Senate Filibuster

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 05:08 PM

They know they don't have the votes to deny confirmation because the majority of the senators....the ones elected by the people.....disagree with them so their only course of action is to try to implement tyranny of the minority through the use of the fillibuster.

Posted By: straw

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 05:22 PM

Republicans, while not using the filibuster in the past, have not allowed up and down votes on judicial nominees.

"The Republicans' hands aren't clean on this either," Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said last week on ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos." "What we did with Bill Clinton's nominees, about 62 of them, we just didn't give them votes in committee, or we didn't bring them up."

Senator Frist has stated all judicial nominees deserve an up and down vote on the Senate floor. If only the Republicans had felt this way during President Clinton's term.

Let's stop the holier than thou attitude and call it what it is. The majority party wants to change the rules to achieve a political goal. They have every right to do it, if democrats don't like it, they need to win more Senate seats.

However, my opinion is the Republican should not alter Senate rules, which have helped maintain a stable, republican government system longer lasting than any other in history.

The key to our government's stability was built by the founders in creating checks and balances to prevent a "tyranny of the majority" (Federalist Papers No. 10).

I know the filibuster is not constitutionally derived, but allowing the minority some measure of power, albeit small, requires compromises and centrist decisions that multiple factions have a vested interest in.

This decision to alter the filibuster has been dubbed the "nuclear option" because it may have far reaching effects. The minority party will be further disenfranchised from the process. Compromises will no longer be necessary and the further radicalization of both political parties will continue.

Ponder this before deciding if the Republicans are making a sound decision.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 05:34 PM

Let's suppose that the shoe were on the other foot. Let's say that someday down the road the Dems regained control of the Senate and there was a Dem President. The Reps then try to block the Prez's judical nominations by filibustering. Does anyone honestly think that the Dems would even hesitate before changing the Senate rules to end the filibuster? They would do it faster than you could say "majority rule."

Posted By: Jokerman

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 05:38 PM

Quote:

"The Republicans' hands aren't clean on this either," Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said last week on ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos." "What we did with Bill Clinton's nominees, about 62 of them, we just didn't give them votes in committee, or we didn't bring them up."

Mr. Hagel running for President and hoping to corner the "moderate" vote. He doesn't mention how many of those sixty-two were nominated in the last few months of Mr. Clinton's presidency, nor how many would not have had majority support on the floor.

That said, President Bush has proposed an agreement (the same one echoed last week by Sen. Frist) which would guarantee an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor for the nominees of any President, withing X number of days (90?) from the time they were nominated. (No holding up in committee, no blue slips, no filibusters.) If the Democrats would agree to this, there would be no need for the Republicans to act.

Who really started with the nuclear tactics? Those who abuse the rule, or those who stop the abuse? Those who stop abuse, or those who stop all action in the Senate to protest?

Posted By: zaibatsu

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 05:55 PM

Let's get past all of the silly discussions and get to the bottom line:

Without discussing filibusters, why shouldn't a president's judicial nominees be allowed up or down votes by our elected representatives?

Posted By: straw

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 06:04 PM

Why is it no matter whom anyone quotes, from what source, you question the veracity?

Those 62 were the total throughout Clinton's term. In contrast, Pres. Bush has had 10 nominees held up.

Please feel free to check the numbers out.

Again, Republicans have been guilty of similar tactics in the past. They have abused the rules, they have held up nominees, they will do so again when a democrat is in the white house.

Why reach out to the democrats with the offer, when republicans can make the change?

Make the change, deal with whatever political fallout there is - positive or negative.

These types of moves further alienate the half of the country that is not republican. These moves further polarize the political spectrum.

No compromises, no meeting in the middle. My way or the highway will be the republican theme for '06 and '08 campaigns.

With total power comes total responsibility. Have it, lead the country and see if the people support the direction you go.

Posted By: straw

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 06:13 PM

Quote:

Let's get past all of the silly discussions and get to the bottom line:

Without discussing filibusters, why shouldn't a president's judicial nominees be allowed up or down votes by our elected representatives?

Do our elected representatives give up and down votes on everything a President ask for?

Would we need a judiciary committee then or just have the President give a name and have a vote immediately?

Do you want any investigation or is that Presidential perogative?

Do you really want life time appointments voted on in this way?

Again, the process creates a need for compromise, something the far-right and far-left seem less and less interested in.

The process forces centrist positions to come through, including centrist jurists who are neither radical left or radical right.

Do you want radical jurists from either side sitting on the bench for 20, 30 40 years swinging from left and right field?

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 06:20 PM

Quote:

the Republicans better be worried about not being able to abuse a rule that they abused...(hold on, looking up the figures)...(still looking)...(wow, can't find anything)...

