top aide on judicial strategy and he was the source of the leak. Despite the incendiary nature of the memos (blatant tampering in some cases) Dems were able to win the spin game and focus the primary attention of the situation on how the memos were obtained and not on their content. The memos were on a shared server and Dems had failed to protect their documents for a little over two years. (I may be mistaken but I'm pretty sure this was as simple as these Republican staffers simply going into Network Neighborhood and browsing unprotected folders on Dem computers. Not exactly the most comforting example of Senate information security.) Both an internal Senate investigation by the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms and a year long investigation by a special prosecutor in the Manhattan DA's office (appointed by Dems after the Sergeant-at-Arms investigation came up empty) have shown no criminal wrongdoing with how the documents were obtained, but the Frist aide was forced to resign very early in this process, more or less thrown out as a fall guy to appease Dems. Needless to say as this was Frist's top aide on judicial affairs he worked closely with a number of conservative groups and they were basically furious that Frist and Hatch were hanging him out to dry to smooth things with Dems, and allowed the focus of the investigation to revolve around the aide and not the content of the memos themselves.

This was not a major national news story, but it was pretty big for the judiciary community and has hardened some of the party hatred that has led to the "nuclear option." Some of the Dems have been particularly vindictive with their pursuit of the Frist aide, both with the special prosecutor appointment and in the case of Ted Kennedy and his staff, making personal phone calls threatening area law firms considering hiring the former aide (who is now with a conservative thinktank working on the current judicial agenda). This is probably way more information than anyone wanted, and I will admit a certain degree of bias as I have clearly come to some of my own conclusions following these events and have more or less sided with the aide. The Dem Senators in question will say the memos were stolen etc etc, and I personally believe that the way they were obtained was obviously not illegal but a respectful argument exists on the morality of the situation. To sum up Repubs are pissed that they've been eating it on these issues the last few years, and doubly pissed that some of their own leadership folded big time in the face of Dem pressure, and triply pissed that they just had to swallow hard and put on a nice face for the election year, and now Frist is facing a lot of pressure to not back down from anymore Dem crap. Hence, nuclear showdown. Politics is fun :D

[Glengoyne]

...
...

3) While Bork in many ways started the heavier scrutiny of judges (although Fortas really was the beginning), he was incredibly unique in his congressional hearings (also Reagan nominated Bork and not Bush I as you say). He had a long paper trail and was arrogant to a fault. All he had to do was be political and refuse to answer actual issue questions and he would have been appointed. Instead, he decided to say how he would decide almost every hot-botton issue and lectured Congress on why they were dumbasses. Thomas was also unique because his hearings almost entirely revolved around issues of sexual harassment. Generalizing from those two cases is just foolish.

4) The current right wing idealogue on the bench, Scalia, was overwhelmingly approved. By any objective measure, the current Supreme Court is the most right-wing in modern history.

5) Calling the hearings of Thomas a witchhunt analogous to McCarthyism is just plain offensive. The charges against Anita Hill were certainly more egregious than those against Thomas. Hill had books published against her that were pure fiction (as authors have later admitted). Thomas, on the other hand, had to face a series of allegations that were just a run-of-the-mill sexual harassment allegation. Saying that is McCarthyist just shows you have lost all grip on reality.
I'm in agreement with John here. Bork was supremely qualified as a judge, but in my opinion, his character was deficient based on his role in Watergate. Add to that his attitude and dissertations during the hearings, and I'm glad he was bounced. I also think that the Thomas/McCarthyism bit is more than a little bit of a stretch.

I guess I'll even consider that this court is the most right wing in modern history, even though I consider that to be a function of just how far to the left the court has been in most of modern history. I consider the court fairly balanced now. There are Justices at the polar extremes Scalia, Thomas, Stephens, and Ginsburg. There are more moderate counterparts Souter, Kennedy, Rhenquist, O'Connor, and Breyer. Some are more/less moderate than others of course, but this last group is less polarized than the others.

[Glengoyne]

My apologies for the (predictable) threadjack. Meant just as an illustration, not to create yet another "debate" about the issue of estate taxes. I assume full responsibility for the very foreseeable outcome.
Hey I reacted...Can I get an assist or something for my role in the threadjack? I mean you'll get credit for the start and all, but I did step up where you left off.

[Arles]

Arles, please try to educate yourself before echoing The Corner's talking points. You really are out of it on this one. Facts:

1) The federal judiciary is composed of judges overwhelmingly appointed by republican presidents. The composition is about 70/30 even though America is roughly 50/50 between the parties.

2) The GOP has had more success appointing judges that Dems in terms of political viewpoint and actual success rate. The new talking point seems to be Bush's lower rate of success on Circuit judges which proves absolutely nothing. His District appointments have been overwhelmingly approved at record levels for the modern era.
Thanks for the completely off-point diatribe with the extra pompous attitude for effect ;) But, again, the statement I was responding to was:

The Dems haven't gotten anyone appointed to the Supreme Court since Carter

My response was specifically tailored to that comment regarding the Supreme Court. Here it is, once again, for you to hopefully read a little closer this time:

Clinton nominated (and got) Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993 and Stephen Breyer in 1994. Clinton got both his nominees fairly easily - compare that to what happened to republican nominees for the supreme court over the past 10-15 years. The democrats tried to tar and feather both Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork under Bush I, the latter with which they suceeded in removing and forcing Bush to replace him with (the much more liberal) David Souter. The democrats have had runaway victories on three of the last four nominees, with the lone "winner" for the republicans being subject to perhaps the biggest witchhunt since Joe McCarthy.

Now, let's deal with the small portion of your reply that actually responded to my comment:

3) While Bork in many ways started the heavier scrutiny of judges (although Fortas really was the beginning), he was incredibly unique in his congressional hearings
Again, I was citing this as an example of the left attacking candidates based primarily on their idealogy. Bork's opinions on certain issues scared the daylights out of many on the left. Yet, his record showed that was often able to seperate his opinion from the law. Whether or not Bork would have been the best choice given his personality was not the issue. It was used to show a pattern of sliming techniques by the left against conservative Supreme Court nominees.

5) Calling the hearings of Thomas a witchhunt analogous to McCarthyism is just plain offensive. The charges against Anita Hill were certainly more egregious than those against Thomas. Hill had books published against her that were pure fiction (as authors have later admitted). Thomas, on the other hand, had to face a series of allegations that were just a run-of-the-mill sexual harassment allegation. Saying that is McCarthyist just shows you have lost all grip on reality.
A witchhunt is exactly what they were. Hill never had anything remotely resembling proof against Thomas. Heck, Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers' cases against Clinton were about 10-times stronger and those were laughed off by the public when they came up in the 90s. I certainly don't agree with the levels of attack taken against Hill. I don't think you need to attack her personally to show this charge against Thomas was simply not true. To cite David Brock's book:
If one wanted to believe that she had told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, one would have to believe that all of the other people who had offered conflicting testimony and evidence were incorrect, or simply lying: Diane Holt, Harry Singleton, John Doggett, Phyllis Berry-Myers, Andrew Fishel, Carlton Stewart, Stanley Grayson, Charles Kothe, Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post, Harriet Grant, Joe Biden, the two FBI agents, and all four of Hill's own witnesses -- Susan Hoerchner, John Carr, Ellen Wells, and Joel Paul. Alternatively, all of these individuals could have been correct, and Hill could have made more than a dozen false statements under oath.

Also, stating that being paraded in front of national TV to answer baseless sexual harrassment charges from a full senate committee is "run-of-the-mill sexual harassment" shows quite a loss of reality. Thomas was attacked by the left on national TV because he was taking Thurgood Marshall's spot and he didn't favor affirmative action. It had nothing to do with the sexual harassment case. In fact, the hearing itself was only supposed to look into who violated Senate rules by leaking Hill's confidential allegations. It was never to try and weigh the evidence for and against her charges. To act is if this "senate hearing" was anything more than a chance to try and sully Justice Thomas' reputation is extremely nieve and it was most certainly not "run of the mill".

[sabotai]

Sab's quick Political Post:

Estate tax goes, filibuster stays. Thank you.

[st.cronin]

I really don't understand how this is at all an important issue. Judges are confirmed by 3/5 vs simple majority ... I can't imagine how anything would be different either way, except maybe a few judges don't get confirmed.

This whole fight is a huge waste of brain cells.

[John Galt]

Thanks for the completely off-point diatribe with the extra pompous attitude for effect ;) But, again, the statement I was responding to was:



My response was specifically tailored to that comment regarding the Supreme Court. Here it is, once again, for you to hopefully read a little closer this time:



Now, let's deal with the small portion of your reply that actually responded to my comment:


Again, I was citing this as an example of the left attacking candidates based primarily on their idealogy. Bork's opinions on certain issues scared the daylights out of many on the left. Yet, his record showed that was often able to seperate his opinion from the law. Whether or not Bork would have been the best choice given his personality was not the issue. It was used to show a pattern of sliming techniques by the left against conservative Supreme Court nominees.


A witchhunt is exactly what they were. Hill never had anything remotely resembling proof against Thomas. Heck, Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers' cases against Clinton were about 10-times stronger and those were laughed off by the public when they came up in the 90s. I certainly don't agree with the levels of attack taken against Hill. I don't think you need to attack her personally to show this charge against Thomas was simply not true. To cite David Brock's book:


Also, stating that being paraded in front of national TV to answer baseless sexual harrassment charges from a full senate committee is "run-of-the-mill sexual harassment" shows quite a loss of reality. Thomas was attacked by the left on national TV because he was taking Thurgood Marshall's spot and he didn't favor affirmative action. It had nothing to do with the sexual harassment case. In fact, the hearing itself was only supposed to look into who violated Senate rules by leaking Hill's confidential allegations. It was never to try and weigh the evidence for and against her charges. To act is if this "senate hearing" was anything more than a chance to try and sully Justice Thomas' reputation is extremely nieve and it was most certainly not "run of the mill".

Arles, you ignorant slut.

First off, you were replying to the SCOTUS appointments in a thread about the filibustering of non-SCOTUS judges. You argued that the Dems have villified GOP nominees - I gave SCOTUS and non-SCOTUS examples of right-wing success in the nomination process. If you just want to look at the current SCOTUS composition, you see 7 of 9 justices appointed by Republican presidents. Yeah, it is those democrats stopping the republicans. And there really isn't a bonafide liberal in the bunch. The closest is Ginsburg and she is a farcry from the days of Douglas and Marshall.

Second, you obviously have no clue about the Bork failed confirmation other than what you have read in 10 minutes of perusing the Weekly Standard and Powerline.

Third, your understanding of Anita Hill and sexual harassment is pathetic. What proof would anyone have of a couple private incidents that occurred decades ago? You might not find her credible (I have no opinion either way), but to say she lacked physical evidence is pretty much stating the reality of any "run-of-the-mill" sexual harassment complaint (especially one decades old).

Fourth, citing David Brooks's conclusion on the issue is nonsense. You compared the statements against Thomas with those of McCarthyism. That is plain offensive and your lack of recognition of that is repugnant. You obviously have no idea what McCarthyism was about, but decided to use the term for rhetorical florish.

Fifth, Anita Hill's allegations were certainly relevant and a hearing on them is absolutely warranted. And her credibility certainly exceeded that of Jones and Flowers (although I largely believed their allegations against Clinton). To just discount a prominent professor with a strong background is silly. Thomas was confirmed DESPITE her allegations which showed the process worked.

You really need to get over your right-wing martyr complex. The Right controls all three branches of the federal government, most of the state governments and courts, and dominates American culture - when will you stop feeling oppressed?

[ISiddiqui]

I agree with John Galt's last post...

I also wonder what 90s Arles was living in. Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones laughed off by the public? What? Flowers almost deep sixed Clinton's run. People don't realize how perilous it was. There was enough doubt as to whether she was telling the truth that Clinton was allowed to run in spite of it. As for Jones, that was big news for a long time. The only laughing off came later, especially after the nose job she got. Remember Ken Starr was big into the Paula Jones controversy.

[JPhillips]

It goes even farhther than that. If I remember correctly the whole impeachment process was supposedly because Clinton lied in testimony about the Paula Jones case.

