Filibuster Precedent? Democrats Point to '68 and Fortas

[papau]

Filibuster Precedent? Democrats Point to '68 and Fortas
But GOP Senators Cite Differences in Current Effort to Bar Votes on Judges
By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 18, 2005; Page A03


The Senate was launched on a full-blown filibuster, with one South Carolina senator consuming time by reading "long passages of James F. Byrnes's memoirs in a thick Southern accent," according to a newspaper account.

That four-day talkathon in September 1968 has largely been forgotten. But some Senate Democrats want to bring it back to mind to counter a key Republican attack against their stalling tactics that have blocked confirmation votes for several of President Bush's most conservative judicial nominees. The GOP claim, asserted in speeches, articles and interviews, is that filibusters against judicial nominees are unprecedented.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) told his panel this month that the judicial battles have escalated, "with the filibuster being employed for the first time in the history of the Republic." Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said in a Senate speech last week, "The crisis created by the unprecedented use of filibusters to defeat judicial nominations must be solved."

Such claims, however, are at odds with the record of the successful 1968 GOP-led filibuster against President Lyndon B. Johnson's nomination of Abe Fortas to be chief justice of the United States. "Fortas Debate Opens with a Filibuster," a Page One Washington Post story declared on Sept. 26, 1968. It said, "A full-dress Republican-led filibuster broke out in the Senate yesterday against a motion to call up the nomination of Justice Abe Fortas for Chief Justice."

A New York Times story that day said Fortas's opponents "began a historic filibuster today." As the debate dragged on for four days, news accounts consistently described it as a full-blown filibuster intended to prevent Fortas's confirmation from reaching the floor, where a simple-majority vote would have decided the question. The required number of votes to halt a filibuster then was 67; filibusters can be halted now by 60 of the Senate's 100 members.

The Senate had confirmed Fortas in 1965 as a Supreme Court associate justice. But Johnson's effort to elevate him to chief justice three years later, when Earl Warren announced his plans to vacate the post, ran into stiff opposition from a core of GOP senators and several conservative southern Democrats.
<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45149-2005Mar17.html

[zbdent]

1. So, tell me - what MSM outlet is going to call them on their lie(s)?

not holding my breath waiting . . .

[starwolf]

2. Not sure events that old will resonate

with anyone these days.

[TaleWgnDg]

3. 10 rejected out of approximately 214 nominees . . .

.

10 nominees rejected out of approximately 214 Bush judicial nominees . . . what the hell is Bush's beef? Other than hypocrisy!


"The President is at it again with extremist judges," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). "Last year, the Senate worked to confirm 204 of the president's judicial nominees and rejected only the 10 most extreme."
http://www.independentjudiciary.com/news/clip.cfm?NewsClipID=346

.

[Philly Buster]

4. If I recall correctly

There were legitimate ethical questions regarding Fortas. I believe he was forced to leave the Court about 2 years after failing to be elevated to chief justice.

I'm just going on (an admittedly poor)memory but I think he was taking monthly payments from some groups and it was seen as a conflict or unethical.

[TaleWgnDg]

5. I fail to understand your premise . . .

.
I fail to understand your premise . . . you are "mixing apples and oranges" -

The Senate-filibuster-of-federal-judicial-nominees precedent was set in 1968. The rationale of "whys" such a procedure precedent was set is an entirely other issue. The former is a Senate procedure which is the very linchpin of the issue, not the latter rationale of "whys!"

1.) A filibuster precedent of a federal judicial nominee was set in 1968 when the Republicans filibustered four days President Lyndon Johnson's nomination of Associate Justice Abe Fortas to the position of the 15th Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

2.) The rationale for the filibuster should not be at issue. Only the filibuster procedure should be, and is, at issue. To mix these two separate and distinct issues together would be similar to confusing "apples with oranges," and is also a bite into the political games of today's rightwing Republicans in the Senate who will use any means to "defend" their positions including a "no filibuster precedent was ever set" position. It's politics, not rationality.

3.) And that stands firm whether the candidate him/herself resigns for the very reasons enumerated as the rationale for such a filibuster, e.g., Fortas's later resignation. Whether a rationale for a filibuster is substantiated by a resignation should not rescind the procedure precedent set by the filibuster!

In addition, our federal constitution grants the Senate authority to make its own rules and policies to run the Senate. The Senate has done that in its filibuster rules and other related rules. No where is there a Senate rule to prohibit a Senate filibuster against a federal judicial nominee. No where does any Senate rule exist to set Senate precedent only to then rescind that precedent without a further Senate rule change.

Or to put it another way, here's what "a congressional scholar" said:

"Norman J. Ornstein, a congressional scholar who has written extensively on the Fortas matter. Ornstein, of the American Enterprise Institute, said: 'This was a filibuster (in 1968). It was intended to keep the nomination from moving forward for the remainder of that (Senate) term.' Frist and others who now threaten to ban filibusters of judicial nominees, Ornstein said, 'are trying to provoke a change that isn't defensible through history.' "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45149-2005Mar17.html




.

[CHestonsucks]

6. Dickhead Cheney contends

that the nominees under review, such as Brown and Pryor, enjoy "broad support" and are "well-qualified" to assume positions on the bench. The fact is that the nominees enjoy the support of Republicans ONLY and this most certainly does not amount to "broad support". This is like saying Dumbass Bush enjoys "broad support" among the electorate after winning re-election by the lowest margin in the history of the United States. Furthermore he states that the nominations are being blocked, even though debate hasn't even begun yet, for "partisan political reasons". The fucking nominations were MADE for partisan political reasons, namely CONSERVATIVE political reasons! And NOW this fucking HACK complains of partisanship???

This is what you get when you combine stupidity with hubris.

GO FUCK YOURSELF, CHENEY!