Filibusted

[JollyRoger]

Looking at the filibuster it has definitely been useful to stop Bork and Harriet Miers, but the it was used in the last congress leans me towards getting rid of it..

Bork received an up-or-down-vote. Harriet Miers, a nomination under criticism from the left (a given) and the right (including Bork), asked that her nomination be withdrawn, even before Judiciary committee hearings began.

 

[mangxema]

Ah, my old state of GA never disappoints in disappointing...

So hippocracy does abound. Glad to see the GOP is acting true to form.

 

[GoodGame]

Is the filibuster of any relevant substance at all?

Reading this story, I guess not.
http://www.npr.org/2011/05/19/136460671/controversial-obama-nomination-falls-to-filibuster


Interesting that one Dem voted to continue the filibuster.

Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson was the only Democrat to vote for the filibuster.

So basically this is one big gangbang revenge because of what Liu said about Alito (according to the article)?

Despite all the talk about Liu's liberal legal views, though, what clearly stuck in the craw of almost all Republican senators was Liu's testimony against the Supreme Court nomination of then-Judge Samuel Alito. At Alito's 2006 confirmation hearing, Liu testified that Alito's lower court rulings showed a vision of an America "where police may shoot and kill an unarmed boy ... where federal agents may point guns at ordinary citizens during a raid, even after no sign of resistance ... where a black man may be sentenced to death by an all-white jury for killing a white man."

It is interesting that the Constitution allows such derailing of the government, including delaying the signing of a budget on time. I'd think an honest ruling would limit filibuster to topics relevant to the decided issue. What exactly have they talked about during the filibuster?


EDIT: just for fair time, the GOP leader had some words on filibustering judicial nominees in general:
http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/b35dd1c6-e66b-4aea-9973-049d91b3a402

HH: Now Leader McConnell, a lot of scholars, including Ken Starr, president of Baylor, former solicitor general and D.C. Circuit judge, weighed in on behalf of Professor Liu. Was it a close call in the minds of many of the Senators in your caucus? Or was this an easy one for them to invoke filibuster on?

MM: Well, Republicans…hey, you know, in the early part of the previous decade, argued very strenuously against filibustering judges. But frankly, we lost that battle. They filibustered Miguel Estrada, an extremely well-qualified nominee of President Bush’s seven times, and hung up a huge number of his judges. And I think it just dawned on a bunch of us that that battle had been lost, and clearly, the Senate would now filibuster a judge when it deemed the judge objectionable. And so all we did today was simply follow the new norm in the Senate, and I’m pleased that with one exception, every single Republican voted against giving Mr. Liu a vote.

HH: And not just Miguel Estrada, but William Myers, Henry Saad and others. My question, Leader McConnell, is does this open the door for some kind of an amendment of the Senate rules so that all judicial nominees, both Republican and Democrats, are guaranteed up or down votes if they get out of committee? Is there a chance here to go back, because I’m one of those critics of the extra-Constitutional standard. At the same time, I don’t believe the Republicans can roll over and allow their judges to be filibustered and not pay back when the Democrats come along. Is there a chance now to perhaps reopen that and get a rule that guarantees nominees an up or down?

Personally, I'm a bit neutral. Liu's resume is impressive, so I see no reason to shoot him down due to politics. I'd think the same of any function of government that is supposedly fully objective and a-political. Unfortunately justice is politically-tinged. So I reckon that any party would try such politics from time-to-time.



I think the deeper question is----how to keep justice from being political in any society? Impossible?

 

[Rashiminos]

Impeachment is a fitting word, I think.

 

[Junius]

Do you have any quotes from Dems saying that the filibuster is unconstitutional? I can understand the spare flip flop where you hold one position while in power and another while out of power, but when you are on the record of saying something is a violation of the Constitution, then that is a bit more troubling, given the oath you took to uphold the Constitution.

And while Liu may not be the GOP's cup of tea, how is he any more of an extraordinary circumstance than the nominees that the Dems were filibustering back in the day? Justice Thomas holds views that are not in the mainstream. Should the GOP start impeachment proceedings on him?

I imagine they are out there on the web somewhere, but i haven't looked so you've got me there. Obviously, when it comes to politics, the "mainstream" is in the eye of the beholder. Is Liu qualified? Absolutely. So was Bork. I don't agree on the filibustering of nominees personally, but nowadays the fight over judicial nominees, especially for circuit courts, is to the political death. If the democrats are looking for someone to blame they shouldn't look toward McConnell or Graham, but Ted Kennedy.

