The other day, Senator Bill Frist rejected the Democrats’ proposal and compromise over the judicial nominee battle. The nuclear option still lingers, children. Republicans threaten to exercise (and abuse) their new found power of majority by changing the rules, while Democrats threaten in return to shut-down Congress. Well if all that happens, did Congress really get any work done to begin with? Besides quickly flying back from Easter Break to vote on the Terri Schiavo Bill and push the Hypocrisy Culture of Life bullshit agenda? Even though the Democrats already “okay-ed” little over 200 of Dubya’s judicial nominees the Republicans still cite a mass conspiracy created by the Democrats. And more hysterically, a conspiracy against “people of faith.” I don’t see how blocking ten out of two-hundred-something nominees is a “war on faith” but oh well. Anyway, count on more volatile discord between the two parties in our nation’s capitol according to this New York Times article.
WASHINGTON, April 26 – Karl Rove, the president’s top political adviser, and Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, each rejected a Democratic proposal to break the stalemate over judicial confirmations, saying they want to disarm the minority’s ability to block not only the current batch of nominees but also future ones.
“The principle is getting fair, up-or-down votes on judicial nominees,” Dr. Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said in a meeting with reporters on Tuesday, responding to a Democratic offer to confirm a few of the previously blocked judges if Republicans withdrew the others. “The principle is with respect to future appeals court nominees as well,” he said. “All nominees who are waiting, as well as for the future.”
In an interview published Tuesday in USA Today, Mr. Rove also rejected the Democrats’ compromise. “We believe that every judicial nominee deserves an up-or-down vote,” he said. “The process is not well-served by these political games.”
The Republicans’ comments bring the Senate closer than ever to the brink of a confrontation over the rules of judicial confirmations that both sides acknowledge is likely to determine who will fill any Supreme Court vacancies. Dr. Frist has threatened to invoke what has become known as the nuclear option: changing the Senate rules to outlaw the filibuster, a tactic employed when a minority of 41 senators agrees to block a nominee. Democrats have countered that they will obstruct the rest of the Republican agenda if Dr. Frist follows through.
At a meeting of the Democratic caucus, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader, said he had told Dr. Frist that if the Republicans ruled out the nuclear option, Democrats would allow confirmation of four judges – the three who are least controversial, as well as one of the four most-contested – out of seven previously blocked nominees, Democratic officials said. Mr. Reid’s proposal also included restoring a previous prerogative of senators to block the nominations of judges from their states as well as creating a bipartisan commission to look at procedural reform, the officials said.
Both sides are competing to present themselves as eager to compromise in an effort to dodge the blame in the event of a blowup, and Dr. Frist said he, too, planned to propose a compromise, which he did not specify.
But on Tuesday Mr. Reid claimed the upper hand in that aspect of their contest. “To ensure that the Senate remains a check on the president’s power, especially for the Supreme Court, we are willing to compromise even on this,” Mr. Reid said on the Senate floor, not citing specifics.
Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, a Democrat who is working on a compromise of his own, rejected Dr. Frist’s terms outright. “I don’t think anybody is going to give up his or her right to filibuster nominees unless it is taken away,” Mr. Nelson said….[…]
Vicious political spats are fun!…>rolls eyes<
Get the popcorn ready, kittens. We’re headed for another government shutdown.
We have a modest proposal on how to leverage Sen. Reid’s tactical victory on the nuclear option over the “reds” to their increased discomfort.
Actually, there won’t be a shut-down ala Clinton era. Whereas in that 90’s fiasco, a _budget_ wasn’t passed and thus jane and joe schmoe on the street felt it (from government workers to people on me who get government grants to do research). In this case, the Senate just wouldn’t pass any laws…. somehow, considering the recent Bankruptcy and Estate Tax repeal laws that passed…. I don’t look on that as a bad thing. So, please, SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT…
But actually, the senate minority leader Senator Reid (that rare breed of Mormon Democrat) pulled a GREAT tactical move (isn’t this like watching football or chess or something?)…
Instead of actually ‘shutting down the Senate, Reid said that if the filibuster is busted (sorry), that the Senate Democrats will invoke rule number XIV.