[gstelmack]

Um, my memory of the Anita Hill / Clarence Thomas bit matches Arles' pretty well. I remember these long drawn out debates over a he-said / she-said situation, with absolutely nothing to back them up. It was pretty clearly a witchhunt by a group deathly afraid of putting a black man who did not support affirmative action into the Supreme Court. Not much about his judicial standing, and all about whether or not he made some inappropriate jokes around exactly ONE female associate, none of which could be corroborated. I remember some lively debates in college on this topic...

[gstelmack]

It goes even farhther than that. If I remember correctly the whole impeachment process was supposedly because Clinton lied in testimony about the Paula Jones case.
Yup. People love to gloss over the whole perjury bit...

[Crapshoot]

Maybe its me, but I don't see how Arlie or anyone else can counter the fact that the vast majority of Federal Judges as well as SCOTUS were Republican appointed. At a Federal level, it is a super-majority. To me, it's more refelctive of justices recognizing that their obligations are to what law and fairness is, not what a public that howls about activist judges thinks.

[Arles]

Again, and I really hope this sinks in this time, my point was specifically addressed to the earlier Supreme Court comments that were in error. I never once cited "republicans being wronged" as an issue on the removal of the judicial filibuster. The fact that so many of you want to group my comments in with those about the other federal judge appointements leads me to believe the other arguments you have are fairly weak.

On the issue of federal judges, my claim has always been related to the seperation of powers and (as I have stated numerous times) allowing the Senate to filibuster judges is akin to allowing the president to line-item veto bills. It's just not something that should be done under the current system. If people want to change the system to allow both, I say go for it. But this idea of the "minority" using the filibuster to prevent as many federal appeals court nominees as the dems have been doing doesn't sit well with me. And, BTW, I have no problem if this means the republicans can't do the same to the democrats in 5-10 years. My issue is more on principle. If the issue is that the minority doesn't have a say, they should petition the senate to re-enact the blue-slip process of something similar. Or, heaven forbid, actually make a compelling case to the people and win back the Senate to change the rules back themselves.

To the Clarence Thomas situation, it was pretty apparent that it was a cheap political ploy. The hearing was not even about Thomas' innocense, it was setup to discover the person that linked Ms. Hill's supposedly confidential claims to the press. For the tar and feathering that occured in that hearing to happen on those grounds is nothing sure of a pure partisan witchhunt. I would expect that someone with the obvious legal and political savvy of John Gault to be able to figure that out without much help. But, it appears I was wrong on that assumption.

[sterlingice]

Arles, you ignorant slut.
Anytime someone can get called an ignorant slut to start of a post about SCOTUS is good by me :D

SI

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Josh Marshall said it best...


Whether you call it the 'nuclear option', the 'constitutional option' or whatever other phrase the GOP word-wizards come up with, what "it" actually is is this: the Republican caucus, along with the President of the Senate, Dick Cheney, will find that filibustering judicial nominations is in fact in violation of the constitution.

(Just to be crystal clear, what the senate is about to do is not changing their rules. They are about to find that their existing rules are unconstitutional, thus getting around the established procedures by which senate rules can be changed.)

Their reasoning will be that the federal constitution requires that the president makes such nominations "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" and that that means an up or down vote by the full senate.

Nobody believes that.

Not Dick Cheney, not any member of the Republican Senate caucus.

For that to be true stands not only the simple logic of the constitution, but two hundred years of our constitutional history, on its head. You don't even need to go into the fact that other judicial nominations have been filibustered, or that many others have been prevented from coming to a vote by invocation of various other senate rules, both formal and informal, or that almost countless numbers of presidential nominees of all kinds have simply never made it out of committee. Indeed, the whole senate committee system probably cannot withstand this novel and outlandish interpretation of the constitution, since one of its main functions is to review presidential appointees before passing them on to the full senate.

Quite simply, the senate is empowered by the constitution to enact its own rules.

You can think the filibuster is a terrible idea. And you may think that it should be abolished, as indeed it can be through the rules of the senate. And there are decent arguments to made on that count. But to assert that it is unconstitutional because each judge does not get an up or down vote by the entire senate you have to hold that the United States senate has been in more or less constant violation of the constitution for more than two centuries.

For all the chaos and storm caused by this debate, and all that is likely to follow it, don't forget that the all of this will be done by fifty Republican senators quite knowingly invoking a demonstrably false claim of constitutionality to achieve something they couldn't manage by following the rules.

This is about power; and, to them, the rules quite simply mean nothing.

[ISiddiqui]

my claim has always been related to the seperation of powers
IMO, the seperation of powers mandates that the Senate have its own rules on how to advise and consent to the President's nominees. That includes judicial filibuster.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

A witchhunt is exactly what they were. Hill never had anything remotely resembling proof against Thomas.

Wow, I can't believe you just rolled out David Brock and then complained about a witch-hunt against Clarence Thomas. You are aware that Brock later wrote another book repudiating his smear campaign (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=lU2DDSUB8V&isbn=1400047285&itm=1) against Anita Hill? How about this quote instead:

"When I wrote those words, I knew they were false. Perhaps the errors of 'The Real Anita Hill' could be attributed to journalistic carelessness, ideological bias, and my misdirected quest for acceptance from a political movement. In the review of 'Strange Justice,' however, to protect myself and my tribe from the truth and consequences of our own hypocrisy, smears, falsehoods, and cover-ups, I consciously and actively chose an unethical path. I continued to malign Anita Hill and her liberal supporters as liars. I trashed the professional reputations of two journalists for reporting something I knew was correct."

And you think Thomas suffered through a witch-hunt...

[John Galt]

Um, my memory of the Anita Hill / Clarence Thomas bit matches Arles' pretty well. I remember these long drawn out debates over a he-said / she-said situation, with absolutely nothing to back them up. It was pretty clearly a witchhunt by a group deathly afraid of putting a black man who did not support affirmative action into the Supreme Court. Not much about his judicial standing, and all about whether or not he made some inappropriate jokes around exactly ONE female associate, none of which could be corroborated. I remember some lively debates in college on this topic...

And that is the exact pattern of most "run-of-the-mill" sexual harassment claims. And that is the reason, most plaintiffs lose at the summary judgment stage. The claims brought by Hill were serious and deserved a full hearing. There was no witchhunt and it certainly wasn't McCarthyist. Was Thomas asked to name names? Was there a black list? Were there allegations which destroyed careers (only against Hill)? Seriously, the hyperbole about this is nonsense. And as I said (and someone else has since pointed out), the attacks on Hill were largely falsified and have been retracted by the authors.

[John Galt]

Again, and I really hope this sinks in this time, my point was specifically addressed to the earlier Supreme Court comments that were in error. I never once cited "republicans being wronged" as an issue on the removal of the judicial filibuster. The fact that so many of you want to group my comments in with those about the other federal judge appointements leads me to believe the other arguments you have are fairly weak.

On the issue of federal judges, my claim has always been related to the seperation of powers and (as I have stated numerous times) allowing the Senate to filibuster judges is akin to allowing the president to line-item veto bills. It's just not something that should be done under the current system. If people want to change the system to allow both, I say go for it. But this idea of the "minority" using the filibuster to prevent as many federal appeals court nominees as the dems have been doing doesn't sit well with me. And, BTW, I have no problem if this means the republicans can't do the same to the democrats in 5-10 years. My issue is more on principle. If the issue is that the minority doesn't have a say, they should petition the senate to re-enact the blue-slip process of something similar. Or, heaven forbid, actually make a compelling case to the people and win back the Senate to change the rules back themselves.

To the Clarence Thomas situation, it was pretty apparent that it was a cheap political ploy. The hearing was not even about Thomas' innocense, it was setup to discover the person that linked Ms. Hill's supposedly confidential claims to the press. For the tar and feathering that occured in that hearing to happen on those grounds is nothing sure of a pure partisan witchhunt. I would expect that someone with the obvious legal and political savvy of John Gault to be able to figure that out without much help. But, it appears I was wrong on that assumption.

You are worse than Bubba at staying on subject.

Your initial post said:

"Clinton nominated (and got) Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993 and Stephen Breyer in 1994. Clinton got both his nominees fairly easily - compare that to what happened to republican nominees for the supreme court over the past 10-15 years."

I demonstrated that 7 of 9 justices were GOP appointed. I also argued that the court is the most right-wing in modern history. I also pointed out that the biggest idealogue on the court (Scalia) was approved by an overwhelming majority. I also noted that Bork was almost 20 years ago and was nominated by Reagan. You answered none of these claims. Instead, you address the fact that I ALSO talked about lower court appointments. I think the success in appointing lower court judges is relevant because it shows the GOP has not been stifled in its efforts to pack the federal courts. If you don't think that has anything to do with this discussion (which is what the current filibuster debate is about), then why don't you actually attempt to answer any of the numerous claims I made.

You also said:

"The democrats tried to tar and feather both Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork under Bush I, the latter with which they suceeded in removing and forcing Bush to replace him with (the much more liberal) David Souter."

I argued Bork was unique and you have no counter to that argument because you have obviously done no significant reading on the subject. Have you ever read the transcript of the hearing? Have you read any of Bork's scholarship? Have you at least read the Antitrust Paradox? Bork was a unique judge and had he not been such an ass before Congress, he still would have made it to the SCOTUS, but he was too arrogant.

As for Thomas, you only cite a retractor and show no actual knowledge of what happened. Do you think Anita Hill's allegations should have been dismissed without a hearing? You completely ignore the basic fact that THOMAS IS ON THE SUPREME COURT.

Lastly, you said:

"The democrats have had runaway victories on three of the last four nominees, with the lone "winner" for the republicans being subject to perhaps the biggest witchhunt since Joe McCarthy."

Your hyperbole is plain offensive and rather than apologize or note your error, you continue to push on the attack. It shows you have no grip on reality at all.

In your recent post, you go on a diatribe about the filibuster and line item veto and conclude that I wasn't responding to your original post. You might notice that all that I did was reply to your original post AND SAID NOTHING ABOUT THE FILIBUSTER. Seriously, are you Bubba's Dr. Hyde? You accuse others of ignoring what you actually posted while trying to change the subject when you are proven wrong.

[Arles]

You are worse than Bubba at staying on subject.

Your initial post said:

"Clinton nominated (and got) Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993 and Stephen Breyer in 1994. Clinton got both his nominees fairly easily - compare that to what happened to republican nominees for the supreme court over the past 10-15 years."

I demonstrated that 7 of 9 justices were GOP appointed.
There were 7-9 justice appointed by the GOP since 1990? I think you still need a little work on your reading comprehension.

I also argued that the court is the most right-wing in modern history.
Where did I dispute that? You have been the master of the scarecrow in this thread so far. Once again (praying you actually read it this time), my point was how the tide has changed in that past 10-15 years in major opposition from lefty groups depicting every conservative that may not be 100% supportive of abortion or affirmative action as "out of the main stream". IMO, we did not have this problem in the 70s and 80s when most of the current Supreme Court judges were named. And, at this point, I have little problems with the current group assembled in the SCOTUS.

I also pointed out that the biggest idealogue on the court (Scalia) was approved by an overwhelming majority.
Do you honestly think a very qualified and well-deserving person like Scalia would have a chance in hell in today's Senate of earning passage?

I also noted that Bork was almost 20 years ago and was nominated by Reagan. You answered none of these claims.
I stated: "The democrats tried to tar and feather both Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork under Bush I, the latter with which they suceeded in removing and forcing Bush to replace him with (the much more liberal) David Souter."

What happened was Reagan did nominate Bork in 1987, but his term ended and he was unable to get Bork confirmed. So Bush I, wary of the battle the ensued involving Bork and taking into account the very democrat-heavy senate, nominated David Souter just to get someone passed. The point remains, the only difference is that the wording should have stated Bork under Reagan and Thomas under Bush.

Instead, you address the fact that I ALSO talked about lower court appointments.
As part of a response against my discussion about the SCOTUS - which had little to do with the point I was making. But, we all did enjoy the pointless pontification ;)

"The democrats tried to tar and feather both Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork under Bush I, the latter with which they suceeded in removing and forcing Bush to replace him with (the much more liberal) David Souter."

I argued Bork was unique and you have no counter to that argument because you have obviously done no significant reading on the subject.
No, it's because my timeframe was the past 10-15 years. And the only benchmarks we have since that time are Thomas, Ginsburg and Breyer. The two democrat nominees sailed through fairly easily (even though they had many liberal-leaning policies) while the conservative was put before the Kangaroo court. It is my opinion (and the base of much of these arguments) that in order for a true conservative to ever get into the Supreme Court in this current climate (again 1990 on to help avoid another pontification on nominees in the late 70s or early 80s) is if the republican get 60 US senate seats.

