Reason wins out in the US senate

[dorbie 0]

Quote

What assurance do they have that the next time around the GOP will stick to a new truce? There's none. Which is why it will continue.

A new truce.... interesting, what truce?

We're actually relying on a handful of swing candidates to stick to their commitments. In one sense it has nothing to do with politics in the large. If the handful of Democrats inapropriately decide someone is extreme or if the handful of republicans decide to vote down the filibuster the agreement is broken. Guess which one absolutely has to happen first?

The issue is the definition of extreme cases, a judgement they should have been exercising all along. We have 7 nominees not getting a vote when they should and the Dems in the process tacitly admit they've been abusing the filibuster. Either that, or all those cases were all extreme by their view and we're back to square one. In the midst of this we're supposed to believe that 3 blocked nominees getting a vote is a gift, when in fact it should have been a right.

How could the Republicans possibly be seen to break this truce as you say they will? Presumably the President will use his executive powers to nominate judges without asking permission. i.e. do exactly what he's supposed to be doing.

If the filibuster survives this administration then the escallation is inevitable, the precedent has now been set. You can't have a different set of nomination rules depending on who is in power.

[billvon 2,989]

>If the filibuster survives this administration then the escallation is inevitable . . .

Hmm. It survived for 200 years. I suspect it will survive another 4. And when the Dems are back in power, and the GOP uses the filibuster threat again to block candidates, there will be another deal - and extremist liberal judges will be blocked while most others are not. It all works out in the end, as long as people do not dismantle the system to gain their side a temporary victory.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

>If the filibuster survives this administration then the escallation is inevitable . . .

Hmm. It survived for 200 years. I suspect it will survive another 4. And when the Dems are back in power, and the GOP uses the filibuster threat again to block candidates, there will be another deal - and extremist liberal judges will be blocked while most others are not. It all works out in the end, as long as people do not dismantle the system to gain their side a temporary victory.

I don't buy the left's lie that this is business as usual. When the filibuster is routinely abused the Senate is undermined.

These absolutely were real vote blocking moves in the Senate, real filibusters not merely threats thanks to the earlier "gentleman's" agreement.

[billvon 2,989]

>These absolutely were real vote blocking moves in the Senate,
>real filibusters not merely threats thanks to the agreement.

No they weren't. No actual filibusters were mounted. The democrats used the threat of filibuster to stall votes just as the republicans use such procedural tricks to deny nominees hearings when they were in the minority. From a piece by Herman Schwartz:

-----------------------
Prior to 1996, when the Senate majority and the president were from opposing parties, senators usually deferred to the president with respect to lower-court judicial nominations. With the notable exceptions of the 1968 Fortas nomination and a failed Republican filibuster of H. Lee Sarokin in 1994, neither party filibustered the other's judicial nominations, and virtually all nominees received a hearing unless they were sent up after the presidential nominating conventions.

All this changed in 1996. Rather than openly challenge President Clinton's nominees on the floor, Republicans decided to deny them Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. Between 1996 and 2000, 20 of Bill Clinton's appeals-court nominees were denied hearings, including Elena Kagan, now dean of the Harvard Law School, and many other women and minorities. In 1999, Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch refused to hold hearings for almost six months on any of 16 circuit-court and 31 district-court nominations Clinton had sent up. Three appeals-court nominees who did manage to obtain a hearing in Clinton's second term were denied a committee vote, including Allen R. Snyder, a distinguished Washington lawyer, Clinton White House aide, and former Rehnquist law clerk, who drew lavish praise at his hearing -- but never got a committee vote. Some 45 district-court nominees were also denied hearings, and two more were afforded hearings but not a committee vote.

Even votes that did occur were often delayed for months and even years. In late 1999, New Hampshire Republican Bob Smith blocked a vote on 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Richard Paez for months by putting an anonymous hold on the nomination. When Majority Leader Trent Lott could no longer preserve the hold, Smith and 13 other Republicans tried to mount a filibuster against the vote, but cloture was voted and Paez easily confirmed. It had been over four years since his nomination.

When his tactics on the Paez and Marsha Berzon nominations (Berzon was filibustered along with Paez, more than two years after her nomination) were challenged, Smith responded with an impassioned floor speech in defense of the judicial filibuster: "Don't pontificate on the floor of the Senate and tell me that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States of America by blocking a judge or filibustering a judge that I don't think deserves to be on the circuit court ... . That is my responsibility. That is my advice and consent role, and I intend to exercise it."
---------------

[dorbie 0]

Bill you can't have it both ways. Aside from going back to a period of history I wasn't referring to.

