To filibuster or not to filibuster, that is the question.

[Sazar]

Here is my confusion. The filibuster was constituted as a means by which the party not in power (read majority) could have a voice instead of just being the bitch of the party in power (majority).

I have absolutely no qualms with this ideal when it pertains to a realistic goal and genuinely is used for the bi-partisan good. It is part of our process of governance blah blah blah.

HOWEVER, if it is used simply and purely for partisan beliefs and goals, it is disruptive and useless. Hence why I posted the thread.

The democrats had a point a while back with some of the blocks of Bush's judicial nominee's but Frist's calling for the "nuclear option" and Cheney's recent comments on the same subject imply there is an impending legal battle on our hands that is going to consume tax-payer money/time and leave the government deadlocked on certain topics for an extended period of time.

I am completely against a partisan spirit (ie in submitting and ramming through candidates OR in blocking not only nominations but also other things) because the end result is a complete waste of tax payer money and a drain on our resources. I sure as hell did not vote to elect someone to office so this is all they would do.

Just wanted to get some of the other takes on this matter. Please vote for the appropriate option as well.

[DiscipleDOC]

I agree with your last statement, but it needs to be done away with all together. It's a political ploy that and has no value in it at all.

[Sazar]

I agree with your last statement, but it needs to be done away with all together. It's a political ploy that and has no value in it at all.

Been listening to the news about it all day, hence why I started the thread.

Things like Bolton's nomination, I can see why someone might take more time but the other 10 odd, most of them seem to be fine chaps.

[bknblk]

I am sure that you are aware that the nominees of GWB are the only Judicial nominee's votes which have been blocked by filibuster in the history of our government. This polarization and childish foot-stomping by the Democratic party is in no way serving our great nation's interests. Properly used, a fillibuster is a fine tool, but to block a senate vote to confirm or deny the appointment of a judge for four years is a total abuse of power and will not serve the party committing these acts of ridiculousness well at all come election time. It is a simple system: The President recommends a nominee and that nominee is either voted up or down. The Democrats do not like the idea of the judiciary becoming any less liberal than it is now and know that without resorting to these cheap tactics they cannot accomplish their goal of running counter to any of the current *****istration's wishes. (see Social Security)

[Sazar]

I am of the opinion the judiciary should not be used as a political tool at all because how then can it serve justice for it is already biased?

The democrats and republicans friction on issue's of which judge leans which way simply are ridiculous. How about choosing a judge on merit rather than which way he/she leans on a specific subject?

That being said, there are plenty of judges select because of a certain perceived bias who have been very upstanding and true in their judgements.

Wrt Social Security, I believe that is a different topic. I don't believe Bush's plans are the best way to get things done because the ultimate result is the same. SS has to be fixed, but in a more permanent and effective manner. It is pointless to sink trillions into something which will STILL require fixing. And my views have nothing to do with the AARP :cool:

[oldsk00l]

I am of the opinion the judiciary should not be used as a political tool at all because how then can it serve justice for it is already biased?

The democrats and republicans friction on issue's of which judge leans which way simply are ridiculous. How about choosing a judge on merit rather than which way he/she leans on a specific subject?

That being said, there are plenty of judges select because of a certain perceived bias who have been very upstanding and true in their judgements.

Wrt Social Security, I believe that is a different topic. I don't believe Bush's plans are the best way to get things done because the ultimate result is the same. SS has to be fixed, but in a more permanent and effective manner. It is pointless to sink trillions into something which will STILL require fixing. And my views have nothing to do with the AARP :cool:


SS should be abolished, imho, that's the best "fix".

It is corruptible by its very nature, and encourages irresponsibility. It was created on the false pretense that "everything would be ok" because people were so freaked out coming out of the depression. It was only allowed through because it was patroned and appealed to a desperate crowd that was too shortsighted for its own good, and look at the damage it has done.

[UDawg]

The democrats had a point a while back with some of the blocks of Bush's judicial nominee's but Frist's calling for the "nuclear option" and Cheney's recent comments on the same subject imply there is an impending legal battle on our hands that is going to consume tax-payer money/time and leave the government deadlocked on certain topics for an extended period of time.
Couple of things here. First the democrats didn't have a point with any of the nominees except that they were all conservatives and that is a no-no for liberal democrats to have conservative judges on the bench.

Secondly there is not such thing as the "nuclear option". That is a term made up by the democrats and the media. What frist is suggesting is that the Republicans exercise the constitutional option of changing the senate rules on voting for judicial nominees. This is well with in the right of the senate majority party.

The reason why we are in this mess is because of the democrats who are blocking these nominees. What they are doing is pseudo fillibuster and trying to force a cloture vote on these nominees. This is wrong. It is basically saying that the constitution perscribed 51 votes needed to conferm a nominee will now be 60 votes. It is a cheap an childish stunt that has not been done in over 100 years or so.