 

[Hygro]

This thread is not about filibustering but doing what was claimed as unconstitutional just a few years before

 

[Formaldehyde]

It is even worse since those who claimed it was unconstitutional now deliberately misuse it much more frequently than in the past:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/breaking_the_filibuster_in_one.html

If you're looking for some good historical data on the filibuster, the fine folks who keep up (the surprisingly useful) Senate.gov site have you covered. They've tracked the number of cloture filings (when the majority begins the process of breaking a filibuster), cloture votes (when they vote to break the filibuster), and clotures (when the majority actually breaks the filibuster) in each Congress since 1919, when the Senate first gave itself the power to break a filibuster. Here's what it all looks like in graph form:

A few things about that graph. First, the rise in filibusters is just shocking. And this doesn't even count all of them. It only counts those filibusters that the majority actually tried to do something about. Plenty more filibusters get threatened, but cloture doesn't get filed because the issue isn't important enough or the votes aren't present.

Second, note how many filibusters get broken. It's not all, but it's a far cry from none (and it's more than you see in this graph, as filibusters that get withdrawn don't end through cloture). Some get broken by overwhelming majorities. But that doesn't mean the filibuster failed. A dedicated filibuster takes about a week to break even if you have the votes. That's a week of wasted time in the Senate. If your preference isn't merely to delay one vote but to threaten the majority with the prospect of getting less done overall, then launching a lot of fruitless filibusters makes perfect sense.

Filibustering has gotten completely out-of-hand, as zlk56 already mentioned. While it is true that both parties have misused it in the past, it has become an art form as practiced by the Republicans during the Obama administration to try to deliberately undermine it.

It is similar to characterizing protests under the GWB administration as being un-American, while encouraging them under the Obama administration.

 

[Millman]

We know are way around the words stalling and discussion. If your leaders in a democratic nation are abusing their power it will create a stall and could hurt people. Yet if they are legally talking about laws that could effect millions of people it could help them.

The strengths and weakness's of government.

 

[Hygro]

Long story short, no, no one can defend it.

 

[BasketCase]

I have not claimed the filibuster is bad. In fact, if you read the thread, you will see that I have said that it has a place (and this may be one of them).

I know. My complaint about the way you wrote the OP lies not in what you said, but in what you left out. All of your examples were Republicans. You didn't list a single Democratic filibuster-er. Such as, say, Democratic filibusters aimed at killing union reform in Wisconsin. (The fact that Junius didn't find any such examples doesn't mean they don't exist. It just means he's lazy.)

The question in this thread is why these Senators are acting in way they think is unconstitutional.

You're going to have to ask them. But it's possible to guess. The way most Congresspeople probably think is like this: "filibustering my stuff is unconstitutional; filibustering the Other Party's stuff is constitutional." So, to answer Hygro: no Congresspeople that I know of consider "filibustering" unconstitutional. The answer depends on what's being filibustered. If you were a senator and Ryan's "End Medicare" bill had the votes to pass (rather than getting voted down as it happened), would you filibuster it? Of course you would. Should the Republicans be filibustering Obama's nominees? In your book: no. So, at the drop of a hat I can get any single Democrat in this thread to say "yes, some things should be filibusters, but others should not".

As most Democrats would put it: filibustering Republicans is constitutional, and filibustering Democratics is not. Most Republicans use the same rule flipped the other way round. The question "is the filibuster unconstitutional" doesn't have a single answer. Too broad a brush.

Long story short, no, no one can defend it.

I just did. And the best part is, I didn't defend it from my viewpoint (I personally am undecided on whether the filly should exist), but from everybody else's.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

What should be the consequence of a Senator voting in a manner that he has stated violates the Constitution?

He should be congratulated for choosing the profession which suits his character instead of aiming high and trying out as a shoe salesman.

 

[MikeL49NYVI]

He should be congratulated for choosing the profession which suits his character instead of aiming high and trying out as a shoe salesman.

Yeah, if you can't do anything else with your life, there is always politics.

 

[metatron]

So, just out of curiosity.....if the filibuster is such a nasty, why haven't the Democrats (or the Republicans, for that matter) ever written up legislation to eliminate the filibuster altogether?