These were filibusters, you've said so yourself and flip flopped on alternating posts in another thread because it suited you. They were filibusters, they blocked Senate votes according to an agreement that avoids senators daipering up. Its one of the left's lies designed to cloud this issue. But don't take my word for it, here's what you wrote yesterday.

Quote

Read up on how filibusters are done nowadays. No one stands at the podium and reads; there is a gentleman's agreement that they don't need to do that.

So please no more rubbish that these weren't filibusters, we both know that's a crock.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Bill you can't have it both ways.

So long as you refuse to accept that the 90s and the 00s are the same, just with the parties reversed, the conversation will continue to be pointless and circular. You're the one who wants it both ways. So far JR is the only only on the GOP side (I'm not sure which side I'm supposed to be) remotely close to decrying the party's behavior in the 90s. The rest of you are either lying or kidding yourselves.

For fans of game theory, it's not too different from the prisoners' dilemna. If the two parties could trust each other, they could alter the game to a more positive arrangement. But they can't, and so the situation will not change, and you can't come up with a valid argument why it should.

[billvon 2,989]

>They were filibusters . . .

You said "These absolutely were real vote blocking moves in the Senate, real filibusters not merely threats." The senate does not do real actual filibusters any more; they _threaten_ filibusters, and there is a gentleman's agreement to not actually speak for 24 hours, as Strom Thurmond actually did in the 1930's to block civil rights legislation.

Now you'll say "I know that, you're spinning my words" or something and we'll be back where we started. Ah well. The bottom line is that both the GOP and the democrats use procedural means, such as threatened filibusters, to prevent candidates they don't like from getting votes. And if it's OK for the GOP to do it, it's OK for the democrats to do it.

Want to stop a filibuster, or the threat of one? No problem. There is a procedure called cloture which can be used, and has been used, to stop them.

[dorbie 0]

Nice attempt to shift the argument. They are different, one guy filibustering and failing is far different from an entire party doing it, and committee representation depends on representation in congress & other agreements. You know to make these filibusters work it takes a whole party of support, it just takes one or two senators pushing you across the 60 line and it's history. Anyone can try a filibuster but it won't work without broad party support. Even a few senators on your own team can end it. And yu can filibuster with cross party support.

If you are prepared to say everything is like everything else then you can say the past is just like the present no matter the circumstances. Yea it will get real circular whan you run around redefining the meaning of events.

Back to the point, these were real filibusters, to filibuster and then misslead saying there were no filibusters is disgraceful. To filibuster when there are no "extreme circumstances" in the first place is disgraceful. It should tell anyone this system is broken.

The valid argument is eliminating the filibuster, and doing it now so Senators can vote on issues brought before them. Filibustering in an extreme case might be appropriate but systematic repeated filibustering means that privilege has been abused beyond repair. You not seeing that argument doesn't mean it isn't being made.

[dorbie 0]

I in no way took your remarks out of context or twisted your words if anything the context is even more indicting for the quote you responded to and the flip flop in the next post. We both know about the agreement, quit pretending to explain it, I mentioned it in my FIRST post to the last filibuster thread EVERYONE knows about the frigging agreement, you're not the only one.

Edit, OK, my 3rd post;

Quote

You can't have that, it would break a gentleman's agreement and Harry Reid would have to daiper up.

We know what a modern filibuster is but you have variously tried to say there was no filibuster or there was when it suited your purposes. Your comments have been directly contradictory.

Cloture requires 60 votes. A judicial nomination constitutionally requires a simple majority vote.

When you filibuster and insist on cloture you raise the bar from majority to 60.

When an entire party in the minority does it systematically and by their own admission in non exceptional circumstances then you have a serious problem OR if the circumstances were exceptional then you have no agreement at all, just more of the same and we're back to square one.

[TheAnvil 0]

Dick Morris agrees with billvon.

hehehehe

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Nice attempt to shift the argument. They are different, one guy filibustering and failing is far different from an entire party doing it,

Bill has provided you with plenty of evidence to show it was the whole damn party, not just one lost Republican.