If the Republican want to change the rules then so be it. That is the perks of being in the majority and the reason why winning elections is important.

I am completely against a partisan spirit (ie in submitting and ramming through candidates OR in blocking not only nominations but also other things) because the end result is a complete waste of tax payer money and a drain on our resources. I sure as hell did not vote to elect someone to office so this is all they would do.
I like partisanship it keeps most the bad ideas from seeing the light of day. The more gridlock in congress the safer we all are and the more we keep in our wallets. Far more money is spent on goverment programs than the money "wasted" on congress doing nothing but fillibustering.

I can't vote on this because this issue has nothing to do with fillabusters and everything to do with forcing a cloture vote.

[Son Goku]

To say that the filibuster was never used before in this nation's history, isn't entirely correct...though here it was qualified as judicial nominees. I've heard it argued in the past by some suppoerters of the nuclear option, that it was never used in the past...

http://www.eotu.uiuc.edu/pedagogy/grogers/P4/Q10/Eric_Hendrickson.htm

Any bill that becomes a law has to go through the House of Representatives and the Senate having representatives pass the bill in each. The Civil Rights Bill easily passed the House with Northern Democrats and the Republican supporters turning out a vote of 290 to 130. Lyndon Johnson stated after the bill went through the house that it was, “Now a task for the Senate…I hope the same spirit of nonpartisanship will prevail there to assure passage of the bill, guaranteeing the fundamental rights of all Americans” (Kenworthy). The bill then went to the senate where there was much debate and procrastination ending in a final vote by the Senate of 76 to 18 to pass the bill. Senators opposed to the bill tried to use the “filibuster” technique, which basically is an extended talk for the purpose of killing a bill or getting drastic modifications. In fact, it was the longest debate in Senate history lasting 534 hours in total (Bureau of National Affairs 18-21). According to a New York Times article, “In the House, debate is limited by agreement, ruling out a filibuster. The Senate has no limitation on discussion except by closure—a motion to close debate, requiring approval by two-thirds of the members present and voting” (Kenworthy). The southerners tried to carry out their “filibuster” by having, “Three six-member filibuster teams. When one team had the floor for the filibuster, the other two would rest and then prepare to take turns speaking on the floor,” thus wasting congressional time in order to try to kill the bill (Mackaman). The conservative and slothful side of the government became apparent in the senate debate.

Quite frankly, I'm opposed to the nuclear option... And as to "playing politics" unfortunately it has become the name of the game on all sides. Unfortunately, when such occurs, and the partisanship runs so deep, the only thing one can really hope to do is exactly what James Madison suggested in Federalist 51 when the principle of seperation of powers was suggested:

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm

TO WHAT expedient, then, shall we finally resort, for maintaining in practice the necessary partition of power among the several departments, as laid down in the Constitution? The only answer that can be given is, that as all these exterior provisions are found to be inadequate, the defect must be supplied, by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places. Without presuming to undertake a full development of this important idea, I will hazard a few general observations, which may perhaps place it in a clearer light, and enable us to form a more correct judgment of the principles and structure of the government planned by the convention.

In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels having no communication whatever with one another. Perhaps such a plan of constructing the several departments would be less difficult in practice than it may in contemplation appear. Some difficulties, however, and some additional expense would attend the execution of it. Some deviations, therefore, from the principle must be admitted.

But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who *****ister each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be *****istered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other -- that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State.

One one can't elliminate outright some of the worst instincts and the most ambitious proposals from the radical element on either end of the political spectrum, sometimes the best option, if one doesn't trust either, is a policy of containment. This until they are willing to work together, are willing to be a bit more diplomatic in doing so, and don't intend to lord whatever over another.

As to the politisizing of the courts, do I support it? Absolutely not. But I also realize that if any side (doesn't matter which) becomes ambitious in this area, and they are not themselves checked, this is exactly what can occur. Sometimes, countering such ambition, is the only way to temper and moderate it in effect...

As to the appointment of John Bolton, if he is the bully many accounts paint him as, fitting would be if other nations reciprocated by putting people as hard lined as a Cruschev type as an ambasador to the UN representing their country, with the express intent of "challenging Bolton" by his own methods and tactics ;) Either way, be it fortunate or unfortunate, such dictatorial conduct on the part of any, tends to provoke a similar responce from others. No one likes to be bullied, and not everyone in this world would back down from the attempt...

[sytaylor]

To me this provides an excellent argument as to why a > 2 party system is essential. The politicking over the middle grond issues, and down right pettyness is a side product of there being only two major options for voters.

[Son Goku]

Personally, I wouldn't mind more major parties in this country then just two; but both the Democratic and Republican parties would have a vested interest in mantaining the status quo...

And what when voters don't feel well represented by either party on a given issue? Ultimitely, they're supposed to represent us citizens...reason we vote in the first place; but in practice that isn't always what occurs. If there were more parties, there would be less chance to polarize the political spectrum, and hence the people in a manner that can be a tad annoying at times, tbh...