As it is now (and traditionally): there are three readings of a bill. First ‘reading’ is to introduce it, second ‘reading’ sends it to committee (where it is discussed and often killed), third reading is back to the senate for a vote. And the minority party usually defers to the majority party when setting the agenda.
Rule XIV is a relatively obscure rule, rarely used, that (correct me if I’m wrong) forces the bill to go through its second reading without “further proceeding thereon”.. not going to committee, but directly to the calendar for a vote.
This bypasses committee and majority party priviledge in setting the agenda… but more than just invoking the obscure rule… Reid then set out the agenda the Democrats will push to a vote without committee…
a women’s health act that will increase spending for family planning and women’s health insurance
a “Fiscal Responsibility act”
a Veterans’ Benefits restoration act
a education act (increased funding for headstart, pell grants, etc)
etc, etc…
forcing the vote on these Democratic agenda and making Republicans vote against women’s health, veterans, education, fiscal responsibility, etc.
God.. I love politics.
more info here)
The Democrats once again show that they will do whatever it takes to have their way. What is wrong with allowing all the justices to be voted on? Shouldn’t they have that privilege? The Republicans have a majority in all the branches of the governemnt(well, except the judicial branch), which pretty clearly states that people of America want republican policies in place.
What bothers me, is that the Democrats are trying to obstruct as much of the democratic process as they can. In regards to the “nuclear option”, if the Republicans want to go ahead and make that decision, fine. They have the majority, and if they tick off the majority of Americans by doing that, they will lose their majority. The Democrats only squak about “fair play” when they are in the minority(not to mention recently having their leader outsted by the people ).
Republicans vetoed sixty of Clinton’s nominees. Sixty. That’s six times the number of nominees the Democrats aren’t budging on. Democrats didn’t complain then.
And this is not strictly a partisan issue. The filibuster is a vital check, and one with a long tenure–and in this case, it’s being used to add some vital balance to decisions on appointments for life. I want it to stick around for everyone’s use, no matter what party they belong to.
Ahem. “Six times.”
I was a liberal arts major.
Thanks in advance, Amp.
[Correction made, and you’re welcome. –Amp]
Will, what’s wrong is that if these judges are appointed they serve until they decide to step down or until they die. There’s very little recourse. Given the amount of power judges have, and how long they have it, its a heavy burden on senate to screen who is appointed. And, this was mentioned, but the Democrats have blocked 10 judges. 10. Out of over 200.
10 judges have been filibustered and blocked. And this is the horrible obstruction of the political process the Democrats are pushing forward?
What really annoys me about Justice Sunday and this ‘blocking people of faith’ argument, though, is that many of the judges to which there has been considerable opposition have been disliked because over conservative views on affirmative action and sexual harassment suits, or have just been overtly pro-business. Few of the judges have been opposed simply because they were too fundamentalist. Heck, even Thomas Griffith, who said that the rule of law is rooted in an understanding of the Savior, was opposed because he had been practicing law without a license and was rated unfit by the ABA, not his religious views.
Don’t you people know this is a monarchy and King George must have his way all the time or else! Silly Democrats, freedom is for Americans Fundagelicals
Trey has it precisely right. The beauty of Reid’s plan is that it’s actually the total oppositeof a shutdown.
Anyone who takes the time to flip on C-SPAN2 will see more Senators at their desks, doing more debating and more voting than ever before.
I do agree that the judges aren’t being stopped because of faith, but rather their politics. The main reason Democrats are blocking these judges is that they are the ones whose politics really differ from the Democrats, therefore hurting the Democrats down the line.
In regards to your argument, piny, is that the Republicans had, and still do have the majority. Here’s my point: The Republicans voted against those judges, because they were unfit for the job based on their interpretations of the law, the power to vote against them was derived from the people. They still have the majority, and the minority(Democrats) is trying to stop the majority from using those powers. I’m for filibustering as much as the next guy, but its a policy meant to stop legislation until either there are sixty votes for the legislation, or there are compromises made. It is not meant as a total stop and refusal of a vote on legislation or apointees.