I have to ask - were you alive (politically) in the 90s? Reading the news on a weekly basis or better? I remember the same headlines, the same editorials on what the President should do. I don't know what you remembered- it's not like this is ancient history!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I don't know what you remembered- it's not like this is ancient history!

I'd bet that for a very large portion of the posters on DZ.com that in the 1990's they were mostly concerned about acne and hair in unusual places.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[minobu 0]

Quote

Dick Morris agrees with billvon

wow I have been pretty depressed about the state of our government for a long while now but the fact that some Senators have actually moderated their views based on the fact that they lost votes and had narrow victories as incumbants gives me hope that our leaders MAY actually start listening to their consituents imagine that hey next thing you know they will actually be voting for what we say WE want and not what THEY think we need ... thought it was getting colder around here gonna have to reserve my igloo in hell now

Only skydivers know why the birds sing!

Jim

[kelpdiver 2]

Aye, for me the dividing line between clouded history and direct witnessing would be right around Reagan's reelection.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

.....what you remembered- it's not like this is ancient history!

You seem to have forgotten a nominated judge approved by 100% of the Senate in a unanimous vote to the apellate courts who is now considered a radical and "extreme" case for progression to the supreme court.

This is all symptomatic of a judicial branch of government has run amok, this wouldn't be near as contentious if these guys enforced the laws and the constitution instead of pulling it out their ass and even reversing themselves on supposedly fundamental constitutional issues every decade.

[billvon 2,989]

>gives me hope that our leaders MAY actually start listening to their
>consituents imagine that hey next thing you know they will actually be
>voting for what we say WE want and not what THEY think we need ...

Yep. I think sometimes they forget that they are working for the people and not for the leader of their political party. It's not a war between factions, it's a government. Fortunately, it looks like some senators remember that, and can put aside their party's meddling long enough to do their jobs.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

This is all symptomatic of a judicial branch of government has run amok, this wouldn't be near as contentious if these guys enforced the laws and the constitution instead of pulling it out their ass and even reversing themselves on supposedly fundamental constitutional issues every decade.

So now the problem is judicial activism? That's been around for centuries, esp with that silly reversing stuff.

And some of these matters aren't cut and dry. Look at last week's big (to me) decision on out of state wine shipments. Scalia ditched the old cronies and declared it an unjust restriction on commerce. Thomas and Renquist were having none of that and wrote off alcohol as special and open to almost any restriction.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

So now the problem is judicial activism? That's been around for centuries, esp with that silly reversing stuff.

There are many problems, and I understand this issue has been around for centuries. Jefferson was deeply concerned about it. That doesn't mean it has remained constant in character. The system of government with judges riding roughshod over the legislature might have an ounce of credibility if they ever half way agreed on any profound issues of government. As it is it's just the opinion of a few old farts winning the day (and not the old farts in congress this time).

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Quote

So now the problem is judicial activism? That's been around for centuries, esp with that silly reversing stuff.

There are many problems, and I understand this issue has been around for centuries. Jefferson was deeply concerned about it. That doesn't mean it has remained constant in character. The system of government with judges riding roughshod over the legislature might have an ounce of credibility if they ever half way agreed on any profound issues of government. As it is it's just the opinion of a few old farts winning the day (and not the old farts in congress this time).

Are you familiar with culling a breed? It's the old farts in the white house and congress that have culled or selected the appointed members of the judiciary for the traits they desire. They have culled for power and advantage rather than character and integrity.



jen

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Are you familiar with culling a breed? It's the old farts in the white house and congress that have culled or selected the appointed members of the judiciary for the traits they desire. They have culled for power and advantage rather than character and integrity.

On that we can agree, on both sides of the aisle.

[minobu 0]

Hell yeah that would be something to see ... it would also be great if those 14 senators in the middle could grow to a much larger percentage of the senate as well but I won't be holding my breath on that one

oh yeah and world peace as well

Only skydivers know why the birds sing!

Jim

[rehmwa 2]

So someone explain how the filibuster protects the minority position in the Senate?

The president is elected by a majority type mechanism (electoral can be discribed to be be proportional to the populace). He nominates candidates.

The House is majority rule also elected even more directly by the populace to be proportional to the people's needs. They don't approve judicial nominees - so that avoids a majority path nomination with a majority path confirmation. GOOD.