As for Thomas, you only cite a retractor and show no actual knowledge of what happened. Do you think Anita Hill's allegations should have been dismissed without a hearing?
No, I think Hill's allegation should have been investigated in the confidentiality of the Senate (as it was originally intended) and that any public hearing should have focused solely on the point of the hearing - to determine the source of the public leak on Ms. Hill's charges. There is no reason that Thomas should have been paraded in front of the court when it was obvious the Hill case could have been thrown out after the private testimony was made. Thomas was put in front of the Senate in this hearing not to answer questions on his qualifications or even on the source of the leak, but to answer the charges - something that should have been done in private to protect both Thomas AND Hill.

Instead, both were thrown to the wolves to help sully Thomas' reputation in hopes that enough senators would get squeemish on the heals of the Bork situation and prevent the court from replacing Thurgood Marshall with a black court nominee that didn't have the "traditional" black views on affirmative action in Thomas. Thankfully, the ploy did not work - although both Thomas and Hill paid the price from a public reputation standpoint.

BTW, how do you think the Senate's extreme bungling of the supposed "confidential charges by Hill" helped the very serious issue of sexual harassment in society at that time? You think a lot of girls that had legit cases would have wanted to come forward given what Ms. Hill was asked to do on the floor of the senate and the public ridicule that followed? There was no reason to prance her out on national TV like that.


In your recent post, you go on a diatribe about the filibuster and line item veto and conclude that I wasn't responding to your original post.
Again, you need to work on your reading comprehension. My claim on the filibuster and line item veto was in direct response to your comments that I was all bent out of shape about GOP nominees not getting confirmed. Here's your post:
You argued that the Dems have villified GOP nominees - I gave SCOTUS and non-SCOTUS examples of right-wing success in the nomination process. ...

You really need to get over your right-wing martyr complex. The Right controls all three branches of the federal government, most of the state governments and courts, and dominates American culture - when will you stop feeling oppressed?
I brought up the filibuster and line-item veto to show that my arguments about the policy of confirmation were not based on the idea that republicans couldn't get enough people in - it was simply that I did not like the idea of the Senate (IMO) overstepping their role on judicial nomination anymore than the president overstepping his current role in the process of passing legislative bills. Had you not decided to branch out from the SCOTUS and being in non-SCOTUS nominees, I doubt I would have had to repeat myself again on this issue.

You might notice that all that I did was reply to your original post AND SAID NOTHING ABOUT THE FILIBUSTER. Seriously, are you Bubba's Dr. Hyde? You accuse others of ignoring what you actually posted while trying to change the subject when you are proven wrong.
The problem is you break into your pre-programmed pontification diatribes regardless of what the argument is. I have tried to stay on point regarding the difficulty conservatives have in this current climate despite your reaching back to the 70s and early 80s, bringing up non-SCOTUS nominees and spending more time assuming what I was trying to say instead of reading what I actually wrote.

That said, I did appreciate the classic SNL reference so this discussion hasn't been a total loss.

[John Galt]

There were 7-9 justice appointed by the GOP since 1990? I think you still need a little work on your reading comprehension.

Where did I dispute that? You have been the master of the scarecrow in this thread so far. Once again (praying you actually read it this time), my point was how the tide has changed in that past 10-15 years in major opposition from lefty groups depicting every conservative that may not be 100% supportive of abortion or affirmative action as "out of the main stream". IMO, we did not have this problem in the 70s and 80s when most of the current Supreme Court judges were named. And, at this point, I have little problems with the current group assembled in the SCOTUS.

You used 2 examples to prove the last 10-15 years have been different. One was Bork. I pointed out that he was nominated almost 20 years ago. So, you have Thomas as the sole basis for your argument. For him, you rely on a source that admits he made everything up. Brilliant!

Hooked on phonics taught me how to read. What's your excuse?

Do you honestly think a very qualified and well-deserving person like Scalia would have a chance in hell in today's Senate of earning passage?

Yes. Unlike Bork and Thomas, he was rated "qualified," is very charming and humble and did not have sexual harassment allegations against him. Thomas, who is even more extreme than Scalia (but slightly less of an idealogue) got confirmed DESPITE the sexual harassment allegations and significantly less qualification - that gives me every reason to believe that Scalia would be confirmed today.

I stated: "The democrats tried to tar and feather both Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork under Bush I, the latter with which they suceeded in removing and forcing Bush to replace him with (the much more liberal) David Souter."

What happened was Reagan did nominate Bork in 1987, but his term ended and he was unable to get Bork confirmed. So Bush I, wary of the battle the ensued involving Bork and taking into account the very democrat-heavy senate, nominated David Souter just to get someone passed. The point remains, the only difference is that the wording should have stated Bork under Reagan and Thomas under Bush.

I'm sorry. I can't reply to any point you make here because you said history only counts in the last 10-15 years. That excludes any mention of the man known as "Bork."

As part of a response against my discussion about the SCOTUS - which had little to do with the point I was making. But, we all did enjoy the pointless pontification ;)

Given your incredibly small sample size of 1 (and a 1 that everyone agrees was pretty unusual), I thought bringing in similar, but not identical, situations would be relevant. I now see that your mind is unable to understand those types of arguments. In the future, I will try to avoid discussions which strain your puny brain.

No, it's because my timeframe was the past 10-15 years. And the only benchmarks we have since that time are Thomas, Ginsburg and Breyer. The two democrat nominees sailed through fairly easily (even though they had many liberal-leaning policies) while the conservative was put before the Kangaroo court. It is my opinion (and the base of much of these arguments) that in order for a true conservative to ever get into the Supreme Court in this current climate (again 1990 on to help avoid another pontification on nominees in the late 70s or early 80s) is if the republican get 60 US senate seats.

So, again, you have 1 example to say republicans have it harder. And that example is Thomas. My knowledge of history is obviously much more limited than yours, but can you let me know if either Ginsburg or Breyer had sexual harassment complaints against them. Also, did Ginsburg or Breyer have virtually no paper trail and receive a non-qualified rating? Of course, Thomas had it harder, but the fact is, HE WAS STILL CONFIRMED. And I think it is quite likely that he will be appointed Chief Justice when Rehnquist steps down.

No, I think Hill's allegation should have been investigated in the confidentiality of the Senate (as it was originally intended) and that any public hearing should have focused solely on the point of the hearing - to determine the source of the public leak on Ms. Hill's charges. There is no reason that Thomas should have been paraded in front of the court when it was obvious the Hill case could have been thrown out after the private testimony was made. Thomas was put in front of the Senate in this hearing not to answer questions on his qualifications or even on the source of the leak, but to answer the charges - something that should have been done in private to protect both Thomas AND Hill.

Instead, both were thrown to the wolves to help sully Thomas' reputation in hopes that enough senators would get squeemish on the heals of the Bork situation and prevent the court from replacing Thurgood Marshall with a black court nominee that didn't have the "traditional" black views on affirmative action in Thomas. Thankfully, the ploy did not work - although both Thomas and Hill paid the price from a public reputation standpoint.

Yeah, confidential hearings on the appointment of a Supreme Court justice - that's a good idea. I suppose Clinton's scandal, the Iran-Contra hearings, and Watergate should have been handled behind closed doors. If you don't understand why a judges adherence to the laws of America is relevant to his appointment, then you are a dumbass.

BTW, how do you think the Senate's extreme bungling of the supposed "confidential charges by Hill" helped the very serious issue of sexual harassment in society at that time? You think a lot of girls that had legit cases would have wanted to come forward given what Ms. Hill was asked to do on the floor of the senate and the public ridicule that followed? There was no reason to prance her out on national TV like that.

Tragically, I think it hurt the issue of sexual harassment. I wish Americans had a greater understanding of the problem and weren't so dismissive of allegations. However, that to me is no reason to have private hearings. A free society cannot be free if its hearings are secret.

Again, you need to work on your reading comprehension. My claim on the filibuster and line item veto was in direct response to your comments that I was all bent out of shape about GOP nominees not getting confirmed. Here's your post:

I brought up the filibuster and line-item veto to show that my arguments about the policy of confirmation were not based on the idea that republicans couldn't get enough people in - it was simply that I did not like the idea of the Senate (IMO) overstepping their role on judicial nomination anymore than the president overstepping his current role in the process of passing legislative bills. Had you not decided to branch out from the SCOTUS and being in non-SCOTUS nominees, I doubt I would have had to repeat myself again on this issue.

Again, I have said NOTHING about the filibuster issue in this thread. It matters to me not. I use non-SCOTUS examples to show that the villification of GOP nominees in general shows that your SCOTUS sample size of 1 may not be a good argument. Of course, I guess in your strained logic, it makes sense to say the Democrats only villify GOP SCOTUS nominees, but are actually more inclined to confirm GOP federal court nomineess. I can see how that makes sense. :rolleyes:

The problem is you break into your pre-programmed pontification diatribes regardless of what the argument is. I have tried to stay on point regarding the difficulty conservatives have in this current climate despite your reaching back to the 70s and early 80s, bringing up non-SCOTUS nominees and spending more time assuming what I was trying to say instead of reading what I actually wrote.

That said, I did appreciate the classic SNL reference so this discussion hasn't been a total loss.

Yeah. I can see that history that doesn't agree with you is troublesome. You would much rather use a sample size of 1 to prove a general point. You are well versed in the ways of National Review argumentation. Your future as a Fox News pundit is bright indeed. Add a little more racism and humor to the mix and you could be a male Ann Coulter or maybe just a white Michelle Malkin.

And I noticed you again ignore being called out on two disgusting arguments you made:

First, calling the Thomas hearings McCarthyist. That's just wrong in so many ways.

Second, citing an admitted liar who fabricated a book against Anita Hill to discredit her. Instead you continue to say Hill's charges could easily have been thrown out when your only source for doing that is the liar and recanter.

I guess like our current president, admitting mistakes is absolutely impossible for you to do.

[MrBigglesworth]

Can anyone make any kind of decent argument that the filibuster is actually unconstitutional and that this isn't just a blatant power grab from a majority that can already get 95% of what they want but will break any rule to get the last 5%?

[st.cronin]

I still don't understand why people think this is a big deal.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I still don't understand why people think this is a big deal.

At this point, I'm sort of wondering myself. I mean, anything that gives the appearance of upsetting the D's this much, normally you could figure that it must be important and wonderful and all. At this point though, I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't more like a snowball that has taken on a life of its own rather than being something that's actually important in & of itself.

If the R's give an inch at this point, I'll be sorely disappointed in them (like with the alleged "we'll give you 7 out of 9" or whatever it is) but that's really starting to seem like the important part of this, the rule change/rule no-change really feels more like a tangent now.

[MrBigglesworth]

I mean, anything that gives the appearance of upsetting the D's this much, normally you could figure that it must be important and wonderful and all.
Forgive me if I am misinterpreting what you are saying, but are you insinuating that it is the Dem's that have made this into a big issue?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Forgive me if I am misinterpreting what you are saying, but are you insinuating that it is the Dem's that have made this into a big issue?

I really wasn't talking about anything like "who-started-it", I was just talking about where it ended up. And I don't believe anyone who has the misfortune of encountering the increasingly shrill Harry Reid could dispute that the D's are indeed "upset" at this point (nevermind when/how they got that way).

[JPhillips]

Jon has solved the problem!

we'll give you 7 of 9

I'm pretty sure most of the old guys on either side would be willing to drop the whole thing in exchange for a night with Jerri Ryan!

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm pretty sure most of the old guys on either side would be willing to drop the whole thing in exchange for a night with Jerri Ryan!

Y'know, that might explain the whole scenario with her & her ex-husband
:D

[MrBigglesworth]

I really wasn't talking about anything like "who-started-it", I was just talking about where it ended up. And I don't believe anyone who has the misfortune of encountering the increasingly shrill Harry Reid could dispute that the D's are indeed "upset" at this point (nevermind when/how they got that way).
Having someone with your opinions call Reid 'increasingly shrill' just reinforces my thoughts that Reid is doing a fantastic job as majority leader. And yeah the Dems are upset, what with this 'unprecedented' action the GOP is attempting.

