New GOP Senators May Back Filibuster Limits

[Khephra]

Amid talk about a renewal of bipartisanship in the new Congress that convenes next week, two new Republican senators said Sunday that they could support a rule change to short-circuit opposition to President Bush's judicial nominees — a move that one incoming Senate Democrat warned would spark "a bloody fight."

The exchange among the three newly elected senators on CBS' "Face the Nation" reflected a sense among many Republicans that they should flex their muscle in the 109th Congress, with the party's expanded majorities in the Senate and House, even as Democrats were debating among themselves when to work with the administration and when to oppose it.

Sen.-elect John Thune (R-S.D.) said he wanted to put an end to the Democratic tactic of filibustering high-profile judicial nominees — which involves essentially talking the nominations to death without allowing an up or down confirmation vote.

Senate Republican leaders, bolstered by the party's Nov. 2 victories, are weighing a move to deny Democrats the right to filibuster judicial nominees indefinitely in the coming Congress. The issue is especially sensitive since Bush's announcement last week that he would renominate seven people for appellate courts who were stymied by filibusters during the last Congress — and in light of the possibility of upcoming Supreme Court vacancies.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-congress27dec27,1,5728406.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

[zbdent]

1. Newsflash: The Sky is Blue, water is wet, the team with the most

points at the end of the game usually wins, . . .

[Supersedeas]

56. Winning usually means playing be the rules--they are talking about

changing the rules...or did I miss something?

From now on, Democrats must step to the plate barehanded, new rule...starts today.

Guess that makes the sky blue, water wet, and curve balls unbuntable.

[No Mandate Here.]

2. They are acting as though they own us.

I thought slavery was illegal.

[Cicero]

16. OK, this is a bit over the top...

How can a proposed rules change in the Senate be possibly equated with slavery? The Repubs have control of the Senate, and can change the rules whenever they want, just like the Democrats could if they were in control. I'd hardly call the possibility of eliminating the option to filibuster these judicial candidates as being tantamount to them violating the 13th amendment.

Later,

[Just Me]

28. Bothersome as it may be to you, forcing political will upon a minority,...

,...is essentially a form of "slavery" and a clear MANDATE against the health and vibrancy of DEMOCRACY.

However, POWER is the game, now,...NOT democracy.

Corporate and political power,...slashing and burning democracy.

America has lost her compass. God help her.

[Cicero]

32. Excuse me? I thought that's what "democracy" is!

Majority rules, right? Even if it is a thin majority (55/45, I believe), it is still a legitimate move, regardless of what you may think about the particular group of people doing it. If the tables were turned, and it was a thin majority of Democrats contemplating changing the rules so that a Democrat president could get his nominees to have a floor vote, would you still oppose the change?

Actually, more importantly, would you (and I use "you" generically, here, since you are a different person than the one I responded to) give credence to any Republican would then howl that the change was tantamount to a reimposition of slavery??? Would he not be laughed out of the room? I think so.

Later,

[They_LIHOP]

36. Sorry, but you have NO FRIGGIN CLUE...

NO, a democracy is NOT 'rule by the majority', at least not the one our founding fathers meant to create. The very notion of the SENATE is that it was to give the MINORITY a semblance of POWER.

I think you are failing to recognize that the filibuster is THE LAST REMAINING VESTIGE of A CHECK the Dems have on the ABSOLUTE POWER that the GOP so desperately craves and is pulling out all the stops to seize. Lose this power, the Dems might as pack up, go home, and FOREVER cede the control of this country to the radical right.

And yes, if the Dems had tried to do this 20 years ago, I would BLAST them for it.

This move would be as UN-AMERICAN as it gets. This is not some arcane 'Senate Procedural Rule', bud. Using the 'nuclear option', as it's been called, is WORSE in some ways than reinstituting slavery would be. It is only just short of ripping up the Constitution and declaring it null and VOID.

I'm sorry, but you're downplaying this situation dramatically. This is AN UNBELIEVABLY BRAZEN, UNCONSTITUTIONAL GRAB OF POWER by the 'Pukes. For what purpose(s) I can only speculate at this time...

[Cicero]

37. Who's clueless???

NO, a democracy is NOT 'rule by the majority', at least not the one our founding fathers meant to create.