Now, I must admit, I’m rather disappointed with the Republicans. They’re letting the Democrats get away with the filibuster easily. They should make the Democrats get up their and read magazines and recipes and do a real filibuster. Wouldn’t that test the resolve of the Democrats, and show that the Democrats are willing to obstruct the democratic process.
LOL! Ol Cranky, sorry, but obviously the majority of Americans don’t agree with you otherwise they would have gotten rid of “King George”.
…You mean the King George whose approval rating on almost every current issue has been dropping since he took his second inaugural oath and started, y’know, doing stuff? I don’t remember hearing anything about ending the filibuster before the election, do you?
He was elected, yes. That doesn’t mean that the majority of the American people–or even the slight majority that elected him–approve with or gave him carte blanche for every decision he could possibly make. That’s insane.
Except that sometimes, it works out that way, as it has since its inception. It’s designed to compel compromise, and the Republicans aren’t compromising. Also, not to split hairs or anything, but we aren’t talking about adjusting the filibuster. We’re talking about nullifying it.
Let me pose this question: If Americans were so disgusted with Bush, so disgusted with Republican policies, and the Democrats were the answer, why did the Republicans gain seats in both houses, retain the Presidency and increase in governorships?
Not only did the did the Democrats lose seats, they lost their leader as well. And no, I’m not saying that every policy Bush states is supported 100%. But, leaders are elected, not to take account of every poll and try to govern accordingly, but to determine what is the best policy for their constituency, as their constituency elected them to do. Bush is trying to govern, and needs cooperation. He, and the people, don’t need Democrats obstructing judges, obstructing nominations and basically trying to be as much of an impediment to this administration as they can.
If 51% of the country ruling completely over the other 49% without regard to its wishes, needs or rights can be called ‘democracy’ than I guess you could say
” that the Democrats are trying to obstruct as much of the democratic process as they can”
but I don’t call that democracy, I call that mobocracy.
filibusters, rules, procedures,, balances and etc. to check the will of the majority and consider minority rights and wishes is called
democracy… or ‘rule by the people, you know… like ALL of them. Seems such a simple concept that i learned in civics class in 8th grade. AND it would seem that most thinking (or thinking ahead) Republicans wouldn’t want to mess with those checks and balances… for there will be a day where the 51% majority will be Democrats… and I can just hear the protestations of love and adoration for the filibuster coming from Republicans then.
Really, and the Democrats have blocked only 10 out of almost 300 nominees, barely a blip compared to the numbers of nominees the Republicans blocked of Clinton judicial nominees through the filibuster and other means. I would think the Republicans would be happy to have such a good record, but no.. like spoiled, selfish children they want it all… damn the consequences. I just want to grab Delay, Frist and Bush and scream ‘grow up’!
Ten justices. Out of more than two hundred. All ten of whom, if you’ll remember, were asked and answered during Bush’s first term. If the Democrats wanted to, they could be a lot more of an impediment than that.
If I’m reading this correctly, you’re arguing that when the Republicans voted against Clinton’s nominees it was based on them feeling that the judges were unfit for the positions they were appointed for, where as the Democrats are only voting based on political decisions. However, this ignores that one of the judges, as mentioned before, was rated unfit by the ABA and had been practicing law without a license. One of them, Charles Pickering, not only had politics that radical lefties disagreed with. As a law student, he’d written suggestions to make the anti-miscegenation laws stronger. All had records that seriously called into question their ability to make a fair and impartial decision.
And as far as the American people go, well, they’re pretty well against getting rid of the filibuster. Apparently, they’re not as crazy about Bush’s policies as you think.
Alright, all these arguments that, “the people don’t want the filibuster”, “51% shouldn’t completely rule over the other 49%”, are fine. If the people are upset with the polices that are in place, they will vote out those who are putting those policies in place. It’s happened before, it will happen again. However, so far the American public hasn’t seen fit to remove the current majority.