[Glengoyne]

...
Yes. Unlike Bork and Thomas, he was rated "qualified," is very charming and humble and did not have sexual harassment allegations against him. Thomas, who is even more extreme than Scalia (but slightly less of an idealogue) got confirmed DESPITE the sexual harassment allegations and significantly less qualification - that gives me every reason to believe that Scalia would be confirmed today.
...
Aside from your discussion with Arles, which I am in the odd position of thinking that you are both right as well as wrong, or at least guilty of simplifying and dismissing the other's points.

I pulled this little bit out of your post out because I believe that the rating of "qualified" or "very qualified" means nothing these days. I look at Priscilla Owens, and she was rated as qualified, but because she has sometimes ruled against abortion for teens seeking to forego parental notification, a couple of far left pro-choice groups have targetted her. She isn't out of the "mainstream", yet that is what the Dems have tagged her. Scalia has been similarly labeled by a number of leading Democrats, and that is why I don't believe he would ever be confirmed for the bench in the current climate.

It is the fact that he is immenently qualified, along with my opinion that he is unconfirmable today that makes me upset with the Democrats choice to filibuster qualified candidates that fail to pass some political litmus test.

[JPhillips]

Isn't Owens the one that AG Gonzales said was in effect legislating from the bench?

[John Galt]

Aside from your discussion with Arles, which I am in the odd position of thinking that you are both right as well as wrong, or at least guilty of simplifying and dismissing the other's points.

I pulled this little bit out of your post out because I believe that the rating of "qualified" or "very qualified" means nothing these days. I look at Priscilla Owens, and she was rated as qualified, but because she has sometimes ruled against abortion for teens seeking to forego parental notification, a couple of far left pro-choice groups have targetted her. She isn't out of the "mainstream", yet that is what the Dems have tagged her. Scalia has been similarly labeled by a number of leading Democrats, and that is why I don't believe he would ever be confirmed for the bench in the current climate.

It is the fact that he is immenently qualified, along with my opinion that he is unconfirmable today that makes me upset with the Democrats choice to filibuster qualified candidates that fail to pass some political litmus test.


There have been accusations that the ABA's qualification process is liberally biased. Without getting into the details here, there is little empirical evidence to support the claim. The process tends to list people who have limit qualifications or have a record (as a judge) of clearly ignoring established precedent. In the case of abortion decisions, there are pretty clear court rules that some judges choose not to enforce and so they receive the "unqualified label." In general, the process weeds out idealogues (across the political spectrum) who place their personal beliefs above established law.

For purposes of my discussion with Arles, it isn't too relevant, because the simple fact is that judges with the "unqualified" label do receive greater scrutiny. Many, like Thomas are still confirmed, but it makes sense to look at them more carefully.

[MrBigglesworth]

...I look at Priscilla Owens, and she was rated as qualified, but because she has sometimes ruled against abortion for teens seeking to forego parental notification, a couple of far left pro-choice groups have targetted her. She isn't out of the "mainstream"...
I'm wondering what you would consider to be out of the mainstream. In the case you are referring to, she tried to insitutute hurdles into the law that were not there in the legislation, something one might call 'judicial activism', and in fact was called that by the conservative Alberto Gonzales (I know, I was surprised to see any principle in him too!). And it's not just on abortion issues, the The Houston Chronicle says "she too often contorts rulings to conform to her particular conservative outlook." The San Antonio Express says, "The senate should not block a judicial nominee simply because he or she is more conservative or more liberal than the Senate's majority party.… But concerns about Owen go to the heart of what makes a good judge."

[Glengoyne]

Isn't Owens the one that AG Gonzales said was in effect legislating from the bench? If Gonzales has made those statements, I'm unaware of them. The only criticism of Owen I've heard, other than the recent mantra that she is "out of the mainstream", was with her stance and previous rulings in abortion cases. In my mind that was fairly well rebutted by Senators for her confirmation when they disclosed that the only abortion cases she had ever ruled negatively on were cases where teens were seeking to bypass the parental notification requirement, and added that she had not always ruled against those petitioning. IIRC that last bit had even garnered her some animosity from the right in Texas.

This was all during one set of her confirmation committee hearings from some time ago. I really don't hear any Democrat giving specifics on each of the filibustered judges these days, just vague statements that they are bad people.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... that Reid is doing a fantastic job as minority leader.

Fixed that for ya'.
:D

[JPhillips]

Yep, it was Owens that Gonzales criticized:

He joined five justices in a majority opinion concluding that Owens’ dissent is “nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric.” In another instance, Gonzales wrote that adopting Owens’ view “would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism.”

(This is from a small paper, The Warwick Beacon, as it was the first thing I found)

[Glengoyne]

Yep, it was Owens that Gonzales criticized:

He joined five justices in a majority opinion concluding that Owens’ dissent is “nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric.” In another instance, Gonzales wrote that adopting Owens’ view “would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism.”

(This is from a small paper, The Warwick Beacon, as it was the first thing I found) Ah back when he was in Texas too. As I said, some of her actions had garnered her some attacks from the right.

Edit to remove, because I think I now have a better understanding of the criticism.

[st.cronin]

I don't want judges to be considered by how 'mainstream' they are. I want them to be considered for their wisdom and qualifications.

[Arles]

I agree, I don't think it should matter what a judge's belief system is as long as he or show has shown the ability to set those beliefs aside and rule on the current law at hand. Judges are not there to set agendas or legislation, they are there to react to the laws passed by the legislature and adhere to the Constitution. I don't care if they believe in Santa Claus, if they can do that and are qualified, they should be able to serve on the courts.

You had Kennedy up their railing against Judge Brown for siding X% against consumers and Y% against women... If there is a law that is deemed constitutional and it is setup in a way that consumers or women get screwed, don't blame the judge for enforcing it. Blame the legislature for passing it. It seems at times that people forget about the role of courts - it's not to make laws we don't like go away, it's to enforce all laws deemed viable with respect to the Constitution - even ones some don't like.

[JPhillips]

And Rick Santorum may have just won the award for stupidest thing said in this debate:

AND WE SHOULDN'T GO MUCKING AROUND IN THIS INSTITUTION AND CHANGING THE WAY WE'VE DONE THINGS,
PARTICULARLY WHEN IT COMES TO THE BALANCE OF POWERS BETWEEN THE THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT. AND THE INDEPENDENCE OF ONE OF THOSE BRANCHES OF THE JUDICIARY. WE MUST TREAD VERY CAREFULLY BEFORE WE GO RADICALLY CHANGING THE WAY WE DO THINGS THAT HAS SERVED THIS COUNTRY WELL, AND WE HAVE RADICALLY CHANGED THE WAY WE DO THINGS HERE. SOME ARE SUGGESTING WE'RE TRYING TO CHANGE THE LAW, WE'RE TRYING TO BREAK THE RULES. REMARKABLE. REMARKABLE HUBRIS. I MEAN, IMAGINE, THE RULE HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR 214 YEARS THAT THIS IS THE WAY WE CONFIRM JUDGES. BROKEN BY THE OTHER SIDE TWO YEARS AGO, AND THE AUDACITY OF SOME MEMBERS TO STAND UP AND SAY, HOW DARE YOU BREAK THIS RULE. IT'S THE EQUIVALENT OF ADOLF HITLER IN 1942 "I'M IN PARIS. HOW DARE YOU INVADE ME. HOW DARE YOU BOMB MY CITY? IT'S MINE." THIS IS NO MORE THE RULE OF THE SENATE THAN IT WAS THE RULE OF THE SENATE BEFORE NOT TO FILIBUSTER. IT WAS AN UNDERSTANDING AND AGREEMENT, AND IT HAS BEEN ABUSED. IN A SENSE, WHAT WE SEE HERE ON THE FLOOR OF THE UNITED STATES

[st.cronin]

And Rick Santorum may have just won the award for stupidest thing said in this debate:

AND WE SHOULDN'T GO MUCKING AROUND IN THIS INSTITUTION AND CHANGING THE WAY WE'VE DONE THINGS,
PARTICULARLY WHEN IT COMES TO THE BALANCE OF POWERS BETWEEN THE THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT. AND THE INDEPENDENCE OF ONE OF THOSE BRANCHES OF THE JUDICIARY. WE MUST TREAD VERY CAREFULLY BEFORE WE GO RADICALLY CHANGING THE WAY WE DO THINGS THAT HAS SERVED THIS COUNTRY WELL, AND WE HAVE RADICALLY CHANGED THE WAY WE DO THINGS HERE. SOME ARE SUGGESTING WE'RE TRYING TO CHANGE THE LAW, WE'RE TRYING TO BREAK THE RULES. REMARKABLE. REMARKABLE HUBRIS. I MEAN, IMAGINE, THE RULE HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR 214 YEARS THAT THIS IS THE WAY WE CONFIRM JUDGES. BROKEN BY THE OTHER SIDE TWO YEARS AGO, AND THE AUDACITY OF SOME MEMBERS TO STAND UP AND SAY, HOW DARE YOU BREAK THIS RULE. IT'S THE EQUIVALENT OF ADOLF HITLER IN 1942 "I'M IN PARIS. HOW DARE YOU INVADE ME. HOW DARE YOU BOMB MY CITY? IT'S MINE." THIS IS NO MORE THE RULE OF THE SENATE THAN IT WAS THE RULE OF THE SENATE BEFORE NOT TO FILIBUSTER. IT WAS AN UNDERSTANDING AND AGREEMENT, AND IT HAS BEEN ABUSED. IN A SENSE, WHAT WE SEE HERE ON THE FLOOR OF THE UNITED STATES


Well, it's a stupid analogy, but it's not a bad point. On the other hand, I still don't see what the big frickin' deal is. Pretty much the same people will get appointed no matter what.

[Glengoyne]

Did a little bit of a search, and found a column regarding Owen's decisions that addresses the alleged criticism by Gonzalves.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155861,00.html

The link is Fox News but the article is AP.

Views Differ on Owen's Judicial Opinions

Monday, May 09, 2005

http://www.foxnews.com/images/service_ap_36.gif

WASHINGTON — Monday marks the fourth anniversary of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen's (search (javascript:siteSearch('Priscilla Owen's');)) first nomination to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, a place where Democrats, who are willing to filibuster Owen, say she must never end up.

Republicans say Owen is one of the most qualified nominees before the Senate. But the charge from Democrats and their supporters is that Owen is a dangerous right-wing judicial activist — the kind of jurist President Bush claims to oppose.

"Priscilla Owen has, in fact, a career which demonstrates a kind of insensitivity to issues and values that most Americans share," said Wade Henderson, head of the Leadership Council on Civil Rights (http://www.civilrights.org/).

John Hill, a former chief justice of the Supreme Court where Owen serves, disagrees.

"I think she is a restrained, moderate type of judge that tries to find the law," Hill told FOX News.

Critics charge that Owen's opinions reveal an anti-abortion bias and, they say, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (search (javascript:siteSearch('Attorney General Alberto Gonzales');)) blasted her when the two served on the Texas Supreme Court together.

"Not once, not five times, but 10 times Alberto Gonzales said that Priscilla Owen was a judicial activist," said People for the American Way (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/) President Ralph Neas.

Gonzales denies the claim, saying he never directly attacked Owen. But liberals point to a case in 2000 where a minor who lived at home with her parents — the court called her "Jane Doe" — sought a court exemption to state law requiring her to tell her parents she was having an abortion.

Gonzales joined a 6-3 ruling granting the exemption — called a "bypass" in court lingo — even though the trial and appeals courts ruled the evidence required the girl to inform her parents.

"To construe the parental notification act so narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or to create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the statute, would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism," Gonzales wrote in his opinion of the case.

Democrats routinely cite this passage to suggest Gonzales couldn't abide Owen's judicial philosophy, but supporters call the citation misdirected.

"That's just a phony charge, and the reference to General Gonzales' comments in that opinion are just a red herring," Hill said.

In fact, Gonzales' opinion did single out a justice, but it wasn't Owen. It was Justice Nathan Hecht.

"Justice Hecht charges that our decision demonstrates the court's determination to construe the Parental Notification Act (search (javascript:siteSearch('Parental Notification Act');)) as the court believes the act should be construed and not as the legislature intended. I respectfully disagree," Gonzales wrote.

Owen's dissent in the case accused the court of ignoring testimony that the girl didn't want to tell her parents about the abortion because it would "upset them" and that it might jeopardize future college support, not the legal standard Owen wrote that the law required.