They didn't mean to create any kind of "democracy" at all. They saw that as little better than mob rule. The purpose of the Senate was to allow the States to have a say in the functioning of the federal government, as least in how it was originally conceived, as part of the Great Compromise and all. And there is nothing in the Constitution requiring the Senate to impose a supermajority requirement (which is what a filibuster is, in effect) on the approval of judgeships. "Advise and consent," IIRC.

Mind, I don't think there is anything in the Constitution that would preclude it, either. I'm not sure just what kind of appeal Seante Democrats would have if the "nuclear" option is used. Could they go to the Supreme Court? Well, we can probably guess the ruling on that one.

And yes, if the Dems had tried to do this 20 years ago, I would BLAST them for it.

At least you're consistent. I'm trying to be as well, and although I'm certainly NOT pleased as punch over all this, I don't think that hysterical screechings about "slavery" are going to help things.

This move would be as UN-AMERICAN as it gets... WORSE in some ways than reinstituting slavery... short of ripping up the Constitution and declaring it null and VOID... AN UNBELIEVABLY BRAZEN, UNCONSTITUTIONAL GRAB OF POWER by the 'Pukes.

And this kind of hyperbole will do nothing to resolve the issue, nor is it accurate. The Senate establishes the rules by which it operates (just like the House). Senate rules established the 60% cloture requirements, and Senate rules can be changed to have it not apply when it comes to judicial nominations.

The fact that the Repubs would use parlimentary procedures in stead of an upfront rules change, well, it shows how incredibly snarky they are. We all knew that. But "worse than reinstituting slavery"????

I'm sorry, but I don't think it rises to that level.

Later,

[Clarkie1]

49. Cicero is correct; the ability to fillibuster is not in the constitution

and was never envisioned by the founders of our democratic republic.

Anyone who disagrees with that is indeed "clueless" on this issue.

[serryjw]

52. Try this on for size!

advice and consent - Under the Constitution, presidential nominations for executive and judicial posts take effect only when confirmed by the Senate, and international treaties become effective only when the Senate approves them by a two-thirds vote.

[serryjw]

51. Abolish 'advise and consent'........

Give Bushit what ever he wants. Why have a Senate approval at all? He got over 200 federal judges.....he didn't get 10! Having 3 separate bodies to balance power is written into the Constitution. Lets get rid of that also. I suppose you also support Patriots Act 1 & 2?

[TahitiNut]

3. "Democrats were debating among themselves"

Assholes.

[necso]

4. So how about a little more celebration that Daschle is out?

And no, I don't mean the original poster.

[ixion]

5. so they obviously believe that they will never again be the minority

and when they are, you can bet they'll be whining like the babies they are about the playing field being unfair. :eyes:

And of course, here is the core of the problem:

The exchange among the three newly elected senators on CBS' "Face the Nation" reflected a sense among many Republicans that they should flex their muscle in the 109th Congress, with the party's expanded majorities in the Senate and House, even as Democrats were debating among themselves when to work with the administration and when to oppose it.


So here again we have the repukes gearing up for a good ass whoopin' and the dems ready to play softball, as usual. :cry:

[0007]

6. Will the weak sisters of justice flex their muscles and smack

Tom DeLay in the face with the balance scale?

The filibuster thingie doesn't have a pray and is a waste of time. The three newly elected senators should flex their muscle and jack off a dead man.

[IStriker]

11. No, I doubt that they are worried about being in the minority...

again, because the Repuke Senators are aware that once they are, the Democrats will change the rules to favor us and give the Repukes no power like they always do. It's lucky for us that the Repukes do not have one spine among them and are easily threatened or we'd really be in trouble.

[spotbird]

38. What is lucky is that when all minority voice is gone,

the Republicans will have one hell of a time blaming the Democrats for there failure of leadership in almost every area.

The spineless Republicans blocked Clinton's appointees by not letting them out of committee at a much higher rate than the Democrats are blocking the wackos Chimp is appointing. Oh, but that means that each party pulls this crap and the Republicans aren't victims after all! You see, the Republicans must pretend to be victims of the mean old Democrats even with complete control of all three branches of government, it gets the idiotic base who has no concept of facts all riled up. It also shows once again that there is no amount of power that will cause Republicans to lead responsibly.