And trey, you say that removing one rule pertaining to one situation is “51% of the country ruling completely over the other 49% without regard to its wishes, needs or rights”. Please. Thats hardly going to happen. Furthermore, you can sleep soundly tonight secure in the knowledge that the liberals definitly have a strong majority in the judicial branch. Don’t feel like you have a voice? That’s alright, just get the judges to bypass the Congress and “legislate from the bench” (Oh how often that happens…). Oh and trey? The words “but no.. like spoiled, selfish children they want it all… damn the consequences. I just want to grab Delay, Frist and Bush and scream ‘grow up’! ” do not sound like they are coming from a mature, calm, collected adult. Maybe they aren’t the only ones who need to grow up.
One other thing. The Democrats haven’t just held up the justice selection process. They fight every single one of Bush’s nominations. I’m sorry, but occasionly even Bush has to turn up a good apple *sarcasm*. If you’ll look back to the glory days of Clinton, you’ll notice that most, if not all of his nominations went through with ease.
Oh, and just to say this is rather fun debating like this….
For the record, the majority of the country’s voters, voted for a Democratic Senator. And the Democratic Senators represent the majority of the US population.
Ah ampersand, that maybe correct, but look at the House of Represenatives. The Republicans have a majority there too, and if i’m not mistaken a represenative represents the same population as every other represenative.
And if we were talking about the House, that would be relevant. I’m not denying that the Republicans in the House were voted for by the majority of voters. However, that’s totally besides the point for a discussion of whom the Senators represent.
Whether or not the Senate has imperfections is important, i guess, but changing one rule pertaining to one application isn’t going to upset the balance of power as we know it. It wouldn’t get rid of the normal filibuster, and it could be changed back if necessary. So if the Democrats regained power, they show us how noble they are by changing it back(Ha).
Why not? If the 51% majority can make decisions without needing any cooperation at all from the 49%, then the majority has no logical reason to pay any attention to the minority.
Not true. As the LA Times reported, “Ninety-four of the 162 active judges now on the U.S. Court of Appeals were chosen by Republican presidents. On 10 of the 13 circuit courts, Republican appointees have a clear majority. And, since 1976, at least seven of the nine seats on the U.S. Supreme Court have been filled by Republican appointees.”
Republicans clearly dominate all three branches of the federal government.
I think that saying that you’re angry at elected officials is fair game; however, insofar as Trey was referring to Republicans in general rather than just elected officials when he said “spoiled, selfish children,” then that was rude and I wish he had refrained.
Now, that too was rude, and I wish you had refrained.
I doubt this is true, but even if it were, so what? It’s the right of every Senator to question judicial nominations, and to vote “no” if they want.
If you’re claiming that the Democrats have filibustered every nomination, or used other methods to keep “every single” nominee from getting a vote, then of course that’s not even close to being true. In fact, Republicans blocked far more judicial nominations from getting a vote during Clinton’s first four years than Democrats have blocked in the last five years.
Since justices are appointed for life, and (as you’ve pointed out) wield a lot of power, keeping the Democratic senators – who represent the majority of the American people – from having any significant voice in approving Federal judges would indeed strongly shift the balance of power.
By “changing back if necessary,” you mean that you resevere the right to change sides on this issue if the Democrats ever regain the majority of Senate seats, right? :-P
Just kidding. Actually, I’m not picking on you; everyone does it. Both parties are complete hypocrites on this issue.
Lol. Actually I would probably have to keep my mouth shut if the Democrats regained power and exploited that rule…
Elephants are not the only ones with long memories, Will. I expect, when the pendulum swings our way, we’ll remember the lessons Bush taught us.
True Josh, but if the trends that have been set in the elections of 2000, 2002, 2004, continue, it will be a long time…
It seems to me that blocking 5% of appointees isn’t fighting “every single one of Bush’s nominations.”