The Senate (by design) was designed to protect the rights of the minority states. So a majority vote in the Senate does function to protect the minority states by giving proportionally higher power to those in smaller population states - thus minority representation (from a geo-political basis, not arbitrary positions as party, race, etc, but a real situational perspective in terms of the governmental structure). Thus a majority path nominiation (Pres) with a confirmation that includes a mechanism to already consider the minority state's rights (the Senate structure itself).

So if a filibuster is a way for the minority -within- the Senate, which is already constructed to protect the minority states, is used, then what we really have is a mechanism for a SUB-minority position relative to states vs federal rights to control confirmation. So statements that a filibuster is there to protect the 'minority' is not the minority our founding fathers intended it to be (states' rights), but rather a partisan tool or trick and a misuse of the concept (when used in this way by either side).

Seems like overkill to me to have filibusters in the Senate. It's very structure is designed to handle it already - in the express purpose to protect state's rights (i.e., if the president would nominate a poor candidate to, say, a midwest court, the midwest Senators have as much of a vote as like Cali or NY so that the large population states can't as easily force through were it done with a House of rep structure/mechanism). I don't believe there is any intent to protect a specific party's positions anywhere inherent in the constitution, it was about individuals on one hand and states on the other.

(Note none of this is partisan, just the opposite really. And only an observation).

Here's the partisan part - why were 10 judges threatened under filibuster but then 7 allowed through? If they were all 10 "extreme" concern candidates, why not stick to the guns and fight to keep all 10 out? Is that's the real example of misuse of the process? Does that mean 7 candidates were treated completely unfairly under a misuse of process?

Edit: If the filibuster is abused like this, then the easy solutin for the the Senate would be to just eliminate the filibuster (or threat of) and change the confirmation requirement to 60 votes. That would avoid delays, etc.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Zenister 0]

you are confusing several 'minorities' in your example..

the use of the filibuster protects the minority 'view' by not allowing 51% of the population (total, not state by state) to simply elect its 'own' politicians and then pass whatever, whenever it wishes.. the necessity and utility of the filibuster as a political tool would be more obvious (and more useful) if we were not locked into a simple two party system as we are now...

Quote

Here's the partisan part - why were 10 judges threatened under filibuster but then 7 allowed through? If they were all 10 "extreme" concern candidates, why not stick to the guns and fight to keep all 10 out?

because then there would be NO compromises.. the entire point is to force a compromise that may be unacceptable to the extremes of all (either) side.. without a filibuster, or the threat of one, the majority would have no reason to negotiate at all....

Quote

That would avoid delays

the purpose of a democratic government has never been to make decisions as fast as possible...

"the mills of the gods grind slowly, but exceedingly fine.."

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Gawain 0]

The spirit of this deal is already dead, now that the Bolton vote was blocked again. The fact that the UN nomination was not part of the "deal" is irrelevant. Sen. Reid has lost control of the Dem caucus and they will overreach from this "perceived" power gain. The rule change will occur before the 4th of July I think.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[dorbie 0]

Quote

The spirit of this deal is already dead, now that the Bolton vote was blocked again. The fact that the UN nomination was not part of the "deal" is irrelevant. Sen. Reid has lost control of the Dem caucus and they will overreach from this "perceived" power gain. The rule change will occur before the 4th of July I think.

If even a handful of Dems voted for cloture it would have gone to a vote. This isn't the minority leader merely losing control (which suggests a few rebels), it's the entire caucus voting against cloture en masse. This ain't a loss of control, it's orchestrated with virtually unanimous Democratic support, it IS control.

w.r.t. the spirit of the deal, the deal was between 14, if enough of those 7 Dems had voted for cloture Bolton would have gotten his vote, so in this respect the spirit of the deal being broken is confined to the actions of those of the the 7 "moderate" Democrats who signed it but just failed to vote for cloture on Bolton.

It seems inevitable that this deal will have the opposite effect and only make filibusters on other votes more likely. McCain is talking about getting them access to secret documents on Bolton that apparently many have already seen, we'll see if it makes a difference, I don't see why it would in the world of D.C. politics.

P.S. as for doing away with the filibuster, the 7 Republicans have pleged not to do that as their half of the deal. It'll get real interesting watching the Republican 7 and the accusations leveled at them if the Republican leadership decides to attempt to get rid of the filibuster now. If you think it was confusing with lies about no actual filibusters before just wait till the food fight gets into gear over interpretatons of this deal if it implodes.