Be assured that if every fucking Democrat stayed home, the Republicans would still blame the Democrats for every Republican failure, and it is no coincidence that every Republican policy is a failure. There is no accountability for those cowards, it is what is wrong with America today.

[mbperrin]

7. If the Dems don't filibuster this to death along with all other business

until the Pukes give up, then we really ARE in a one-party system!

I don't want to work with these bastards at all! I want to hold them up at every opportunity, because they haven't had an idea in 20 years to benefit the American public.

PLEASE let some Dem somewhere find their spine!

[Cicero]

17. Problem is, I don't think rules changes require cloture...

Only a simple majority is required, IIRC. The Repubs certainly have that. Sigh...

Need to get back to bringing up what's wrong with the nominees. The Repubs WILL get that rules change through, it does no good attacking there. Bring the focus back on who Bush is nominating.

Later,

[chaumont58]

27. My memory is that rules changes require even more than cloiture

If a simple majority would do it, what has kept repukes from doing it before now?
Shit, they've had control since January 2003.

[Cicero]

33. I think it depends on how they do it

I don't know why they have been reluctant to make the change until now, and now that I think about it a little more, they may still be reluctant once January 3, 2005 rolls around. Part of it may be an unwillingness to change the rules in anticipation of some future time when THEY are in the minority again, and they don't want to lose the option to filibuster Democratic nominees.

But as to whether they need a simple or super majority, I'm 95% sure they only need a simple majority for that particluar rules change.

Later,

[Supersedeas]

57. anyone have a definitive answer on the rule changes issue?

[forgethell]

20. I don' think they

can filibuster a rules change of this type. Otherwise, we would still be trying to get the 1964 Civil rights Act passed.

[snippy]

8. Democrats need to change the focus of debate on this issue.

The question should be "Why does Bush feel that he is entitled to have a higher percentage of his nominees confirmed than any other president in modern history?" Democrats need to ask this question constantly.

[Clarkie1]

50. Excellent point; we must not make fillibustering the issue, or we lose

[bpilgrim]

9. time to go to WAR

the dems better get some BACKBONE and stand up to these thugs and go down SWINGING at the very LEAST :argh:

peace

[IStriker]

12. Don't worry.

They will get themselves together and stand up to the Repukes and the Repukes are so stupid, they will cave. It happens every time as long as the Democrats hold the line. We are only in trouble IF we lose our balls; they will NEVER grow any plus they are the ones divided, not us.

[TankLV]

13. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! - That's a good one!

Oh - you mean you were serious?!?!

Must be nice living in a fantasy land like you do.

Democrats working together to OPPOSE repukes - just like they have done - oh wait - they cave every fucking time!

Yeah - like that'll ever happen!

[IStriker]

14. They did not cave the last time and...

despite all the huffing and puffing of the Repukes, the Repukes did NOTHING except threaten and make noise. We are not divided on this; the Repuketards are the divided ones. Before they could do anything about the fillibuster, they must find 51 votes with the balls to commit in public in front of their female voters.

As far as I can see the ONLY mistake we have made is Schumer declaring out loud that we're blocking nominees who are anti-choice. DO IT, JUST DON'T SAY IT.

[w4rma]

15. You're wrong, IStriker. They caved the last time. Sorry. (nt)

[IStriker]

18. Suppose you explain to me just how they caved...

The Repukes are still stewing around trying to figure out how to get rid of the fillibuster last I looked. And please don't tell me they caved because they allowed any nominee * put up to get on any court.

[w4rma]

23. Approval of 168 Bush judges a record

WASHINGTON — The vacancy rate on the federal bench is at its lowest point in 13 years, due to a recent surge of judges nominated by President Bush and confirmed by the Senate.

The intense partisan battle over a handful of judges aside, Bush has won approval of 168 new judges, more than President Reagan achieved in his first term in the White House. And with 68 nominees winning confirmation as of yesterday, Bush has had a better record this year than President Clinton achieved in seven of his eight years in office.