Look harder. Here is an article from the official website of the US Senate about the Republican filibuster that stopped the nomination of Abe Fortas in 1968:

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Filibuster_Derails_Supreme_Court_Appointment.htm

And here also from the US Senate website is the roll call vote on the cloture motion to stop the Republicans filibuster of Clinton nominee Richard Paez:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ro...&vote=00037

Notice that one of the Senators that voted against cutting off debate was Senator Frist!!!!!

Posted By: Bengals Fan

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 06:29 PM

Quote:

They know they don't have the votes to deny confirmation because the majority of the senators....the ones elected by the people.....disagree with them so their only course of action is to try to implement tyranny of the minority through the use of the fillibuster.

Just because their only option is to fillibuster doesn't make doing so right. If they were unable to use the fillibuster, their only option would be to then shoot the nominee, and we certainly wouldn't allow that, now would we?

Posted By: Jokerman

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 06:36 PM

Quote:

Why is it no matter whom anyone quotes, from what source, you question the veracity?

Because I am a skeptic. But I wouldn't say that it doesn't matter whom - there are certain people I trust more than others. Someone who is trying to make a name for themselves by breaking with his party has a little less credibility when criticizing it, in my opinion.

Quote:

Those 62 were the total throughout Clinton's term. In contrast, Pres. Bush has had 10 nominees held up.

A) those are apples and oranges. The Bush nominees are all to higher courts. If the Dems had held up 10 circuit court nominees, this wouldn't be debated.

B) Clinton was working with a Republican Senate most of that time, you would expect a lower percentage of confirmations. Compare to Jimmy Carter's percentage or Reagan's.

Quote:

Please feel free to check the numbers out.

Please provide the names, dates of nomination, court to which they were appointed, and action taken, then I will render an opinion.

Quote:

Again, Republicans have been guilty of similar tactics in the past. They have abused the rules, they have held up nominees, they will do so again when a democrat is in the white house.

They probably have done some things that I would not approve of on individual appointments (I know, for example, that Jesse Helms put holds on some Clinton nominees in retaliation for Democratic action on some Bush I nominees), but I don't know many specific cases. They have NOT, however, systematically opposed a whole class of nominees.

Quote:

Why reach out to the democrats with the offer, when republicans can make the change?

The optimist would say that it is because Frist wants to fix this thing going forward, instead of fighting about it every time the party in the WH changes.

Quote:

No compromises, no meeting in the middle. My way or the highway will be the republican theme for '06 and '08 campaigns.

The Republicans have offered to make a deal that will include up or down votes for nominees regardless of who is in the WH. What fairer compromise would you propose?

Look, there are about 10 very moderate to liberal Republicans in the Senate. That leaves about 45 somewhat conservative Republicans. That is not enough to confirm "extremist" (read: Constitutionalist) appointees. The 60 vote hurdle is to make sure that the courts continue to be very liberal, regardless of who wins the WH.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 06:56 PM

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is why the rule should not be changed.

Posted By: °X°

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 07:10 PM

Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Delaware) March 19, 1997: “But I also respectfully suggest that everyone who is nominated is entitled to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor.”

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Illinois)September 28, 1998: “We should meet our responsibility. I think that responsibility requires us to act in a timely fashion on nominees sent before us. ... Vote the person up or down.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) September 11, 1997: “Let’s bring their nominations up, debate them if necessary, and vote them up or down.”

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)February 3, 1998: “We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don’t like them, vote against them. But give them a vote.”

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) May 10, 2000: “The Founding Fathers certainly intended that the Senate advise as to judicial nominations, i.e., consider, debate, and vote up or down. They surely did not intend that the Senate, for partisan or factional reasons, would remain silent and simply refuse to give any advice or consider and vote at all.”

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) 5/14/97 : “It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.”

Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD): “I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination.” (Congressional Record, 10/5/99)

Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD): “Hispanic or non-Hispanic, African American or non-African American, woman or man, it is wrong not to have a vote on the Senate floor.” (Congressional Record, 10/28/99)

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): “My expectation is that we’re not going to hold up judicial nominations. …You will not see us do what was done to us in recent years in the Senate with judicial nominations.” (Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume,” 6/4/01)

Richard Durbin (D-IL) "If, after 150 days languishing on the Executive Calendar that name has not been called for a vote, it should be. Vote the person up or down." (Cong. Rec., 9/28/98, S11021)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “Let’s bring their nominations up, debate them if necessary, and vote them up or down.” (Congressional Record, 9/11/97)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “It is our job to confirm these judges. If we don’t like them, we can vote against them.” (Congressional Record, 9/16/99)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “Our institutional integrity requires an up-or-down vote.” (Congressional Record, 10/4/99)

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA): “ is used … as blackmail for one Senator to get his or her way on something that they could not rightfully win through the normal processes.” (Congressional Record, 1/4/95)

Tom Harkin (D-IA) "Have the guts to come out and vote up or down….And once and for all, put behind us this filibuster procedure on nominations." (Cong. Rec., 6/22/95, S8861)