"It is the court who has acted irresponsibly in this case by summarily rendering judgment without careful consideration of the record, by manufacturing reasons to support its actions and by ignoring evidence that supports the trial court's judgment," she wrote.

The American Bar Association (http://www.abanet.org/) unanimously rated Owen as "well-qualified." She is the first nominee so rated ever denied an up-or-down confirmation vote.

[MrBigglesworth]

I don't want judges to be considered by how 'mainstream' they are. I want them to be considered for their wisdom and qualifications.
You can not get away from the fact that ideology comes out when making decisions, the classic 'strict constructionists' and 'loose constructionists'. A large number, if not the majority, of SC decisions come down somewhere along the conservative-liberal axis. If the decision is 6-3, you know pretty much that there are two possibilities of how the justices voted.

[Glengoyne]

Jphillips,

I think the point that Santorum was trying to make is that for the most part over the years, filibusters haven't been used to prevent a nominee from being confirmed. That changed over the past four years, as is evidenced by the number of nominee denied confirmation. Yes you say it is less than a dozen out of over two hundred that are being held up, but a look back in time should illustrate that that level of activity hasn't been seen before. He is saying before recently the filibuster was reserved for Extreme circumstances, but for the most part a president's nominees that make it out of committee are confirmed, or at least voted on. The point is that the Dems are the ones who are changing the "unwritten" rules of compromise in the Senate, and that the Republicans are reacting to that turn of events.

That is pretty much how I see this thing. The Dems are screwing up by meddling with these nominations....But the Republicans shouldn't essentially unilaterally change the rules of the Senate to get their way.

[Crapshoot]

Jphillips,

I think the point that Santorum was trying to make is that for the most part over the years, filibusters haven't been used to prevent a nominee from being confirmed. That changed over the past four years, as is evidenced by the number of nominee denied confirmation. Yes you say it is less than a dozen out of over two hundred that are being held up, but a look back in time should illustrate that that level of activity hasn't been seen before. He is saying before recently the filibuster was reserved for Extreme circumstances, but for the most part a president's nominees that make it out of committee are confirmed, or at least voted on. The point is that the Dems are the ones who are changing the "unwritten" rules of compromise in the Senate, and that the Republicans are reacting to that turn of events.

That is pretty much how I see this thing. The Dems are screwing up by meddling with these nominations....But the Republicans shouldn't essentially unilaterally change the rules of the Senate to get their way.

FYI, confirmation rates for court and appellete:

Bush 2: 87% and 53%
Clinton: 81% and 59%

From the Times yesterday.

[Arles]

FYI, confirmation rates for court and appellete:

Bush 2: 87% and 53%
Clinton: 81% and 59%

From the Times yesterday.
But how many of each that had over 50 pending votes were not allowed a vote? Most of Clinton's losses came because the candidate didn't get the 50 needed votes. If someone doesn't pass because they only get 45 votes - such is life. But what the republicans are objecting to are the number of people with over 50 votes that are being blocked from even getting an up or down vote. IMO, if a judge is deemed qualified by the ABA and is able to get 50 votes, there should be very few cases (if any) where that vote is blocked. It's doubtful that a judge so far out of the mainstream would have both the ABA qualification and the needed votes in the senate. This has been used much too frequently by the democrats to block probable confirming votes of qualified candidates and that is what is drawing the ire of republicans.

It would be a different situation alltogether if these candidates didn't have the votes to be confirmed (as was often the case under Clinton).

[sterlingice]

FYI, confirmation rates for court and appellete:

Bush 2: 87% and 53%
Clinton: 81% and 59%

From the Times yesterday.
I'm curious about Bush I and Reagan as well as the actual number along with rate, if you've got them.

SI

[JPhillips]

I haven't posted this because I thought someone else would but this little exchange happened on the floor a couple of days ago:

SEN. SCHUMER: Isn’t it correct that on March 8, 2000, my colleague [Sen. Frist] voted to uphold the filibuster of Judge Richard Paez?

SEN. FRIST: The president, the um, in response, uh, the Paez nomination - we’ll come back and discuss this further. … Actually I’d like to, and it really brings to what I believe - a point - and it really brings to, oddly, a point, what is the issue. The issue is we have leadership-led partisan filibusters that have, um, obstructed, not one nominee, but two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, in a routine way. The issue is not cloture votes per se, it’s the partisan, leadership-led use of cloture votes to kill - to defeat - to assassinate these nominees. That’s the difference. Cloture has been used in the past on this floor to postpone, to get more info, to ask further questions.

Frist is nothing more tha James Dobson's little bitch.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Frist is nothing more tha James Dobson's little bitch.

Perhaps.

But even James Dobson is right more often than your average Dem.

[MrBigglesworth]

Perhaps.

But even James Dobson is right more often than your average Dem.
What's the use of just posting inflammatory comments?

[MrBigglesworth]

But how many of each that had over 50 pending votes were not allowed a vote?
Several. There were the blue slips that kept the Michigan judges out, and the judges that were taken away from consideration when the R's threatened to filibuster.

[Blackadar]

Perhaps.

But even James Dobson is right more often than your average Dem.

Of course he'd be to the "right" more often. He's a Repub.

However, the average Dem. is far more correct and intelligent than you will ever be. :p

[JonInMiddleGA]

What's the use of just posting inflammatory comments?

Which is exactly what I was responding too, an inflammatory comment.

Or is that something you believe only the left should engage in?
Heck, I prefer we just acknowledge the hostilities and fight it out to the death.

[Blackadar]

Which is exactly what I was responding too, an inflammatory comment.

Or is that something you believe only the left should engage in?
Heck, I prefer we just acknowledge the hostilities and fight it out to the death.

Anytime little man, anytime.

[sterlingice]

I think we should just give jon and blackadar rusty razor blades and let them fight to the death for our own amusement ;)

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Anytime little man, anytime.

You're high on my Christmas card list too Blackie, it'd be a real pleasure. At least one of us would be just a small bit happier at the end of the day and the other wouldn't really be bothered anymore either.

Sounds like a real win-win.

[Crapshoot]

I'm curious about Bush I and Reagan as well as the actual number along with rate, if you've got them.

SI

They were in there - can't recall the others of the top of my head. Reagan was better than both- and come to think of it, so was Bush I. If I have time, I'll go find the newspaper and look it up.

[MrBigglesworth]

The point is that the Dems are the ones who are changing the "unwritten" rules of compromise in the Senate, and that the Republicans are reacting to that turn of events.
There are two problems with that logic. First off, using filibusters for judges is obviously not 'unprecidented'. Secondly, and it looks like you don't agree with this either, you don't tear up the rules to get your way. The best example I've heard is, assume you are playing chess with someone every day for a year. For whatever reason, during that time neither of you ever castled. Then, to get out of a jam, one day you castle. Your opponent might be upset, but what you did is perfectly within the rules of the game. What is completely inappropriate is your opponent deeming the castle rule to be 'un-chesslike' and moving your pieces back.

The merit of the filibuster can be argued back and forth. I like it, but it has certainly hurt some causes that I am in favor of. If they want to negotiate a rules change where in, say, 2008 the filibuster is gone, that is within the rules.

[Blackadar]

I think we should just give jon and blackadar rusty razor blades and let them fight to the death for our own amusement ;)

SI

I need Don King (Dong King?) to set up the Pay-Per-View on this one.

[MrBigglesworth]

Which is exactly what I was responding too, an inflammatory comment.

Or is that something you believe only the left should engage in?
Heck, I prefer we just acknowledge the hostilities and fight it out to the death.
Actually, he posted an exchange on the floor of the Senate and then called out one Senator. You posted nothing except a generalized attack on all Democrats. I believe you can see the difference.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Actually, he posted an exchange on the floor of the Senate and then called out one Senator. You posted nothing except a generalized attack on all Democrats. I believe you can see the difference.

Actually, he called out Frist and Dobson. And I responded to the attack on them.

What did you want me to do, list all the Dems by name? Seems a little unwieldy, not to mention really slowing the server down while it loads such a large post.

[MrBigglesworth]

Actually, he called out Frist and Dobson. And I responded to the attack on them.

What did you want me to do, list all the Dems by name? Seems a little unwieldy, not to mention really slowing the server down while it loads such a large post.
"You don't like a Republican? Well, all Democrats suck!" just seems infantile to me and adds nothing to the discourse.

His original point that 'Frist is just Dobson's bitch' actually has merit, despite the rancorous tone that he used. It can be reasonably argued that Frist is doing this to gain the support of the evangelical crowd come time to select the GOP's next presidential candidate.

[John Galt]

But how many of each that had over 50 pending votes were not allowed a vote? Most of Clinton's losses came because the candidate didn't get the 50 needed votes. If someone doesn't pass because they only get 45 votes - such is life. But what the republicans are objecting to are the number of people with over 50 votes that are being blocked from even getting an up or down vote. IMO, if a judge is deemed qualified by the ABA and is able to get 50 votes, there should be very few cases (if any) where that vote is blocked. It's doubtful that a judge so far out of the mainstream would have both the ABA qualification and the needed votes in the senate. This has been used much too frequently by the democrats to block probable confirming votes of qualified candidates and that is what is drawing the ire of republicans.

It would be a different situation alltogether if these candidates didn't have the votes to be confirmed (as was often the case under Clinton).

Again, Arles, do some research. The GOP didn't have to filibuster as many nominees (although they did do a few) because the rules allowed the judiciary committee to prevent nominees from ever reaching the floor. Helms was personally responsible for holding up more nominees than are at issue in the current controversy. A guaranteed "yes or no" vote has NEVER been part of the process.

[JonInMiddleGA]

His original point that 'Frist is just Dobson's bitch' actually has merit, despite the rancorous tone that he used. It can be reasonably argued that Frist is doing this to gain the support of the evangelical crowd come time to select the GOP's next presidential candidate.

And, as much as I'm not a particular fan of Dobson individually, you've reached the point that I was making (albeit too subtly for you apparently).

To wit: Even if Frist is "just Dobson's bitch", that's highly preferrable to any & all alternatives the Dems have to offer at this point. In other words ... so what if he is? Frist, or Dobson, or even Frist-as-a-Dobson-puppet, on their absolute worst day is still right more often than any Dem on the current political scene.
That was the whole point, I just figured it would be easy enough to understand without a lengthy explanation.

[Crapshoot]

Perhaps.

But even James Dobson is right more often than your average Dem.

You cannot actually think Dobson is remotely redeeming, can you Jon ? From what I recall, even you don't support some of his more idiotic theocratic ideas. Dobson is a crackpott, albeit one with the support of the Evangilical community. The man supports shit like this (from his website):

http://www.lovewonout.com/

Which says homosexuality is preventible and treatable. He's a fucking nutbag.

[MrBigglesworth]

To wit: Even if Frist is "just Dobson's bitch", that's highly preferrable to any & all alternatives the Dems have to offer at this point. In other words ... so what if he is? Frist, or Dobson, or even Frist-as-a-Dobson-puppet, on their absolute worst day is still right more often than any Dem on the current political scene.
So you like Frist because he is just not a democrat? You would think the GOP would have more principle than that, can't they find anyone that is actually good?

[sterlingice]

I need Don King (Dong King?) to set up the Pay-Per-View on this one.
No, I'm guessing Dong King is the name of a porn star with a giant afro like Don King's. And if not, it should be.

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

So you like Frist because he is just not a democrat? You would think the GOP would have more principle than that, can't they find anyone that is actually good?

Sigh. I'm probably what you'd call "neutral-to-positive" on Frist at this point. If he survives these shadowboxing phases of "pre-campaign" and emerges as a serious contender for the nomination, then I'll dig into him more deeply on my core issues. Until then, he just stays on the radar as someone of possible interest.

Careful here though, you seem to be about to drift into confusion about how my partisan tendencies developed. Remember, I don't see them as "wrong-because-they're-Democrats", it's more the reverse "they-became-Dems-because-they-are-wrong-so-often", hence my fervent opposition to them on the whole. And I don't believe there's a net gain in national politics by supporting even the rare specimen of a Dem that at least comes close to getting it right on my core issues because the reality is that they will have to aid those in their own party who as so far off base in order to survive.