Experts who track federal judgeships say Republican complaints about an unprecedented Democratic filibuster of four judges have obscured the larger picture.

"The Bush administration has been spectacularly successful in getting the overwhelming proportion of its judicial nominations confirmed," said political scientist Sheldon Goldman at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. "There are only a relative handful being filibustered and held up. And this contrasts with the dozens of Clinton nominees who were held up by the Republicans in the last six years of the Clinton administration. The truth is the Republicans have had an outstanding record so far."

The GOP-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee lists 39 vacancies among 859 seats on the U.S. district courts and the U.S. courts of appeal — a 4.5 percent vacancy rate, the committee says. This is the fewest number of vacancies since 1990. During Clinton's term in office, the number of vacancies on the federal bench did not go below 50, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
…
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:EGLVIwyKld4J:seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2001784417_judges06.html

[IStriker]

24. Did you read the last 3 paragraphs of article you posted?

46 nominees to the Appeals Court; 29 confirmed for a 63% rate as opposed to Clinton's rate of 80%. The real battle will come with the Supreme Court. As long as they hold the line on the highest levels of judges where many of the nominees for the Surpreme Court come from, I'm not going to hold this against them. How many of the 168 new judges approved that * nominated are pro-choice? Some, maybe lots. Every Repuke President like * has to nominate some because THEY ARE THE ONES WHO ARE SPLIT ON THIS ISSUE, not us. With the record produced even with the fillibuster, we can't be accused of obstructing, only keeping radicals off the bench.

[w4rma]

26. Republicans are dragging their feet on those guys. Not Dems.

Dems can *only* filibuster and that's only been used 4 times as of that article.

[Jon8503]

31. IStriker is right, they did not cave. What they did is choose their

battles well. There was no way to stop every single conservative judge that was put up for nomination. So they had to stop those they considered the most dangerous which is what they did. It is even going to be harder this time around because of the losses and the Repukes know it. It is going to be a real battle.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

10. Thune...

... is just an evasive right wing plant. He won't even talk about what committee seats he wanted (was denied) and didn't get. I can't believe they quote him here, as there are serious ethical issues he has (jumping to a pharmaceutical lobbying firm) outstanding. Being a South Dakotan, he makes me cringe. He has never accomplished ANYTHING in congress while in the House that a democrat didn't have set up for him, not to mention his failure to get promised drought relief out of GW.

[Nevernose]

25. I am so sorry you're in South Dakota

My only recent exposure to the man was when he and Daschle were on Meet the Press -- what a frigging psycho.

[Thor_MN]

19. Well, it's right out of the PNAC playbook.

Bunch of pencil dicks who think that if you have power over something, you should use it. They lack the knowledge that NOT using your power is often the better course.

[ibegurpard]

21. Something like this is a good indicator of election fixes

Why on earth would they do something like this that could turn around and bit them in the ass unless they knew they wouldn't have to worry about ever being out of power?

[DaveofCali]

22. It's the Democratic Party's fault

If so many didn't realize that this was a serious political war started by the Republicans and meant to destroy the Democratic Party, and if so many didn't sell out, the Democratic Party wouldn't be in this situation.

Social Darwinism remains sooo true, and anyone who doesn't realize that will fall victim to it.

[Just Me]

29. I thought we waged punishment against predators, in this "civil" society.

I thought "victims" were to be protected.

With respect to "social darwinism", only the most cynical, least creative, greed-ridden and power-mongering among us demean human potential. There are leaders, true leaders (MLK, Ghandi, "Jesus", Schindler, Parks, Mandela, and so many more) who exalt and have proven human potential.

By the way,...no one falls victim to a "theory",...EVER!!! Only human predators spot "victims",...for a moment,...never for always.

[DaveofCali]

30. You need to wake up to reality

In the Business world, Social Darwinism reigns supreme. So did Social Darwinism (or flat out darwinism) during WWII and before.

The Republican Party members are social darwinism oriented (gung ho imperialists, business people), so they apply it to Politics, and the Democratic Party never realized that and never really woke up.

[ObamaFan2500]

34. I thought they were doing this voluntarily

the pressure from netflix which i use is making them lower the fines.. so i don't really see what the point is. just as long as they come up with the same deals as netflix, people will still use them.. marketing students will know this word: brand loyalty.