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA): “I urge the Republican leadership to take the steps necessary to allow the full Senate to vote up or down on these important nominations.” (Congressional Record, 9/11/00)

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don’t like them, vote against them. But give them a vote.” (Congressional Record, 2/3/9

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “It is true that some Senators have voiced concerns about these nominations. But that should not prevent a roll call vote which gives every Senator the opportunity to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ ... Parties with cases, waiting to be heard by the federal courts deserve a decision by the Senate.” (Congressional Record, 9/21/99)

Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI): “These nominees, who have to put their lives on hold waiting for us to act, deserve an ‘up or down’ vote.” (Congressional Record, 9/21/99)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “I hope we … will accept our responsibility and vote people up or vote them down. … If we want to vote against them, vote against them.” (Congressional Record, 10/22/97)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “Now, every Senator can vote against any nominee. … But it is the responsibility of the U.S. Senate to at least bring them to a vote.” (Congressional Record, 10/22/97)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “ "I have stated over and over again … that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported …” (Congressional Record, 6/18/9

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “arlier this year … I noted how improper it would be to filibuster a judicial nomination.” (Congressional Record, 10/14/9

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “f the person is otherwise qualified, he or she gets the vote. … Vote them up, vote them down.” (Congressional Record, 9/21/99)

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): “e should have up-or-down votes in the committee and on the floor.” (CNN’s “Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields,” 6/9/01)

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): “We are charged with voting on the nominees. The Constitution does not say if the Congress is controlled by a different party than the President there shall be no judges chosen.” (Congressional Record, 3/7/00)

Carl Levin (D-MI) "If a bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate is prepared to vote to confirm the President's appointment, that vote should occur." (Cong. Rec., 6/21/95, S8806
_______

Posted By: °X°

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 07:29 PM

Here is the history of the filibuster:

Filibuster and Cloture
Using the filibuster to delay or block legislative action has a long history. The term filibuster -- from a Dutch word meaning "pirate" -- became popular in the 1850s, when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent a vote on a bill.

In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could filibuster. As the House of Representatives grew in numbers, however, revisions to the House rules limited debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued on the grounds that any senator should have the right to speak as long as necessary on any issue.
In 1841, when the Democratic minority hoped to block a bank bill promoted by Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, he threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton rebuked Clay for trying to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate.

Three quarters of a century later, in 1917, senators adopted a rule (Rule 22), at the urging President Woodrow Wilson, that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote, a device known as "cloture." The new Senate rule was first put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Even with the new cloture rule, filibusters remained an effective means to block legislation, since a two-thirds vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next five decades, the Senate occasionally tried to invoke cloture, but usually failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, until cloture was invoked after a fifty-seven day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or sixty of the current one hundred senators.

Many Americans are familiar with the filibuster conducted by Jimmy Stewart, playing Senator Jefferson Smith in Frank Capra's film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but there have been some famous filibusters in the real-life Senate as well. During the 1930s, Senator Huey P. Long effectively used the filibuster against bills that he thought favored the rich over the poor. The Louisiana senator frustrated his colleagues while entertaining spectators with his recitations of Shakespeare and his reading of recipes for "pot-likkers." Long once held the Senate floor for fifteen hours. The record for the longest individual speech goes to South Carolina's J. Strom Thurmond who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
____

NO WHERE DOES THE CONSTITUTION MENTION FILIBUSTER

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 07:30 PM

Quote:

National polls show the abortion debate evenly divided. However, the majority of Americans however oppose any system that favors one group over another (as Affirmative Action does). Most favor one that favors equality for everyone.

And the vast majority of Americans are opposed to Gay Marriage - making about 70% of Americans Homophobes according to you.

Check your numbers, Skippy.

Polling Report

Posted By: zaibatsu

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 07:30 PM

Quote:

Let's get past all of the silly discussions and get to the bottom line:

Without discussing filibusters, why shouldn't a president's judicial nominees be allowed up or down votes by our elected representatives?

Do our elected representatives give up and down votes on everything a President ask for? No, and the constitution doesn't provide for it; however, it does here. Please ask informed questions.

Would we need a judiciary committee then or just have the President give a name and have a vote immediately? These nominees are out of the judiciary committee so that question is moot and can be discussed at another time about nominees hung up in committee without a vote (BTW: I think they deserve a vote there too). Of course, the constitution does not provide for a judiciary committee, but, like I said, we can discuss that another time. Again, an informed question please.

Do you want any investigation or is that Presidential perogative?The issue is the current nominees that are being filibustered. These candidates have already been investigated. Please ask an informed question.

Do you really want life time appointments voted on in this way?Yes, but your questions make assumptions that are just not factual. Are you that misinformed or just trying to avoid answering the question. Do I have to spell everything out in my question. I thought the educated audience here would understand that these filibustered nominees are now out of the judicial committee, have been investigated, must be voted on according to the constitution (unlike other things the President might ask the Congress for like say a ham and cheese on rye). Now, can we get back to discussing why these nominees do not deserve a filibuster-free vote.

