U.S. Congress Filibuster Fight

BasketCase

Username sez it all
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
13,024
Location
Closer than you'd like
The story itself is old hat: Democrats in the U.S. Congress using the Big F to block nomination votes on judicial nominees.

The thing that I just started wondering is about filibustering in general. When we have an election, the basic idea is to figure out the will of the majority. When is it okay for the minority to impose its will?

Advance warning: the second person in this thread who mentions the U.S. invasion of Iraq (I was the first, having mentioned it just now :) ) has committed a technical foul. :D Let's stick to the subject of life over HERE in the civilian world, thank you.
 
The filibuster allows the balance to be maintained. Otherwise, a party with a slight majority in congress can do almost anything it wants. Currently, the republicans want to overload our judicial system with judges that many democrats believe to be way too conservative. The whole thing scares me, since, while I'm not bothered by the ideas of more moderate conservatives, the far right side of the party really bothers me. To allow this group to gain an advantage in the judiciary is very dangerous, in my opinion, especially considering the other two branches of government are already controlled by them. All three branches controlled by one party is a recipe for disaster. And just to make it clear, I don't care which party it is...it could lead to disaster.
 
Part of the reason for the filibuster remaining is to prevent a "tyranny of the majority". To some extent, the question is does the Senate actually approve of Presidential Nominations, or just rubber-stamp them? Along with that, should the Minority party be able to decide that any given candidate, based on a few issues, be unsuitable for them and be able to prevent them from holding office?

My personal viewpoint is that the filibuster needs to stay, as it does, and has prevented some less than ideal people from reaching an appointed office. Likewise, the current politics of extremism, used by all sides needs to stop.

-- Ravensfire
 
Just because a party has a slight majority does not mean they should have full control of the government. The fillibuster is an important tool to help mantain a balance of power when the scale tips to one side or the other.
 
An article on the subject:

Frist Says Republicans Won't Accept Deal on Judicial Nominees
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: April 26, 2005


Filed at 4:00 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Reacting to a Democratic offer in the fight over filibusters, Republican leader Bill Frist said Tuesday he isn't interested in any deal that fails to ensure that the Senate votes on confirmation for all of President Bush's judicial nominees.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid had been quietly talking with Frist about confirming at least two of Bush's blocked nominees from Michigan in exchange for withdrawing a third nominee. This would have been part of a compromise that would have the GOP back away from a showdown over changing Senate rules to prevent Democrats from using the filibuster to block Bush's nominees.

But Frist, in a rare news conference conducted on the Senate floor, said he would not accept any deal that keeps his Republican majority from confirming judicial nominees that have been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

''My goal is to have fair up and down votes. Are we going to shift from that principle? The answer to that is no,'' Frist said.

That means he and Reid are still at deadlock, because Democrats have said they would not accept any deals that would permanently ban them from blocking Bush's nominees to the Supreme Court or the federal appellate courts, the top two tiers of the judicial system.

''As part of any resolution, the nuclear option must be off the table,'' said Reid, referring to the GOP threat to change the filibuster rules.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan, traveling in Texas with Bush, said ''our view is that Senate Democrats need to stop playing politics and give all judicial nominees an up or down vote.''

''It's unprecedented, the steps they've gone to to prevent highly qualified judges from receiving simply an up or down vote on the floor of the United States Senate,'' he said.

Frist and Reid both acknowledged that they are constantly negotiating, trying to find a solution where the Senate does not have a showdown over whether Republicans will change the parliamentary rules to ban judicial filibusters.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said Sunday there had been a ''a lot of negotiations to try to get three judges from Michigan'' confirmed. Other senators have referred vaguely in recent days to discussions surrounding Bush's nominations to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction includes Michigan.

That proposed deal, officials speaking on condition of anonymity said, would include allowing the confirmation of Richard Griffin and David McKeague, both of whom Bush has twice nominated for the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. At the same time, Reid wants the nomination of Henry Saad scuttled. Democrats succeeded in blocking all three men from coming to a vote in 2004 in a struggle that turned on issues of senatorial prerogatives as well as ideology.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., has led the opposition to all three men. He said Republicans had refused even to hold hearings on two of former President Bill Clinton's nominees to the 6th Circuit.

The officials spoke only on condition of anonymity, citing the confidential nature of the conversations between the two leaders.

Frist would not talk about specifics on Tuesday, but said he would not advocate the withdrawal of any judicial nominee and would continue to insist they all get confirmation votes. ''That would mean people in the past as well as the future,'' Frist said.

Republicans have threatened to use their majority to change long-standing senatorial rules that Democrats used to block 10 of Bush's first-term appeals court nominations. They fear a Democratic blockade could affect a Supreme Court vacancy if a high court seat opens in Bush's second term.

Democrats argue that the nominees are too conservative to warrant lifetime appointments to the nation's highest courts. They have threatened to block the seven nominees that Bush sent back after winning re-election, and any others they consider out of the mainstream of judicial temperament.

Democrats drew criticism when they threatened to slow the Senate's business if Republicans eliminate judicial filibusters. Democratic leaders began stressing an alternative approach Monday, attempting to force debate on their own agenda rather than the president's.

Frist applauded what he called a move by Democrats to back away from their earlier threats to shut down the Senate. ''I'm pleased that their caucus is moving away from that threat,'' Frist said.