[John Galt]

Here is some information about the normalcy of the lack of "yes or no" votes in the judicial nomination process:

(From Dailykos - a liberal blog, but I don't believe the specifics are in dispute)

"In the years that Republicans controlled the Judiciary Committee, the preferred method of "rejecting" scores of judicial nominees was to deny them Committee hearings and votes. More than a dozen of President Clinton's Circuit Court nominees received the American Bar Association's (ABA) unanimous "well-qualified" rating, but their nominations were defeated because their hearings were rejected by Republicans.

The following Circuit Court nominees from 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 are in this category: H. Alston Johnson (5th Circuit), James Duffy (9th Circuit), Kathleen McCree-Lewis (6th Circuit), Enrique Moreno (5th Circuit), James Lyons (10th Circuit), Robert Cindrich (3rd Circuit), Stephen Orlofsky (3rd Circuit), Andre Davis (4th Circuit), James Beaty (4th Circuit), and J. Rich Leonard (4th Circuit).

Allen Snyder (D.C. Circuit), who was also rated "well-qualified" by the ABA, received a hearing but was not allowed a vote by the Republican-controlled Committee.

More than a dozen other Circuit Court nominees with "partial well-qualified" or "qualified" ratings were also defeated by Republicans who blocked their hearings or votes, including Helene White (6th Circuit), Jorge Rangel (5th Circuit), Robert Raymer (3rd Circuit), Barry Goode (9th Circuit), Christine Arguello (10th Circuit), Elizabeth Gibson (4th Circuit), Elana Kagan (D.C. Circuit), James Wynn (4th Circuit), Bonnie Campbell (8th Circuit), Kent Markus (6th Circuit), and Roger Gregory (4th Circuit).

Dozens of District Court nominees from 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 with unanimous "well-qualified" or "qualified" ratings also were blocked by Republican refusal to give them hearings or votes. In all, nearly 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees were defeated through Republican blocking of hearings and votes, despite their ABA ratings. ... While only two of President Bush's judicial nominees have been defeated in open votes, nearly 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees were defeated through secret, anonymous holds and other secretive, non-transparent Republican tactics."

Here is a chart describing the changes in blue slip rules from Calpundit.com (since I don't know how to format it right, you can view it at: http://www.calpundit.com/archives/002501.html):

Time Period
Rule
What It Means

Pre-1994
Two blue slips needed to kill a nominee.
This was the default "Senatorial courtesy" tradition followed by both parties regardless of who was president. If both senators from the judge's home state "blue slipped" a nominee, he was out.

1995-2000
Only one blue slip needed to kill a nominee.
Republicans take control of the Senate and decide that the old rule is archaic. Only one blue slip should be required to block a nominee, thus making it easier for them kill Clinton nominees.

2001
Back to two slips.
With George Bush in the White House, their shiny new rule suddenly no longer seems like such a good idea: why, it makes it easier for Democrats to block George Bush's nominees! Republicans change the rule back to two blue slips and Democrats threaten to filibuster over this transparent piece of hypocrisy.

2001-2002
Democrats reinstate one blue slip rule.
Republicans never really got a chance to enact their power play before Jim Jeffords defected. With Democrats in power, they keep the one blue slip rule.

2002-Present
Two blue slips.
Republicans now control the Senate again and make good on their earlier promise to move to a two-blue-slip rule. Democrats cry foul and threaten to filibuster. They do.

[JPhillips]

Guys, its best to just ignore Jon. He'll never change and arguing is pointless. However, if he can deliver on that promise to pimp Jerri Ryan...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Guys, its best to just ignore Jon. He'll never change and arguing is pointless. However, if he can deliver on that promise to pimp Jerri Ryan...

Lemme see if I can find that number, there was this guy who said he could deliver :D

[Glengoyne]

FYI, confirmation rates for court and appellete:

Bush 2: 87% and 53%
Clinton: 81% and 59%

From the Times yesterday.
I have no problem with your assertion that the Republicans screwed with the Democratic Nominees. There is a difference in the manner of interference, that makes a difference to me. Republicans used the Blue Slip process to block most nominees from states with at least a single Republican Senator. Granted, I think that is crap. The Republicans have gotten rid of the Blue Slip procedure...perhaps that is some ground they can give in the "compromise".

I think it might also be worth pointing out that the blue slip rule wouldn't have prevented of all of these nominations from leaving committee. Even though the Republicans abused the blue slip process, they didn't screw around with judicial nominees once they cleared committee no matter how liberal their record was.

[sterlingice]

Lemme see if I can find that number, there was this guy who said he could deliver :D
I remember reading about a guy who liked to pimp her out. I think it was this guy ;)

http://www.illinoischannel.org/jack%20ryan%20at%20CMS%20in%20March.jpg

SI

[Crapshoot]

I have no problem with your assertion that the Republicans screwed with the Democratic Nominees. There is a difference in the manner of interference, that makes a difference to me. Republicans used the Blue Slip process to block most nominees from states with at least a single Republican Senator. Granted, I think that is crap. The Republicans have gotten rid of the Blue Slip procedure...perhaps that is some ground they can give in the "compromise".

I think it might also be worth pointing out that the blue slip rule wouldn't have prevented of all of these nominations from leaving committee. Even though the Republicans abused the blue slip process, they didn't screw around with judicial nominees once they cleared committee no matter how liberal their record was.

That's John Galt Glen - I just posted the numbers that I recall reading about in the Times yesterday. :D

[JonInMiddleGA]

I remember reading about a guy who liked to pimp her out. I think it was this guy ;)

Doggone it SI, how am I supposed to eventually convert JPhillips interest into cash if you eliminate the need for me to serve as his go-between. Ah well, another plan into the crapper.

[Glengoyne]

That's John Galt Glen - I just posted the numbers that I recall reading about in the Times yesterday. :D
I had my response written, but hadn't entered it before John had posted his info. I just assumed that was the point you were making by posting the numbers, at least that is how I interpreted them. You are correct in that my post probably addresses John's better than yours, eventhough I wrote mine before he posted.

[Crapshoot]

I had my response written, but hadn't entered it before John had posted his info. I just assumed that was the point you were making by posting the numbers, at least that is how I interpreted them. You are correct in that my post probably addresses John's better than yours, eventhough I wrote mine before he posted.

Yeah. My impression is that its politics as usual, and I believe eliminating the filibuster is a bad idea - I just don't like the impression that these delaying tactics are new.

[MrBigglesworth]

Even though the Republicans abused the blue slip process, they didn't screw around with judicial nominees once they cleared committee no matter how liberal their record was.
What is the difference between blocking them with a blue slip and blocking them with a filibuster? With the first, all you need is one vote. In the second, you need 41. During much of Clinton's presidency the GOP was in charge of the committees, which explains a big reason why they had no problem passing when they left committee. Paez and Berzon were also the subject of attempted filisbusters by the the GOP, including Frist. The GOP also blocked assitant AG nominees and ambassadors with filibusters. What makes judicial filibusters special? Because they are lifetime appointees they should be able to be pushed through easier? That doesn't make sense.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Y'know, I was thinking about this earlier & realized something -- I'm really not mad at the Dems for doing whatever they can within the rules to block the appointments, that's their right and their responsibility. What I will be angry at is if the GOP doesn't have enough sense to act in the same fashion, acting within the rules in order to get them through ... rules that just happen to include provisions to change the rules.

[MrBigglesworth]

... rules that just happen to include provisions to change the rules.
I agree with you, Republicans should push for the 2/3 majority needed to change the rule instead of throwing out the rules. I'm sure there could be some room for a compromise there, most progressives want to do away with the filibuster anyway, as big government is the likely result.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I agree with you, Republicans should push for the 2/3 majority needed to change the rule instead of throwing out the rules. I'm sure there could be some room for a compromise there, most progressives want to do away with the filibuster anyway, as big government is the likely result.

But what they're doing accomplishes the purpose, and is within the confines of the rules as well.

[JPhillips]

Jon: Actually, according to the Senate parliamentarian what they are planning on doing is outside the rules.

btw- Mr. Ryan and I are all set for a "swinging" weekend in New Orleans. Hope to see you there!

[MrBigglesworth]

But what they're doing accomplishes the purpose, and is within the confines of the rules as well.
How is it in the confines of the rules? What the GOP is attempting is to make the rules whatever Dick Cheney says the rules are, rendering all rules of the Senate meaningless and subject to the whim of Dick Cheney.

[JonInMiddleGA]

How is it in the confines of the rules? What the GOP is attempting is to make the rules whatever Dick Cheney says the rules are, rendering all rules of the Senate meaningless and subject to the whim of Dick Cheney.

And if it works, more power to them. Biggy, you're really underestimating what lengths I find acceptable to prevent there ever being a single iota of influence from the liberal left.

[MrBigglesworth]

And if it works, more power to them. Biggy, you're really underestimating what lengths I find acceptable to prevent there ever being a single iota of influence from the liberal left.
I don't doubt that, I am aware that there is a large fascist contingent in this country. I just take issue with calling it a measure that is 'within the rules'.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't doubt that, I am aware that there is a large fascist contingent in this country. I just take issue with calling it a measure that is 'within the rules'.

Okay, show me where this description fails to be "within the rules" or where it has erred in explanation.

from http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/confirmation_watch/nuclear_option.htm

The way this procedural maneuver would work — as it did in 1975 — would be that, at the time of a cloture vote to end debate, the Senate majority would secure a ruling from the chair that Standing Rule XXII does not apply. The chair, likely the Vice President, would probably agree and rule in favor of the majority. The issue would then be brought to a vote, and the minority, probably through the Minority Leader, would note that the issue is debatable and, hence, also subject to a filibuster.

The parliamentarian, relying on Senate precedent, would agree. The chair would then recognize a non-debatable motion to table. At this point, the majority could overrule the anti-majoritarian precedent, uphold the ruling of the chair, and proceed to a final yea-or-nay vote on the original question by securing a simple majority vote in favor of the motion to table.

Or maybe this from The New Yorker reads better, I dunno
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/index.ssf?050307fa_fact
According to Gold’s scenario, in an extended debate over a judicial nominee a senator could raise a point of order that “any further debate is dilatory and not in order.” If the Presiding Officer of the Senate—Vice-President Dick Cheney—sustained the point of order, Gold wrote, “he would set a new, binding Senate precedent allowing Senators to cut off debate.” Democrats could challenge the Vice-President, but it takes only a majority vote to sustain a ruling by the Presiding Officer. The Republicans, with their majority, could both cut off debate on a nominee and establish a precedent that would apply to all future judicial nominations. (A legal challenge by Democrats would almost surely fail, because courts generally defer to the other branches of government on matters concerning their internal operations.) Henceforth, then, filibusters on judges would be impossible.

[MrBigglesworth]

Okay, show me where this description fails to be "within the rules" or where it has erred in explanation.

from http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/confirmation_watch/nuclear_option.htm

The way this procedural maneuver would work — as it did in 1975 — would be that, at the time of a cloture vote to end debate, the Senate majority would secure a ruling from the chair that Standing Rule XXII does not apply. The chair, likely the Vice President, would probably agree and rule in favor of the majority. The issue would then be brought to a vote, and the minority, probably through the Minority Leader, would note that the issue is debatable and, hence, also subject to a filibuster.

The parliamentarian, relying on Senate precedent, would agree. The chair would then recognize a non-debatable motion to table. At this point, the majority could overrule the anti-majoritarian precedent, uphold the ruling of the chair, and proceed to a final yea-or-nay vote on the original question by securing a simple majority vote in favor of the motion to table.
Rule XXII: http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule22.htm

Your description there is akin to a referee, when a player goes in for a TD, saying that the touchdown rule does not apply and awarding the team no points. It's simply ignoring the rules, not doing anything within the rules.

[st.cronin]

This has become the dullest thread of all time.

[sterlingice]

This has become the dullest thread of all time.
I've tried to do my part from urging on Jon and Blackie to fight with rusty razor blades to making bad jokes about porn stars named Dong King to giving props for the Jane Curtin-Dan Akroyd old (old, old) school SNL reference to helping fuel the whole "Jack Ryan is into whoring out Jeri Ryan" flame. It's not my fault! (this time)

SI

[Arles]

Several. There were the blue slips that kept the Michigan judges out, and the judges that were taken away from consideration when the R's threatened to filibuster.
Are you certain each of these had over 50 votes and cleared committee? I don't recall any of the blue slips in the mid 90s having 50 votes - in fact many didn't make it out of committee. The main reason for the losses in the mid to late 90s were because Clinton simply didn't have the votes or a majority in the senate.