Again, the process creates a need for compromise, something the far-right and far-left seem less and less interested in. Why is there a need for a compromise among a few powerful Congressmen when the judiciary committee has sent these for a vote? I see no room for compromise.

The process forces centrist positions to come through, including centrist jurists who are neither radical left or radical right. The judiciary committee and the vote of the Congress is supposed to do this and does. Please name me the "radical" this filibuster is keeping from office. If you do, please back it up with facts. Thanks.

Do you want radical jurists from either side sitting on the bench for 20, 30 40 years swinging from left and right field?No, and a system without filibuster will prevent this unless we vote radical leftists or rightists into office--and if we've done that, then apparently a radical judiciary would represent us well. A filibuster does nothing but allow a party to force the other party to accept their unspoken litmus test. In this case that litmus test is abortion. Load your gun with facts next time you challenge me to a shoot out

Thanks for your time and attention (and I hope you don't mind my poking fun at you)

Posted By: Jokerman

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 07:34 PM

Quote:

Once again the escalated rhetoric. No one is acceptable to democrats. Just a short list of Supreme Court nominees consented to by a democratic senate

Chief Justice Rhenquist (chief justice appointment)
Antonin Scalia
Clarence Thomas
Sandra Day O'Connor

Which of these would not be filibustered by the current Senate?

Quote:

I don't think even you can argue that these are flaming liberal justices who favor abortion on demand, affirmative action, gay marriage (although they have not opined on this yet, my guess is they disfavor).

And it's been 15 years since the last one was appointed (Thomas), and he had 40-some votes against him. Had the Dems been using the filibuster against nominees back then, I guarantee you that he would not have been confirmed.

Quote:

An injustice that was practiced by Republicans before, as X points out with his democrat quotes arguing the today's republican point.
.
One can find republican senators from the day arguing exactly what the democrats argue today.

Not one of them was supportive of using the filibuster. Now, many of those nominees didn't have majority support, but I AGREE WITH YOU. We should reach an agreement to give all nominees an up or down vote, and accept the political consequences of those votes. I suggest you start contacting Democratic senators and convey your belief.

Posted By: Jokerman

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 07:36 PM

Quote:

Chief Justice Rhenquist (chief justice appointment)
Antonin Scalia
Clarence Thomas
Sandra Day O'Connor

I don't think even you can argue that these are flaming liberal justices who favor abortion on demand, affirmative action, gay marriage (although they have not opined on this yet, my guess is they disfavor).

Actually, I could argue that about O'Connor (at least as it regards abortion and AA).

Posted By: zaibatsu

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 07:41 PM

I don't give a rat's hind end about what happened to Abe Fortus or Abe Vigoda. I don't care how the Democrats, the Republicans, or the Whigs acted years ago. Forget discussing ancient history and the use of filibuster. The question still has not been answered as to why judicial nominees who are now out of committee should be denied an up or down vote.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 07:42 PM

Quote:

Please name me the "radical" this filibuster is keeping from office. If you do, please back it up with facts. Thanks.

Priscilla Owen....

Priscilla Owen

More about Priscilla

Posted By: zaibatsu

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 07:46 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Please name me the "radical" this filibuster is keeping from office. If you do, please back it up with facts. Thanks.

Priscilla Owen....

Priscilla Owen

More about Priscilla

I ask you a serious question and you quote a leftist organization like People for the UnAmerican Way? You certainly have me laughing.

Between 1998 And 2004, People For The American Way Voters Alliance Gave $478,711 (99.3%) To Democrats And $3,500 (0.7%) To Republicans.

2004: $10,000 Total -- $10,000 (100%) to Democrats $0 (0%) to Republicans.
2002: $154,700 Total -- $154,700 (100%) to Democrats $0 (0%) to Republicans.
2000: $174,776 Total -- $172,276 (99%) to Democrats $2,500 (1%) to Republicans.
1998: $139,235 Total -- $138,235 (99%) to Democrats $1,000 (1%) to Republicans. (The Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 7/17/04)

Tell you what--you find me an unbiased source to read about Priscilla Owens and I'll read it. Good grief.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 07:49 PM

Find your own source, I refuse to go to Fox Not-the-News.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 07:50 PM