Republicans can essentially eliminate judicial filibusters by majority vote, and Democrats concede Frist may be only one or two votes shy of the necessary total. At the same time, internal GOP polling shows lagging public support for such a move, and no showdown is expected until next month at the earliest.
 
BasketCase said:
The thing that I just started wondering is about filibustering in general. When we have an election, the basic idea is to figure out the will of the majority. When is it okay for the minority to impose its will?
Obviously it's not just about getting the majority. If it were, then there'd be no electoral college. Parties need to provide checks to one another to prevent one from gaining too much power; the filibuster is a method to allow that to occur. Of course, I don't agree with every filibuster ever, but it seems to me as a generally helpful tool to keep parties in check.
 
What difference does it make? The Democrats haven't filibustered anything yet. They're just threatening it. They won't actually do it, because they know they'd wind up looking bad.
 
The only filbuster in question is judicial filibusters, filibusting in general in not affected by the nuclear option. I think simply "not voting" on perfecly qualified judicial nominees who don't share your viewpoint is disgraceful.

Republicans whined a bit when Clinton nominees were voted on and appointed, but never threatened to be blatant onstructionists. 200 years of tradition and Constitutionality are on the side of Rupublicans.
 
covok48 said:
200 years of tradition and Constitutionality are on the side of Rupublicans.

Care to explain?
 
Simple, there has never been a filibuster regarding all judicial nominees. The president is elected, he picks his judges, they get voted on yay or nay, end of story.

Democrats are scared that Bush's nominees might actually get the nod after a vote (gasp), so they simply refuse vote on the issue. If it's forced on them, they filibust as long as they can until the next administration comes in. Answer your question?
 
covok48 said:
Simple, there has never been a filibuster regarding judicial nominees. The president is elected, he picks his judges, they get voted on yay or nay, end of story.

Now I am not positive but in 1968 didn’t the Republicans have a filibuster of the Supreme Court nominee Abe Fortas.
 
Yes, it was a half-arsed attempt of a single judge and it was just as inappropriate as this is now. Note that a vote was eventually taken, however. Here Democrats have no intentions of getting that far.
 
covok48 said:
Yes, and it was just as inappropriate as this is now.

Well you were saying that it never happened before.



Anyway here is an article about it(filibuster of the Supreme Court nominee Abe Fortas).
 
Filibustering seems acceptable to me considering the fact Republicans have control over the legislative and executive branches. We wouldn't want to turn America into a one party state would we? Our founding fathers would be disgusted at the current situation and made it clear that checks and balances are necessary to ensure a healthy debate within government.
 
covok48 said:
Simple, there has never been a filibuster regarding all judicial nominees. The president is elected, he picks his judges, they get voted on yay or nay, end of story.

Democrats are scared that Bush's nominees might actually get the nod after a vote (gasp), so they simply refuse vote on the issue. If it's forced on them, they filibust as long as they can until the next administration comes in. Answer your question?
So all the times that Clinton's judges that never got out of commitee was bad too?
Bush's nominees will get the nod if they get to the floor. This whole fight is a prelude to the Supreme Court nominations that are coming up.
 
BasketCase said:
The thing that I just started wondering is about filibustering in general. When we have an election, the basic idea is to figure out the will of the majority. When is it okay for the minority to impose its will?

But therein lies the problem: the government isn't supposed to represent only it's supporters. It's there to represent the entire country. One must always avoid the tyranny of the majority.
 
There's no filibuster in the House. There used to be one but they got rid of it a long time ago. I think what they should do is keep the filibuster in the Senate but require those who fillibuster to give up their pay for every day they do it.
 
covok48 said:
The only filbuster in question is judicial filibusters, filibusting in general in not affected by the nuclear option. I think simply "not voting" on perfecly qualified judicial nominees who don't share your viewpoint is disgraceful.

Republicans whined a bit when Clinton nominees were voted on and appointed, but never threatened to be blatant onstructionists. 200 years of tradition and Constitutionality are on the side of Rupublicans.
Fact Check: 60 Clinton judicial nominees never received an up/down vote (what Frist says Bush's nominees deserve). The Republican obstruction tactics left 80 judicial appointments empty when Bush was inaugurated in '01. The slow pace of moving judicial nominees through the senate after the Repubicans took control in '94 led to over a hundred vacancies in '95. Chief Justice Rehnquitst chastised Senate leaders about the alarming number of vacancies, so they moved a few through during the next year, only to slow down again while they spent time on the impeachment. There are currently 43 judicial vacancies.

The Republicans didn't have to resort to filibustering Clinton's nominees, they just never moved them out of the Judiciary committee.
 
covok48 said:
Yes, it was a half-arsed attempt of a single judge and it was just as inappropriate as this is now. Note that a vote was eventually taken, however. Here Democrats have no intentions of getting that far.
No vote was ever taken on the Fortas nomination. Another fact check:

From www.senate.gov (the U.S. Senate's own website's article on the Fortas nomination. Fortas was a sitting justice, by the way, nominated by LBJ to take over as Chief Justice for the retiring Earl Warren.
Although the [Judiciary] committee recommended confirmation, floor consideration sparked the first filibuster in Senate history on a Supreme Court nomination.

On October 1, 1968, the Senate failed to invoke cloture. Johnson then withdrew the nomination...
 
*inserts bit about the LA TIMES has written that the Republicans have blocked 60 of Clinton's nominees whilst the Democrats have only blocked 10*
 
Top Bottom