[sytaylor]

The rhetoric stakes are far higher in the US as a result of the two party system. Labels like anti-family, pro-terrorist, very highly charged emotive terms are used more so than elsewhere (not strictly these terms but the use of rhetoric buzzwords). Both sides do it, its like a catch phrase almost. When you throw a third major party into the mix to slice up the left, center and right all over the place the language takes a back seat and the views win out. At least that is my experience from observing the differences.

The actual politics on a day to day level is just as dirty and complex as anywhere else, but the public face of it is very different.

[UDawg]

Bob Dole makes something to say about this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/27/opinion/27dole.html?oref=login

Washington

IN the coming weeks, we may witness a vote in the United States Senate that will define the 109th Congress for the ages. This vote will not be about war and peace, the economy or the threat from terrorism. It will focus instead on procedure: whether the Senate should amend its own rules to ensure that nominees to the federal bench can be confirmed by a simple majority vote.

I have publicly urged caution in this matter. Amending the Senate rules over the objection of a substantial minority should be the option of last resort. I still hold out hope that the two Senate leaders will find a way to ensure that senators have the opportunity to fulfill their constitutional duty to offer "advice and consent" on the president's judicial nominees while protecting minority rights. Time has not yet run out.

But let's be honest: By creating a new threshold for the confirmation of judicial nominees, the Democratic minority has abandoned the tradition of mutual self-restraint that has long allowed the Senate to function as an institution.

This tradition has a bipartisan pedigree. When I was the Senate Republican leader, President Bill Clinton nominated two judges to the federal bench - H. Lee Sarokin and Rosemary Barkett - whose records, especially in criminal law, were particularly troubling to me and my Republican colleagues. Despite my misgivings, both received an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor and were confirmed. In fact, joined by 32 other Republicans, I voted to end debate on the nomination of Judge Sarokin. Then, in the very next roll call, I exercised my constitutional duty to offer "advice and consent" by voting against his nomination.

When I was a leader in the Senate, a judicial filibuster was not part of my procedural playbook. Asking a senator to filibuster a judicial nomination was considered an abrogation of some 200 years of Senate tradition.

To be fair, the Democrats have previously refrained from resorting to the filibuster even when confronted with controversial judicial nominees like Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. Although these men were treated poorly, they were at least given the courtesy of an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. At the time, filibustering their nominations was not considered a legitimate option by my Democratic colleagues - if it had been, Justice Thomas might not be on the Supreme Court today, since his nomination was approved with only 52 votes, eight short of the 60 votes needed to close debate.

That's why the current obstruction effort of the Democratic leadership is so extraordinary. President Bush has the lowest appellate-court confirmation rate of any modern president. Each of the 10 filibuster victims has been rated "qualified" or "well qualified" by the American Bar Association. Each has the support of a majority in the Senate. And each would now be serving on the federal bench if his or her nomination were subject to the traditional majority-vote standard.

This 60-vote standard for judicial nominees has the effect of arrogating power from the president to the Senate. Future presidents must now ask themselves whether their judicial nominees can secure the supermajority needed to break a potential filibuster. Political considerations will now become even more central to the judicial selection process. Is this what the framers intended?

If the majority leader, Bill Frist, is unable to persuade the Democratic leadership to end its obstruction, he may move to change the Senate rules through majority vote. By doing so, he will be acting in accordance with Article I of the Constitution (which gives Congress the power to set its own rules) and consistently with the tradition of altering these rules by establishing new precedents. Senator Frist was right this past weekend when he observed there is nothing "radical" about a procedural technique that gives senators the opportunity to vote on a nominee.

Although the Democrats don't like to admit it, in the past they have voted to end delaying tactics previously allowed under Senate rules or precedents. In fact, one of today's leading opponents of changing the Senate's rules, Senator Robert Byrd, was once a proponent of doing so, and on several occasions altered Senate rules through majoritarian means. I have great respect for Senator Byrd, but Senate Republicans are simply exploring the procedural road map that he himself helped create.

In the coming days, I hope changing the Senate's rules won't be necessary, but Senator Frist will be fully justified in doing so if he believes he has exhausted every effort at compromise. Of course, there is an easier solution to the impasse: Democrats can stop playing their obstruction game and let President Bush's judicial nominees receive what they are entitled to: an up-or-down vote on the floor of the world's greatest deliberative body.

[CybrSage]

This is the most important part:

"In the coming days, I hope changing the Senate's rules won't be necessary, but Senator Frist will be fully justified in doing so if he believes he has exhausted every effort at compromise. Of course, there is an easier solution to the impasse: Democrats can stop playing their obstruction game and let President Bush's judicial nominees receive what they are entitled to: an up-or-down vote on the floor of the world's greatest deliberative body. "