A guaranteed "yes or no" vote has NEVER been part of the process.
Actually, if you discount the blue slip process (in which many of the current nominees would not fall under if they were in effect now), the majority has almost always gotten a yes-or-no vote on judges. The only times when it hasn't occurred is when the opposition held the committee chair - which isn't the case now.

What the democrats want is a way to stop the voting process on nominees where both senators from his/her home state favor the candidate and the nominee having over 50 votes, with the opposition holding a majority in the Senate and the White House. This truly is the "tyranny of the minority".

[Arles]

BTW, do people actually understand that the original point of the filibuster is to encourage more debate in hopes of finding a compromise - not completely shutting down the issue (or candidate) altogether. That's why it works so well for legislation yet is a poor choice for confirming judges. There's no way you can approve 1/2 of one judicial nominee and 1/2 of another. Once all the debate has occurred on judges and the judge in question clears committee, there should be a vote on that judge.

[albionmoonlight]

What the democrats want is a way to stop the voting process on nominees where both senators from his/her home state favor the candidate and the nominee having over 50 votes, with the opposition holding a majority in the Senate and the White House. This truly is the "tyranny of the minority".
This definition reeks of end based decision making. How is the Blue Slip (in which one senator can stop a vote on a candidate) somehow less of a "tyranny of the minority" than a filibuster threat (which requires enough Senators to hold a filibuster)? It really appears as if you are simply looking at the outcome that you like viewed through the redstate/bluestate lense (The Republicans used/abused the Blue Slip--the Democrats use/abuse the filibuster) and defining what is egregious based on that.

You do, however, seem to have gotten away from the idea that the filibuster of judicial nominees is somehow unconstitutional, which I appreciate.

I disagree with the argument that the filibuster should go, but I can't say that it is patently incorrect. That's just a policy matter. As long as we all acknowledge that this whole debate is all public policy and party politics, I'm happy.

[MrBigglesworth]

Are you certain each of these had over 50 votes and cleared committee?
Well that's the logical problem, isn't it? How do you know who has 50 votes without a vote? It's not certain that the filibustered judges today have 50 votes.

...with the opposition holding a majority in the Senate and the White House. This truly is the "tyranny of the minority".
What was the presidential vote, 51-48%? More people are represented by Democrats in the Senate than Republicans. And yet you are trying to spin 90% of judges confirmed instead of 100% as 'tyranny of the minority'? That's some overblown rhetoric right there. The ones that are being blocked are being blocked because of their activism and out of the mainstream views (except the Michigan ones, who are being blocked because of GOP using the blue slips when Clinton was in office then getting rid of the blue slip rule when Bush got into office). It's not like the president has asked for all of these liberal judges being confirmed and the GOP let those through. Bush has nominated moderate to conservative to batshit insane conservative judges. That's obviously not a representative sample of the country, so in no way can you try and portray the blocking of the most heavily conservative judges as 'tyranny of the minority'. The Senate system exists to prevent just what the GOP is attempting: absolute power by a thin majority.

EDIT: And let's not forget that Bush's approval rating is hovering around 40% right now.

[Arles]

Well that's the logical problem, isn't it? How do you know who has 50 votes without a vote? It's not certain that the filibustered judges today have 50 votes.
Then why not bring it to a vote and see? Each candidate has passed committee, so the comparison to the mid 90s has already fallen short.

What was the presidential vote, 51-48%?
Clinton got less than 45% of the vote in one election, had a republican Senate and House for much of his reign and still got a higher percentage of appellete nominees than Bush. Doesn't that seem odd?

More people are represented by Democrats in the Senate than Republicans.
Yet, the republicans control the Senate. It appears your beef is with the US political system. If you want the democrats to control the senate, then they need to get more senators. But, until then, they should not be able to block numerous appellate nominees that have cleared committee and are to be scheduled a vote.

And yet you are trying to spin 90% of judges confirmed instead of 100% as 'tyranny of the minority'?
No, I am talking about Bush getting only 53% of his appellate nominees (lower than Clinton) despite having many that have passed committee. That IS the tyranny of the minority.

[judicial clerk]

This thread reminds me of Star Wars, the Phantom Menace

[MrBigglesworth]

Then why not bring it to a vote and see?
So it was ok for the GOP to block the Clinton nominees and not get them to a vote, but not ok for the Dems?

Clinton got less than 45% of the vote in one election, had a republican Senate and House for much of his reign and still got a higher percentage of appellete nominees than Bush. Doesn't that seem odd?...No, I am talking about Bush getting only 53% of his appellate nominees (lower than Clinton) despite having many that have passed committee. That IS the tyranny of the minority.
From Media Matters:
Falsehood #8: Clinton's appellate confirmation rate was far better than Bush's rate

"Nuclear option" advocates have also claimed that the confirmation rate for Clinton's appellate nominees was much higher than for Bush's nominees. But the confirmation rate in Clinton's second term and Bush's first term are nearly identical -- 35 of Clinton's 51 nominees were confirmed, compared to 35 of Bush's 52 nominees.

Another talking point is that "100 percent" of Clinton's appellate nominees were approved once they reached the Senate floor. But that statistic is highly misleading because the Republican-led Judiciary Committee blocked the 16 second-term Clinton appellate nominees by keeping them off the floor and, in all but one case, denying them even committee hearings.

But, until then, they should not be able to block numerous appellate nominees that have cleared committee and are to be scheduled a vote.
By the same token then, legislation that has passed committee should not be subject to be blocked. So if you are against all filibusters, that is fine, that's something that can be debated. I like the idea of a filibuster, prevents one party with a narrow majority from ramming things through like in the House, and creates more moderate legislation (and judges).

[Arles]

So it was ok for the GOP to block the Clinton nominees and not get them to a vote, but not ok for the Dems?
Again, when you are the majority, you have the ability to block nominees in committee. It's one of the benefits of being the majority. Both sides have been doing it to each other for years (decades, even). But, you do NOT get that same right when you are the minority - something that the republicans had to deal with under Carter and the first few years of Clinton.

By the same token then, legislation that has passed committee should not be subject to be blocked. So if you are against all filibusters, that is fine, that's something that can be debated. I like the idea of a filibuster, prevents one party with a narrow majority from ramming things through like in the House, and creates more moderate legislation (and judges).
The senate has differing roles in legislation and judicial nominees. It writes and passes legislation - so having the ability to debate and make changes in the writing of the laws is a big benefit. So, I like the legislative filibuter for the same reasons I stated above (aparantly you didn't read it, so here it is again):
BTW, do people actually understand that the original point of the filibuster is to encourage more debate in hopes of finding a compromise - not completely shutting down the issue (or candidate) altogether. That's why it works so well for legislation yet is a poor choice for confirming judges. There's no way you can approve 1/2 of one judicial nominee and 1/2 of another. Once all the debate has occurred on judges and the judge in question clears committee, there should be a vote on that judge.

[MrBigglesworth]

Again, when you are the majority, you have the ability to block nominees in committee. It's one of the benefits of being the majority. Both sides have been doing it to each other for years (decades, even). But, you do NOT get that same right when you are the minority - something that the republicans had to deal with under Carter and the first few years of Clinton.
When you talk about 'rights', what are you talking about? The committees and blue slips and filibusters are mearly parts of the Senate rules. If you want to change the rules, that can be debated, but with the 'nuclear option' we are talking about throwing the rules away and instituting might makes right.

So, I like the legislative filibuter for the same reasons I stated above (aparantly you didn't read it, so here it is again):
I read it, just ignored it because it was full of logical holes. The filibuster hasn't been used to lengthen debate for decades. The idea that no compromise can be had on judges is ludicrous, because there are several compromises on the table from various senators right now.

[st.cronin]

You're both wrong! Now go to your rooms!

[John Galt]

Actually, if you discount the blue slip process (in which many of the current nominees would not fall under if they were in effect now), the majority has almost always gotten a yes-or-no vote on judges. The only times when it hasn't occurred is when the opposition held the committee chair - which isn't the case now.

What the democrats want is a way to stop the voting process on nominees where both senators from his/her home state favor the candidate and the nominee having over 50 votes, with the opposition holding a majority in the Senate and the White House. This truly is the "tyranny of the minority".

Arles, seriously try to think. It may hurt the first time, but it is really worth it in the long run.

You just said, "Actually, if you discount [reality], the majority has almost always gotten a yes-or-no vote on judges." Reality is that the blue slip process, filibusters, and the threat of filibusters have ALL acted to prevent yes-or-no votes. What is happening now is not unusual in the least. Stop being such a partisan dumbass and actually try to use your brain.

[Arles]

OK, John, so the blue slip process is in effect? And if it effects each of the candidates being denied a vote? Without both of those being true (and maybe they are and my simple mind is just missing it), it certainly appears that the minority is trying to use unprecedented techniques (esp at this level) to prevent the majority from allowing a vote on candidates that have passed committee.

I had always thought, even under Clinton, that once a candidate passed committee he or she got a vote on the floor. Perhaps you could direct your vast level of intelligence and wisdom on these issues that us mindless cretans have a hard time following to answer that claim.

[Mr. Wednesday]

I had always thought, even under Clinton, that once a candidate passed committee he or she got a vote on the floor.This goes to the exact issue -- in most cases, the nominees failed because they were blocked procedurally in committee, in situations where it's not clear whether or not they would have had the votes in committee to advance to a vote on the floor. It is argued that the Republicans have not left those procedural options open to the Democrats, but I don't know whether that's true.

[MrBigglesworth]

...in most cases, the nominees failed because they were blocked procedurally in committee, in situations where it's not clear whether or not they would have had the votes in committee to advance to a vote on the floor.
Even if it is true that the GOP never filibustered or attempted to filibuster any of Clinton's nominees (which is false), to believe this argument you still have to make the leap of logic which says that keeping someone from getting a hearing by having one senator object (such as the blue slips) is morally superior to keeping someone from getting a hearing by having 41 senators object. And then to support the nuclear option based on logic and not partisanship, you further have to believe that it is so morally bankrupt that it is worth turning the Senate into a totalitarian dictatorship where the rules of conduct can be changed on a whim to suit the majority party. (kind of like what the House is right now, in a completely Orwellian "pig to man, man to pig" development)

[Flasch186]

And if it works, more power to them. Biggy, you're really underestimating what lengths I find acceptable to prevent there ever being a single iota of influence from the liberal left.

such is why its pointless to discuss politics with you....and what you say can be chalked up to someone so steeped in rhetoric his/her points add up to 1/100 of a point made by someone open minded. I was so happy when you admitted your stance in that other thread....because basically anyone who was middle of the road and thought you made some good points were likely flipped when they realized how brainwashed you are. I'm happy about that. I kind of feel like I won, or at least exposed you.



AND

imagine that, this discussion falls along party lines:

Right, "We're the majority and are going to do what we want and if you dont go along with us (sound familiar) we're going to change the rules so that you become irrelevent (sound familiar) .... but actually, where's the press, its not changing the rules... these were the rules all the time."

Left, "Hey we still exist here!! you can't do that!! thats not right!! We won the popular vote!! Listen!! Hey!!"

[Crapshoot]

OK, John, so the blue slip process is in effect? And if it effects each of the candidates being denied a vote? Without both of those being true (and maybe they are and my simple mind is just missing it), it certainly appears that the minority is trying to use unprecedented techniques (esp at this level) to prevent the majority from allowing a vote on candidates that have passed committee.

I had always thought, even under Clinton, that once a candidate passed committee he or she got a vote on the floor. Perhaps you could direct your vast level of intelligence and wisdom on these issues that us mindless cretans have a hard time following to answer that claim.

And that's the point Arlie- is that you keep arguing that the Democrats block more nominees after the committee- which is a strawman. The Republicans block the nominee in committeee through the blue slip. How this puts the Republicans on any different moral ground I'm not sure, yet to seem to insist that this is the case.

[John Galt]

OK, John, so the blue slip process is in effect? And if it effects each of the candidates being denied a vote? Without both of those being true (and maybe they are and my simple mind is just missing it), it certainly appears that the minority is trying to use unprecedented techniques (esp at this level) to prevent the majority from allowing a vote on candidates that have passed committee.

I had always thought, even under Clinton, that once a candidate passed committee he or she got a vote on the floor. Perhaps you could direct your vast level of intelligence and wisdom on these issues that us mindless cretans have a hard time following to answer that claim.