[truthisfreedom]

35. let 'em try.

it'll be a bloodbath.

[BrettStahIndy]

39. Use some common sense here, as well as some long-term thinking!

Common sense part: It makes sense for Bush to get more nominees to the floor for a vote - his party controls the Senate, and has for most of his time in office. On the other hand, Clinton's party did NOT control the Senate for most of his time in office.

Long-term thinking part: First, remember that the Senate's responsibilities for judicial nominations are to "advise and consent" the president. So have your Senators give their advice/recommendations/opinions to the President whenever there is an opening on a court, and then have them vote to support them or not, based upon what they think of the nominee. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that a super-majority of Senators should be required for judicial nominations (and super-majorities are clearly listed for other things).

Long-term, this will be a positive thing for both parties... the next time a Democrat is in the White House, he won't have to worry about garnering 60 votes to get his nominees an up or down vote on the floor.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BrettStahIndy]

42. You're thinking short-term

Here are my rules that I think would work better no matter who the president is, and no matter which party is in the majority of the Senate:

1) Filibuster stays at 60 votes initially. If an attempt to end a filibuster on a nominee fails, then one requred vote is subtracted for the next time, until you reach 51 or the vote to end debate is successful. Only one vote allowed per week. If 51 votes cannot be gathered to end debate, then the nomination is effectively dead. What would this accomplish? Well, it would still provide some of the benefits of the filibuster - a large enough minority can slow down the nomination vote 10 or more weeks, allowing plenty of time for debate, etc. It also allows the mandate from the Constitution, for the Senate to advise and consent, to happen, eventually.

2) ALL nominees go to the Senate floor, regardless of the outcome from the Judiciary Committee. So some extremist-dominated committee can write their report, and vote against a nominee, but the full Senate will still have the ability to vote yes or no (after any filibustering takes place, of course).

3) The above two rules take effect AFTER the current president leaves office.

[confusionisnext]

46. bad idea

This was the sort of "compromise" that the Pugs were thinking of putting forward. The point of a filibuster is to kill any action that does not garner a supermajority of the Senate, not to "slow down" and encourage debate.

And by the way, the Senate FULLY performs its constitutional role to "advise and consent" when it chooses NOT put up a nominee for a full vote.

[left15]

41. Waiting on a rule change.

I think they are waiting to see if any Supreme Court Justices will be replaced. There is no need for them to show their hand early. If they get a chance to replace 2 or more Supreme Court Justices, they would no reason to hold back, as a senate rarely gets such a chance.

[Strawman]

43. It's not the new GOP Senators who are going to decide this

It's the moderates and long time GOP Senators like McCain, Snowe, Collins, Hagel, Lugar, Specter, Chafee who will provide the critical votes to uphold or not uphold the presiding officer's ruling on the nuclear option. The old timers know the leadership is playing with fire here. Get rid of the de facto super majority currently required to appoint judges, and what's to stop a future Democratic administration with a Senate majority from packing the courts with judges that reflect its ideology?

The most annoying thing in this story was Rangel's call for bipartisanship to "simplify the tax code." Way to uncritically use the Republican frame there Charlie. That's the kind of language that's going to lead us right to the flat tax. He owes $5 to the pizza fund for that one.

[BrettStahIndy]

44. re: de facto super majority

"Get rid of the de facto super majority currently required to appoint judges, and what's to stop a future Democratic administration with a Senate majority from packing the courts with judges that reflect its ideology?"

You mean like FDR did? the President picks whom to nominate, and the Senate either confirms or not. If the Senate is amenable to the president's nominees, then the court will be "packed". If the Senate is not, then the president will have to try again with new nominees.

And a pure flat tax will never be passed, because it'd be too regressive. But some modified plan that had a big personal deduction ($20,000-$30,000 per person), and that got rid of the regressive payroll taxes, which hit the working poor hardest (and the Republicans never include when discussing tax rates)? That may be extremely simplified AND still be progressive-ish, and allows the working poor to bring home more money each paycheck.