That's not a matter of legislation.
The Senate is free to set its own rules for debate.

The Democrats use the filibuster all the time when the Republicans are at the wheel. It's not the Republicans Party that's being hypocritical here--rather, it's the OP. By pointing out only Republican hypocrisies, the OP paints a very deceptive picture.

That's true. But the way you phrased it it has little to nothing to do with the original post. You are simply spamming here.

So let me rephrase: Did Democrats use the filibuster "all the time" when the Republicans are at the wheel, in order to block judicial nominees?
No, they didn't. In fact a consensus was formed in the Senate that judicial nominees should not be filibustered on principle, in 2005. Since then Democrats have not successfully filibustered any of GW's nominees.
Actualy that's the reason that Alito is on the bench today.
Ironic, isn't it?

I know. My complaint about the way you wrote the OP lies not in what you said, but in what you left out. All of your examples were Republicans. You didn't list a single Democratic filibuster-er. Such as, say, Democratic filibusters aimed at killing union reform in Wisconsin. (The fact that Junius didn't find any such examples doesn't mean they don't exist. It just means he's lazy.)

Is it that hard to get?
The thread is about using the filibuster to stop (or delay) judicial nominations.
That's what all the Republican Senators were comnmenting on. You could easily know that by, you know, reading the original post, cause it's you know literally in most of the quotes JR offered.

Hygro allready tried to tell you btw.

You're going to have to ask them. But it's possible to guess. The way most Congresspeople probably think is like this: "filibustering my stuff is unconstitutional; filibustering the Other Party's stuff is constitutional." So, to answer Hygro: no Congresspeople that I know of consider "filibustering" unconstitutional. The answer depends on what's being filibustered. If you were a senator and Ryan's "End Medicare" bill had the votes to pass (rather than getting voted down as it happened), would you filibuster it? Of course you would. Should the Republicans be filibustering Obama's nominees? In your book: no. So, at the drop of a hat I can get any single Democrat in this thread to say "yes, some things should be filibusters, but others should not".

As most Democrats would put it: filibustering Republicans is constitutional, and filibustering Democratics is not. Most Republicans use the same rule flipped the other way round. The question "is the filibuster unconstitutional" doesn't have a single answer. Too broad a brush.

This is true. But again it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand except that it has the word "filibuster" in it.

Are you trying to respond to the original post at all?
Are you ignoring it on purpose?
Have you read it?
Do you have any information of the history of judicial nominations in the last decade?
Do you accept such information as relevant?

These are honest questions.

I just did. And the best part is, I didn't defend it from my viewpoint (I personally am undecided on whether the filly should exist), but from everybody else's.

I actually disagree with Hygro: One can defend it.
You didn't though.

 

[BasketCase]

That's not a matter of legislation.
The Senate is free to set its own rules for debate.

Wrong on the first, correct on the second. The Senate could ban the filly any time they like. Why don't they? Must not be such a bad thing--from their viewpoint.

Nobody in Congress actually wants to eliminate the filly, because for any single Congressmember, there are times when the filly will get in your way, but you need to have it handy when you need to get in the other guy's way.

That's true. But

Thank you.

So let me rephrase: Did Democrats use the filibuster "all the time" when the Republicans are at the wheel, in order to block judicial nominees?

Yes. Patrick Leahy, for example. He did exactly the same thing Jolly called a bunch of Republicans for in the OP: while Clinton was President, Leahy was opposed to the judgeibuster. When Clinton went bye-bye and our favorite President ever, George Bush, stepped up to the plate, Leahy flip-flopped.

In fact a consensus was formed in the Senate that judicial nominees should not be filibustered on principle, in 2005. Since then Democrats have not successfully filibustered any of GW's nominees.

They tried to.

The thread is about using the filibuster to stop (or delay) judicial nominations.

Nope. It's more complex than that. It's about whether or not it's okay for a politician to oppose the filibuster one day and then use the filibuster the next.

I'm still wrangling on it, but for the most part a filibuster is kind of like an MP5: is it okay to use an MP5 to kill people? Yes or no? It's not that simple, folks. Using an MP5 to kill Osama bin Laden is okay--using an MP5 to kill Justin Bieber is not.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

Using an MP5 to kill Osama bin Laden is okay--using an MP5 to kill Justin Bieber is not.

You sure about that Bieber part?