There are no other mindless cretans, Arles - only you.

The point is the GOP rarely had to try to filibuster because they could always stop the process in committee. If you can just have one Senator block a nominee, why would you ever have a public display of threatening a filibuster?

Even wuth that said, filibusters have been used rarely (I believe Fortas's elevation is the most famous example) and have certainly been threatened on many occassions.

One of the truly unprecedented events in the current process is Bush's odd re-submission of candidates who didn't receive a vote the first time. I tried to find any record of a similar re-submission and couldn't. If someone has any record of a similar tactic being used, let me know.

Given Bush's odd manuever and the change in the blue slip rules, doesn't it seem that the reason a filibuster is being threatened is because it is the Dems only recourse? They lack the other mechanisms that have been used before (blue slipping and waiting the candidate out until the end of the term or until the president submits a new candidate).

For me, I guess, this filibuster debate is much ado about nothing. Judicial nominations have always been blocked by a minority (sometimes as a few as one or two). The filibuster is at least a mechanism to ensure it is a large minority.

[Arles]

The problem is that the methods of the minority has always been limited in scope (ie, blue slip) and meant to keep the candidate from leaving committee. With the filibuster, there is no limit to the scope and it works on candidates that have made it through committee. So, unlike when the republicans were in the minority in the early 90s and 80s, the democrats have now taken to routinely blocking appellate nominees that have passed committee - with no restrictions on when this tool can be used (unlike the blue slips).

As to why Bush is re-submitting applicants, it's because the dems have taken the unprecedented action of blocking numerous candidates that have passed committee and not allowed any a vote. That hasn't happened in recent memory. And, again, the filibuster doesn't "reject" a candidate, it just delays a vote until 60 votes are gained. When a candidate is blocked in committee, he is rejected from even getting a hearing for a vote. So, it would make sense that with these nominees passing committee (and given ABA approval) that Bush would keep trying to get them a vote.

We'd have a better idea on how the democrats would have dealt with this problem of numerous judges passing committee and being denied a vote by judicial filibuster, but the republicans have never done it to this extent - so we have little history to use as reference.

[John Galt]

The problem is that the methods of the minority has always been limited in scope (ie, blue slip) and meant to keep the candidate from leaving committee. With the filibuster, there is no limit to the scope and it works on candidates that have made it through committee. So, unlike when the republicans were in the minority in the early 90s and 80s, the democrats have now taken to routinely blocking appellate nominees that have passed committee - with no restrictions on when this tool can be used (unlike the blue slips).

Huh?!?!? More candidates were blocked by blue slips than by filibusters (and it isn't even close). Of course there is a "limit to the scope." How often are filibusters used in the political process? They can be used to block any bill any time and yet they are used EXTREMELY rarely. Political pressure and political capital ensure filibusters are rarely deployed. The numbers show you are just wrong on this. The idea that they are "routinely blocking" nominees is just hyperbole with no basis in numbers.

As to why Bush is re-submitting applicants, it's because the dems have taken the unprecedented action of blocking numerous candidates that have passed committee and not allowed any a vote. That hasn't happened in recent memory. And, again, the filibuster doesn't "reject" a candidate, it just delays a vote until 60 votes are gained. When a candidate is blocked in committee, he is rejected from even getting a hearing for a vote. So, it would make sense that with these nominees passing committee (and given ABA approval) that Bush would keep trying to get them a vote.

Again, you are totally wrong on the facts. In the Clinton adminstration, the GOP just blocked votes until his second term ran out. Numerous nominees never received a vote and Clinton did not resubmit them. Bush is the first president I know of to try this manuever. Normally, the candidates just stay in a holding position until the President submits a new candidate or their term ends.

We'd have a better idea on how the democrats would have dealt with this problem of numerous judges passing committee and being denied a vote by judicial filibuster, but the republicans have never done it to this extent - so we have little history to use as reference.

Again, the numbers show you are TOTALLY wrong. To use an analogy appropriate to this board,

If the GOP were a football team and they allowed no touchdowns in the red zone, you would think their red zone defense was pretty good. That is, unless someone told you they never had a team in the red zone because they always let them score from 50 yards out. The GOP never had to filibuster because they could just block the candidates in committee. How that is more democratic or less in conflict with the consitution (which doesn't even contemplate committees) is truly dumb.

Pretending what is happening is something new is just partisan nonsense. Any reasonable constitutional historian will tell you that this is what has ALWAYS happened.

[JPhillips]

Arles: If the compromise is to return to the blue slip rules in effect during Clinton I'll gladly urge my senators to vote against the filibuster. The problem is that the Republicans believe they should be able to do whatever they want. Its all a part of the same abuse of power pattern.

Off-year redistricting

Keeping floor votes open for hours

Calling Capitol police on Dems

Offering a bribe to a sitting congressman

Organizing lobbyists to threaten wavering congressmen

Theatening lobbyists firms that work with Dems

Changing House rules to make it easier to get free giftfs

Using Homeland Security resources to track Dems

Stacking the ethics committee with loyalists

Inserting new legislation in compromise bills

Refusing to allow amendments from Dems to be heard

Routinely keeping final bills secret until only a few hours before a final vote

And that doesn't even get to the White House or outside groups. The leadership of the Republican party is corrupt and drunk on power. That, much more than the Contract with America, is what killed the Dems in 1994.

[MrBigglesworth]

The problem is that the methods of the minority has always been limited in scope (ie, blue slip) and meant to keep the candidate from leaving committee. With the filibuster, there is no limit to the scope and it works on candidates that have made it through committee. So, unlike when the republicans were in the minority in the early 90s and 80s, the democrats have now taken to routinely blocking appellate nominees that have passed committee - with no restrictions on when this tool can be used (unlike the blue slips).
Now you have taken the odd stance that the blue slips are morally superior to the filibuster because it is 'limited in scope'. That argument completely invalidates the argument that the filibuster is unconstitutional.

Also, another thing that people fail to take into account when comparing it to Clinton's judicial record is that it is not out of the realm of possibility that Bush nominates more batshit insane judges that deserve to be gotten rid of. For one, Clinton was a moderate, and two, Bush knows he has the majority in the Senate to ram a lot more through.

[Arles]

Now you have taken the odd stance that the blue slips are morally superior to the filibuster because it is 'limited in scope'. That argument completely invalidates the argument that the filibuster is unconstitutional.
I don't know that I agree that judicial filibusters are "unconstitutional". And I would have no problem if committee parliamentary rules like the blue slip return. But, just like with the republicans in the early 90s, if the Dems want to add this rule back in they need to get a majority in the senate.

I just don't like the use of judicial filibusters as I feel it infringes upon the separation of powers for allowing the president to nominate judges and have the senate vote on them once they clear committee (as compared the legislative process that is primarily created and affirmed by congress). But, the fact that I am not comfortable or approve of them does not necessarily make them unconstitutional.

Also, another thing that people fail to take into account when comparing it to Clinton's judicial record is that it is not out of the realm of possibility that Bush nominates more batshit insane judges that deserve to be gotten rid of. For one, Clinton was a moderate, and two, Bush knows he has the majority in the Senate to ram a lot more through.
I don't buy this. The lefty fringe is what is opposing many of these judges because they don't have a 100% string of supporting abortion rights/affirmative action. These judges have been given approval by the ABA and are no "insane judges".

[chinaski]

I just don't like the use of judicial filibusters as I feel it infringes upon the separation of powers for allowing the president to nominate judges and have the senate vote on them once they clear committee (as compared the legislative process that is primarily created and affirmed by congress). But, the fact that I am not comfortable or approve of them does not necessarily make them unconstitutional.

Its the senates job to advise and consent on the nominees of the President. The GOP and DNC together consented and approved 218 of Bush's nominees. If every single Democrat and some Republicans oppose 10 judges (which they do), isnt that clearly more than enough against the nominee and they should just move on? By this precedent, any administration with the majority can put ANYONE they choose into the highest courts in our nation. Talk about "judicial activism". Do we really need former oil and energy lobby lawyers in the federal appellate courts?


I don't buy this. The lefty fringe is what is opposing many of these judges because they don't have a 100% string of supporting abortion rights/affirmative action. These judges have been given approval by the ABA and are no "insane judges".
More partisan brainwashing at work, abortion is not even in the mix here. You think the 218 we passed this year are pro-choice or something? These people are straight out corporation/lobby shills.

[JonInMiddleGA]

If every single Democrat and some Republicans oppose 10 judges (which they do), isnt that clearly more than enough against the nominee and they should just move on?

Taken alone, having every single Demoncrat oppose a nominee is one of the best endorsements I can think of.

[MrBigglesworth]

I don't know that I agree that judicial filibusters are "unconstitutional". And I would have no problem if committee parliamentary rules like the blue slip return. But, just like with the republicans in the early 90s, if the Dems want to add this rule back in they need to get a majority in the senate.

I just don't like the use of judicial filibusters as I feel it infringes upon the separation of powers for allowing the president to nominate judges and have the senate vote on them once they clear committee (as compared the legislative process that is primarily created and affirmed by congress). But, the fact that I am not comfortable or approve of them does not necessarily make them unconstitutional.
I don't like the blue slip rules, it is too much power for one person. I do like filibusters though, but wanting to get rid of them is a perfectly rational idea, however much I disagree. But the nuclear option does more than get rid of filibusters, it rips up the Senate rules and ignores 200+ years of precedents, and if you don't even think that filibusters are unconstitutional then there is not even a hint of legality to what Frist is attempting to do. And who try them for their illegal behavior? The courts that they are trying to pack? It can even be argued that they are above the law since the Constitution allows the Senate to choose how it operates. Talk about a separation of powers nightmare!

[Flasch186]

Taken alone, having every single Demoncrat oppose a nominee is one of the best endorsements I can think of.

awesome that you've been written off....to quote Radiohead, "You do it to yourself..youdo." Thats what happens when you're not open minded, eventually the people who aren't in your militia come to realize that you're off your rocker.

[JonInMiddleGA]

awesome that you've been written off....to quote Radiohead, "You do it to yourself..youdo." Thats what happens when you're not open minded, eventually the people who aren't in your militia come to realize that you're off your rocker.

Flasch, I have to confess that I'm not even sure WTF you just said. Usually, even when you're 180 degrees from being right, I can at least follow what you were trying to say, but this time ...

[sterlingice]

If the GOP were a football team and they allowed no touchdowns in the red zone, you would think their red zone defense was pretty good. That is, unless someone told you they never had a team in the red zone because they always let them score from 50 yards out. So the GOP = 2004 Kansas City Chiefs?

SI

[Flasch186]

Flasch, I have to confess that I'm not even sure WTF you just said. Usually, even when you're 180 degrees from being right, I can at least follow what you were trying to say, but this time ...

to boil it down:

no one listens to you anymore...your points are filtered through the "he's crazy" mindset.

Even those on the right, view your posts as a "militia-man"...your so closed minded, your points are, well, pointless becuase even if it was a good one...you got yourself written off by anyone with intelligence, including those more on the right.

Even Im able to see when the republican's do something right, or when the Dems do something wrong and share both equally, thus, I hope, earning some bit of respect for my points in that Im not hypocritical....you on the other hand are just a Kool-Aid pitcher....and the best part is, everyone finally can see it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

you on the other hand are just a Kool-Aid pitcher....and the best part is, everyone finally can see it.

Flasch buddy, all I can do is offer honesty & truth. If people accept it, great.
If they don't, then there's nothing more I can do for them. Occasionally, that reality saddens me, but mostly it's just a {shrug} sort of thing, because when things are beyond your control, they're beyond your control.

As a recent song lyric put it "It's better to be hated for who you are than be loved for who you're not".

[Flasch186]

honesty & truth. If people accept it, great.


And if it works, more power to them. Biggy, you're really underestimating what lengths I find acceptable to prevent there ever being a single iota of influence from the liberal left.
__________________
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.
Gilbert K.Chesterton (1874-1936)





nice honesty and truth.....i dont think people drink the Kool-aid when it comes from such anger.

[MrBigglesworth]

Flasch buddy, all I can do is offer honesty & truth. If people accept it, great.
If they don't, then there's nothing more I can do for them.
Flasch, you forgot to add that he exhibits symptoms of
paranoid schizophrenia (http://www.answers.com/topic/paranoid-schizophrenia). ;)

[Lucky Jim]

Wasn't there gonna be something with rusty razorblades in this thread?