FIFTH CIRCUIT NOMINEEE PRISCILLA OWEN:
A RECORD OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND QUESTIONABLE ETHICS
Priscilla Owen was nominated and defeated in two successive Congresses, but President Bush recently nominated
her a third time. On the Texas Supreme Court, Justice Owen has consistently attempted to make law, rather than
interpret it, and has engaged in and defended questionable ethical practices.
AN EXTREME CONSERVATIVE ACTIVIST
• Priscilla Owen joined the Texas Supreme Court in 1994 with a new group of conservatives packaged by Karl
Rove, who served as her paid campaign consultant. The New York Times reported, “Justice Owen is
considered by legal analysts in Texas to be among the most conservative members of the Texas Supreme
Court, which, in turn, is considered one of the nation’s most conservative supreme courts.” The Minneapolis
Star Tribune noted, “Even her conservative colleagues have commented on her habit of twisting the law to fit
her hyperconservative political views.” The San Antonio News Express found that “her record demonstrates a
results-oriented streak that belies supporters’ claims that she strictly follows the law.” The Houston
Chronicle concluded that she is “less interested in impartially interpreting the law than in pushing an agenda.”
ROUTINELY BACKS CORPORATIONS AGAINST WORKER AND CONSUMER PROTECTIONS
• Justice Owen reliably votes to throw out jury verdicts favoring workers and consumers against corporate
interests and dismisses suits brought by workers for job-related injuries, discrimination and unfair employment
practices. She has cast many such votes in dissent, with even her conservative colleagues – including former
colleagues, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Senator John Cornyn – finding for the injured parties. If
Justice Owen’s views had become law: employees would have to endure almost limitless abusive behavior from
their bosses to maintain a valid lawsuit; a teenager paralyzed in a car accident due to a faulty restraint system
would not have been allowed to sue in Texas courts; a vacuum cleaner manufacturer that failed to conduct a
background check before hiring a salesman with a history of sexual misconduct could not be held liable for the
salesman’s on-the-job rape of a prospective customer; the Texas civil rights statute would require an employee
to carry the near impossible burden of proving that discrimination was the exclusive reason for her dismissal,
rather than a “motivating factor”; and a developer could have bypassed a city’s water quality laws on the
grounds that they infringed on its constitutional rights. In the water pollution case, the court’s majority stated:
“Most of Justice Owen’s dissent is nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric and thus merits no response.”
A LAW-MAKING ACTIVIST, NOT A LAW-INTERPRETING JUDGE, IN ABORTION CASES
• Prior to her original nomination, in each of the many cases that came before her involving Texas’ Parental
Notification Act, Justice Owen voted against allowing a minor to obtain an abortion without notifying her
parents, often ignoring the law’s explicit exceptions. In one case, she advocated requiring a minor to show an
awareness of the “philosophic, moral, social and religious arguments that can be brought to bear” before
obtaining judicial approval for an abortion without parental consent. The statute contains no such requirement.
• Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, when he was one of Justice Owen’s colleagues on the Texas Supreme
Court, criticized Justice Owen in another case for attempting to re-write the parental notification statute, calling
her dissent “an unconscionable act of judicial activism.”
ENGAGED IN AND DEFENDED ETHICALLY QUESTIONABLE PRACTICES ON THE COURT
• Justice Owen has taken campaign contributions from law firms and corporations, including Enron and
Halliburton, and then, without recusing herself, ruled in their favor when their cases came before her.
• After an investigation by a district attorney and a ruling by the Texas Ethics Commission, the Texas
Supreme Court revised its practice of allowing law clerks to accept money during their clerkships from their
future law firm employers, including those litigating before the court. Justice Owen nevertheless defended
the practice and dismissed the matter as a “political issue dressed up as a good government issue.”

Posted By: Jokerman

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 07:50 PM

Quote:

You are forgetting about the ACLU and their ilk who are pre-empting the states and taking the gay marriage bans to federal courts. Do you also condemn their actions like you do those who are seeking a Constitutional Amendment? Groups are seeking a Constitutional Amendment merely to protect against these groups that are using the judiciary as a branch of their activist organizations?

How quickly would 70% of Americans support a Constitutional amendment if that Nebraska decision holds up? Or if the Supreme Court would separately (and probably correctly, to be honest) rule that the Constitution doesn't allow one state to not recognize a gay marriage from another state?

Posted By: Jokerman

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 07:52 PM

Quote:

Fox Not-the-News.

Is this the best they can come up with over at DU?

Posted By: zaibatsu

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 07:54 PM

Quote:

FIFTH CIRCUIT NOMINEEE PRISCILLA OWEN:
A RECORD OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND QUESTIONABLE ETHICS
Priscilla Owen was nominated and defeated in two successive Congresses, but President Bush recently nominated
her a third time. On the Texas Supreme Court, Justice Owen has consistently attempted to make law, rather than
interpret it, and has engaged in and defended questionable ethical practices.
AN EXTREME CONSERVATIVE ACTIVIST
• Priscilla Owen joined the Texas Supreme Court in 1994 with a new group of conservatives packaged by Karl
Rove, who served as her paid campaign consultant. The New York Times reported, “Justice Owen is
considered by legal analysts in Texas to be among the most conservative members of the Texas Supreme
Court, which, in turn, is considered one of the nation’s most conservative supreme courts.” The Minneapolis
Star Tribune noted, “Even her conservative colleagues have commented on her habit of twisting the law to fit
her hyperconservative political views.” The San Antonio News Express found that “her record demonstrates a
results-oriented streak that belies supporters’ claims that she strictly follows the law.” The Houston
Chronicle concluded that she is “less interested in impartially interpreting the law than in pushing an agenda.”
ROUTINELY BACKS CORPORATIONS AGAINST WORKER AND CONSUMER PROTECTIONS
• Justice Owen reliably votes to throw out jury verdicts favoring workers and consumers against corporate
interests and dismisses suits brought by workers for job-related injuries, discrimination and unfair employment
practices. She has cast many such votes in dissent, with even her conservative colleagues – including former
colleagues, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Senator John Cornyn – finding for the injured parties. If
Justice Owen’s views had become law: employees would have to endure almost limitless abusive behavior from
their bosses to maintain a valid lawsuit; a teenager paralyzed in a car accident due to a faulty restraint system
would not have been allowed to sue in Texas courts; a vacuum cleaner manufacturer that failed to conduct a
background check before hiring a salesman with a history of sexual misconduct could not be held liable for the
salesman’s on-the-job rape of a prospective customer; the Texas civil rights statute would require an employee
to carry the near impossible burden of proving that discrimination was the exclusive reason for her dismissal,
rather than a “motivating factor”; and a developer could have bypassed a city’s water quality laws on the
grounds that they infringed on its constitutional rights. In the water pollution case, the court’s majority stated:
“Most of Justice Owen’s dissent is nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric and thus merits no response.”
A LAW-MAKING ACTIVIST, NOT A LAW-INTERPRETING JUDGE, IN ABORTION CASES
• Prior to her original nomination, in each of the many cases that came before her involving Texas’ Parental
Notification Act, Justice Owen voted against allowing a minor to obtain an abortion without notifying her
parents, often ignoring the law’s explicit exceptions. In one case, she advocated requiring a minor to show an
awareness of the “philosophic, moral, social and religious arguments that can be brought to bear” before
obtaining judicial approval for an abortion without parental consent. The statute contains no such requirement.
• Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, when he was one of Justice Owen’s colleagues on the Texas Supreme
Court, criticized Justice Owen in another case for attempting to re-write the parental notification statute, calling
her dissent “an unconscionable act of judicial activism.”
ENGAGED IN AND DEFENDED ETHICALLY QUESTIONABLE PRACTICES ON THE COURT
• Justice Owen has taken campaign contributions from law firms and corporations, including Enron and
Halliburton, and then, without recusing herself, ruled in their favor when their cases came before her.
• After an investigation by a district attorney and a ruling by the Texas Ethics Commission, the Texas
Supreme Court revised its practice of allowing law clerks to accept money during their clerkships from their
future law firm employers, including those litigating before the court. Justice Owen nevertheless defended
the practice and dismissed the matter as a “political issue dressed up as a good government issue.”

OK, that's better. Now, I get no source at all. Thanks, that certainly cleared that up. I am not asking for FOX News. But People for the UnAmerican Way doesn't even hide its bias--in fact, it was created for it. Do you even bother to read both biased sides' arguments and then read purportedly independent sources--I do. I, gasp, even read CBS and New York Times. But you refuse to read or watch FOX. What flavor was the Koolaid?

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 07:55 PM

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, when he was one of Justice Owen’s colleagues on the Texas Supreme
Court, criticized Justice Owen in another case for attempting to re-write the parental notification statute, calling
her dissent “an unconscionable act of judicial activism.”

That's one of your own calling her out! It is virtually a unanimous opinion that she is a conservative activist. And, Bush is using her to fan the flames. If a liberal judge that was as far left as she is far right was brought before the Senate, that judge would be shot down as well. What's the debate? You believe she isn't a conservative activist?

Posted By: Jokerman

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 07:55 PM

Quote:

A LAW-MAKING ACTIVIST, NOT A LAW-INTERPRETING JUDGE, IN ABORTION CASES

This is really through-the-looking-glass stuff.

Anon, what is Justice Owen's rating from the American Bar Association?

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 07:56 PM

Quote:

What flavor was the Koolaid?

My God, you're so mature! I would've loved to have you in my philosophy classes....you would have been soooooo easy.

Posted By: zaibatsu

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 07:57 PM

Quote:

Find your own source, I refuse to go to Fox Not-the-News.

People for the American Way is not a source. They are an interest group. Getting your news about Republican nominees from them is like getting news about Israel from Al Jazeer. Come on dude, I have worked with many, much less biased interest groups and they ALL twist the truth--yes, on the left and the right. If this is where you get your truths, I see no reason to continue this discussion.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 08:01 PM

Quote:

I see no reason to continue this discussion.

Good riddence! One down!