[Strawman]

53. re: tax shifts, court packing

If their consumption tax exempts the first $30K-$40K of income and exempts capital gains, estates from taxation plus gets rid of payroll taxes, it will not raise enough revenue. any payroll tax reduction for working stiffs is a pig in a poke. Enjoy the extra money in each check when you're paying fees to use your roads and have no Social Security or Medicare. Reduce taxes for the rich and get rid of government programs that help ordinary people. that's the entire goal. and somewhere along the way revenue will need to be raised at some level of government to pay for essential services and guess who will get the bill for that? not the rich. I've got two simple principles for taxation: tax wealth over work and the more you make, the more you pay. That's what we should fight for: progressive taxation, not "progressive-ish" taxation.

As for court packing, I don't get your argument beyond the fact that FDR wasn't able to do it. While that's true, it's also true that he didn't have to do it because the court became more accomodating to the New Deal after his threat. Additionally, shortly after (I think in 1939) justices were able to retire and receive a pension, which led to some turnover and removed the political necessity to pack the Court. But the only thing standing between a President with a solid Senate majority and court packing once the filibuster is removed from the equation is tradition. A Democratic President elected to clean up the mess left by the Republicans could easily justify adding a two liberal justices to bring balance to the court, especially if it proved to be an obstruction to keeping new laws on the books that enjoyed popular support. Several Congressional norms have been thrown by the wayside in the pursuit of power, especially in the last 11 years. While it might require a very high level of partisanship to see the Senate appoint more than nine justices to the Court, it's not an impossibility. Hell, if somehow Bush doesn't get to make enough appointments through retirements in the next four years to swing key Court decisions and he picks up a couple more votes in the Senate, he might be able to use the nuclear option to appoint a 10th and an 11th justice to carry out his "mandate." Right-wing evangelicals who see the overturning of Roe v. Wade within their grasp might demand it. I think there is a real risk that this nuclear option vote leads us down that slippery slope and the Republicans might not want that. If they stick with the current rules they will in all likelihood get a more conservative Court. In addition to Rehnquist, they might even get to replace Stevens, O'Connor and Ginsburg with justices slightly to the right of Kennedy but not as far as Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia. That's a good trade off for them. If they overreach and try to place extreme conservatives on the Court, esepcially to replace moderates, they may succeed, but then I think they will have raised the level of partisanship to the point where the Democrats will be forced to try to pack the court to pursue their agenda when they regain the Senate and Presidency.

[Bouncy Ball]

45. ...

even as Democrats were debating among themselves when to work with the administration and when to oppose it.

Um, ALWAYS OPPOSE IT. You are the OPPOSITION PARTY and the other "team" has shown themselves to be craven immoral bastards who don't do a single fucking THING that's good for America, so why in the world would you EVER work with them?????

[confusionisnext]

47. Because Dems won't always be in the minority

As opposition, you have to pick your battles. There will be institutional gridlock if the minority were to stop every single thing that it did not like. When the tables are turned, majority Dems will not want to suffer the same gridlock.

This is the same reason why a Repug rule change can blow up in their faces the next time we have a Dem Senate and Dem president.

[Bouncy Ball]

48. When the opposing party

is as bad as the repukes are and the divide THIS large, you are going to find precious little to agree on. So you just agree for the sake of agreeing?

[zann725]

54. I think there should be some serious Filibustering on Jan. 6!

Seriously though, Filibustering is one of true "checks and balances" of the legislative process. I can't believe how many here are ready to 'roll-over' on it. It IS the right to have "dialogue," to object to a bill's passage, and to NOT close off dialogue until all parties are satisfied with new legislation as proposed. And given the way Shrub has pushed most legislation through WITHOUT much concern of any for the legislative bodies, I think it's time Filibuster was not only retained...but strengthened...and used more often.

One of the most poignant "West Wing" episodes from a couple of seasons ago was the "Stackhouse Filibuster" episode. It is an awe-inspiring tribute to the right and need to Filibuster. It ranks among my top 3 WW episodes of all time, and well worth looking at for those who feel we should concede on Filibustering.

Filibustering is as Democratic as Social Security. And I am therefore NOT surprised that both are on Shrub's "chopping block" at the same time.

Vive le Filibuster!

[AstronautGirl7]

55. Hope it works out

This can't really go on.