One thing we’re not talking about when discussing “majority rule” is that the senate was intentionally established as a body that would respect the passions of the minority. There is no filibuster in the House, bringing bills to the floor goes through a different process, and the House is not invested with the responsibility of “advise and consent.” The terms of senators are longer so that they’ll be inclined to take a longer view of things. It is in every way established as a body that would provide brakes on the momentary passions of the people. That’s *why* we have a bicameral legislature.
So to say that the filibuster is thwarting the wishes of the people is just wrong; or rather, if it is correct, then it’s simply reiterating what the Senate was established to *do*.
The filibuster has historically been used rarely, and only for things that are of serious consequence, when Senators are passionate. I think that some of its uses have been for bad things (civil rights legislation was filibustered, for one), but that doesn’t mean that we should do away with it.
There is one thing that the Founders were clearly worried about, and it was a tyranny of the majority, in which the wishes of the minority were ignored. Just look at what’s happening in the House if you want to see what the minority senators are facing.
(And one word about the number of House members: gerrymandering.)
Oh — One more thing to distinguish the quality of the senate from the house: Originally, senators were not elected directly by the people. It wasn’t until 1913/14 and the 17th amendment to the Constitution that senators were directly elected; the Constitution originally has them appointed by state legislatures.
http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2005/04/obstructionism.html
Try this graph from the economist to understand this canard better.
I find this statement amazing (and often quoted) Its like the left just woke up to the war for judges or something. The truth is they are the ones who have started it. Its unprecedented to use the filibuster to block any judges for this length of time.
Much less 10 or more Appellate court nominees.
Liberals are simply holding on (insanely) to there last vestige of power (the courts).
The Conservatives simply want an up or down vote on the Presidents picks.
All this inane talk about the (sudden) importance of judges and how they are appointed for life (like this is news) really makes you guys sound like amateurs.
Ah, watching a bunch of mostly white male millionaires, one wearing red tights and the other, blue go at it, is always very entertaining. Almost as much as WWF.
May both the elephant and the ass eventually go the way of the dinosaur or at least the Whigs….and replace them with some more political parties with more average Americans, who can argue, fight and bring new, fresh ideas or reinvent old ones dumped aside by the other political parties when they sold out and jumped into their current marriage.
What radfem said. ;)
I appreciated trey’s primer on procedure in D.C. I also wish people would stop bandying about the terms “majority” or “minority” of the people without acknowledging that most people don’t vote. There are more “indifferents” in the U.S. than either “reds” or “blues.” It’s true, as Will says, that those people didn’t all rise as one to boot Bush from office, even though his policies are shafting them. It’s also true that Kerry was too inept to give those people ample reason to get up off their butts and reject Bush. Same old, same old…
Maybe the new party could be called “The First Viable Alternative Party.” Who should we call on to be its first presidential candidate? It’s gotta be someone with a level of national recognition (to counteract the newness of the party) and generally acknowledged to be above partisan politics. Any suggestions? Because I’m fresh out.
I was kind of hoping for a Barbara Lee/Lyn Stewart ticket, myself. I’m weird that way. :D
Seriously, Lee, I don’t know about the national level, but Steven Hill offers some idea of what the ups and downs of reform could look like at the local level:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0320-30.htm
He’s written a book called *Fixing Elections*, that I really want to read. Haven’t had a chance to get to the library lately, though.
Honestly, I get so damn tired of people grumbling about how no minor party is “viable.” (I keep imagining Scotty crying, “Ye canna’ change the laws of physics, Jim !!”) Political parties are not physics, or weather patterns. We can shape them and grow them, if we will. If we don’t, it’s we ourselves who are to blame for their lack of viability, not some imutable higher power.
Alsis, you’re absolutely correct. If so-called third parties weren’t viable, why were Ross Perot and Ralph Nader able to get national attention? I don’t think it was just because the media was interested in a freak show or in trying to generate interest in a boring election. Any new party would necessarily have to start at the local level and work up, but as Howard Dean demonstrated in the last election, the Internet and cell phone technology are powerful tools for that sort of thing.