Posted By: zaibatsu

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 08:02 PM

Quote:

Quote:

What flavor was the Koolaid?

My God, you're so mature! I would've loved to have you in my philosophy classes....you would have been soooooo easy.

That was one mildly humorous line among the many lines I posted. Not surprised you focused in on that--is it because otherwise my comments are unassailable? Care to address the remainder of my posts. No?

Philosophy class? You think you learned about life and how to discuss debate in a philosophy class full of 20 somethings with no real life experiences. How old are you?

Dude, you've got a lot to learn. Come back when your ears have dried.

Posted By: Jokerman

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 08:02 PM

Quote:

That's one of your own calling her out! It is virtually a unanimous opinion that she is a conservative activist. And, Bush is using her to fan the flames. If a liberal judge that was as far left as she is far right was brought before the Senate, that judge would be shot down as well. What's the debate? You believe she isn't a conservative activist?

Drink some more Kool-Aid, anon.

Quote:

Few things in life are 100 percent certain, but this one is: Alberto Gonzales was not calling Priscilla Owen, or any other colleague, a judicial activist. On this point there was never one iota of intra-court confusion. My colleagues and I knew that Justice Gonzales was not targeting anyone personally but making a point of personal principle — because I interpret this imprecise statute a certain way, it would be a personal act of judicial activism to let my subjective ideology trump my detached interpretation. His concurring opinion characterized what he believed he would be doing if he interpreted the statute to mean something other than what he thought it meant, even though his interpretation may have been “personally troubling to [him] as a parent.”
...
Justice Gonzales never suggested anywhere to anyone that Owen was legislating rather than adjudicating, and he has repeatedly clarified that he never believed or intimated otherwise. He put an exclamation point on it earlier this year in sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee: “My comment about judicial activism was not focused at Judge Owen,” and “the words that have been used as a sword against Judge Owen” have been distorted.
...
Bottom line: The Left’s allegation that Gonzales accused Owen of unprincipled activism spins his words 180 degrees and is patently false. I was there, and the facts are hostile witnesses. But the charge — repeated 24/7 by liberal interest groups and a compliant, soundbite-craving media — has acquired urban-myth status.

— Greg Abbott is attorney general of Texas and a former justice on the Texas supreme court.

Posted By: zaibatsu

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 08:04 PM

Quote:

Quote:

I see no reason to continue this discussion.

Good riddence! One down!

Good riddance? Do you fear me? I thought you'd love to get me in your "philosophy class"? I read you philosophy class comment after I said I there was no reason to continue. If you've thrown down the gauntlet, I willingly step into your class professor. Get it on....

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 08:05 PM

I'm probably as old or older than you (judging by your use of the term "dude").

Posted By: zaibatsu

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 08:07 PM

Quote:

If a liberal judge that was as far left as she is far right was brought before the Senate, that judge would be shot down as well.

You miss the whole point of this argument; she has not been given the chance to be shot down by the Senate. She has only been given the chance to be shot down by the judiciary committee and they did not.

Posted By: zaibatsu

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 08:08 PM

Quote:

I'm probably as old or older than you (judging by your use of the term "dude").

Then why are you talking about philosophy classes as if they have any value to this discussion or to anything in the real world? Do you teach a philosophy class?

Posted By: Zamboni Driver

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 09:26 PM

When I was in college, Philosophy class was where you floated ideas or theories. Most professors praised arguments that were "outside the realm of normal thinking", and bashed logic (insert conservative) thinking. If it was BS, it was good. If it was based in reality, it wasn't.

If you wanted a real exchange of ideas, it normally happened in a debate or speech class.

So, Obi Wan, I think this anon might take you in his own little world/philosophy class, but in a real debate - the force would be with you.

Posted By: dare2dream

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 09:32 PM

uh... so now the word "dude" can be used as a gauge of age? hummmmmmmmm *contemplates the age of the turtle in finding Nemo*.... wasn't he like 914 years old??

Posted By: QCL

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 10:06 PM

No...150 years young dude

.
Sorry I live at the top of Mt. Wannahockalugie (the volcano in the fish tank in the dentist's office in Finding Nemo.)

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/20/05 11:52 PM

Quote:

I don't give a rat's hind end about what happened to Abe Fortus or Abe Vigoda. I don't care how the Democrats, the Republicans, or the Whigs acted years ago. Forget discussing ancient history and the use of filibuster. The question still has not been answered as to why judicial nominees who are now out of committee should be denied an up or down vote.

You may not care, but there were posters claiming that the Republicans had not filibustered Democratic nominees. The information on the Fortas and Paez nominations was to show that those claims were false.

As for your last sentence, there should be some procedure for getting a vote on nominees, but the wording of your question shows why that is difficult. Why should it be OK to deny a nominee an up-or-down vote in committee either????

Republicans having denied votes to large numbers of Clinton nominees now expect all Bush nominees to get a vote. What goes around comes around. If you want nominees to get a vote it's going to have to be fair for both sides.

Posted By: straw

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/21/05 12:05 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Chief Justice Rhenquist (chief justice appointment)
Antonin Scalia
Clarence Thomas
Sandra Day O'Connor

I don't think even you can argue that these are flaming liberal justices who favor abortion on demand, affirmative action, gay marriage (although they have not opined on this yet, my guess is they disfavor).

Actually, I could argue that about O'Connor (at least as it regards abortion and AA).

I'll give you AA, but she is a pragmatist on abortion. She has written two opinions upholding retreats from Roe, but she will not overturn Roe. She certainly doesn't support an absolute abortion right.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/21/05 02:57 PM

So would you overturn the whole Constitutional right to privacy or would you just allow outlawing abortion?

Posted By: zaibatsu

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/21/05 06:11 PM

Quote:

So would you overturn the whole Constitutional right to privacy or would you just allow outlawing abortion?

Check the constitution, it does not contain a right to privacy.

Overturning Roe vs. Wade is not about right to privacy or outlawing abortion. See that is the problem--most people think overturning Roe would outlaw abortion. Many states would further restrict it; others would broaden it. Some states might pass laws to ban it. The Supreme Court would certainly review any challenge, but they should not legislate the way Roe does. Roe does much more than determine whether the Texas law was constitutional. It went on to say what can happen in each trimester. That power is reserved to legislative bodies, but the 9 men ignored it and did what they wanted to do. Why? Because they don't really answer to anyone. Yes, they could be impeached, but what it the reality of that happening over legislating from the bench.

Posted By: Jokerman

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/23/05 01:38 PM

Quote:

there were posters claiming that the Republicans had not filibustered Democratic nominees. The information on the Fortas and Paez nominations was to show that those claims were false.

No, it's not. Paez received a cloture vote. Fortas' nomination was withdrawn because it did not have majority support. In neither case did Republicans use a filibuster to kill a nomination.

Now, it would be fair to say that some Republicans tried to use a filibuster to kill the Paez nomination, however, enough Republicans wouldn't go along with that, so they were unable to do so. If five Democrats would vote for cloture on these appeals court nominees, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

Posted By: °X°

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/23/05 03:23 PM

Democrats are calling Republicans hypocrites by using a feint even media elitists have glommed on to. They assert that Republicans filibustered a judicial nominee in the past... that’s right, they only have one example... Judge Abe Fortis who was already on the Supreme Court and was simply nominated for the Chief Justice vacancy.

The problem with this ‘example’ is that he never was truly filibustered. He was nominated, then passed through committee, then after four days of debate... some of President Bush’s nominees for actual judicial seats have now been waiting several years... they had a floor vote. The vote count was: On Oct. 1, Senate vote lost on a 45 (10R,35D) - 43 vote (24R,19D).

He didn’t even have the support of his own party and several Republicans voted for his confirmation! Media elitists don’t want to report the facts because the facts don’t allow them to blatantly attack Republicans in their publications and the uneducated liberal populace will continue to be fooled by their rhetoric.

Standing along side Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Chairman of a group of African American pastors, Bishop Harry Jackson asked, “Why are they afraid to put a black woman on the court?”, and he later said she is, ‘not only a legal hero for black America, she is a legal hero for all America’.

The answer is referred to in the opening paragraph of a recent AP story, ‘Amid Democratic complaints about radical right-wing activist judges’. ‘Radical right-wing activist judge’ is a liberal label for, ‘anti-abortionist’ or a judge who is against abortion. It’s the ‘activist’ part that they are afraid of.

Liberal Democrats love activist judges because these judges usually don’t adhere to the strict mandates of the law and go off on their own tangents when ruling on cases. If Justice Brown is a right-wing activist judge... and could possibly make it to the Supreme Court... then being against abortion doesn’t sit too well with the Left.

That’s what the filibuster over the judicial nominees is all about, abortion and the possible future vacancies on the Supreme Court. The Left could care less if these nominees are solidly qualified and are absolutely respected judges who would be positive additions to the federal courts.

The Left only wants them if they support the unchecked, unregulated, undeterred, mass destruction of innocent unborn babies. In their world view, anything less would be ‘uncivilized’.

Posted By: straw

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/23/05 04:07 PM

So not allowing nominees to come to the floor for a vote is different from fillibustering how exactly?

I know republicans were in the majority back then, and the democrats are the minority party, but the argument being espoused is that a President's nominees deserve/require an up/down floor vote.

Republicans have not allowed up/down votes in the past, but suddenly this is of monumental importance. Hypocrisy at its finest!

Change the rules and deal with the voters. I actually think most voters will approve of the rule change and Republicans will make more political hay of it than Democrats.

Why has Frist waited this long? He wants the confrontation to kick off his presidential bid. Lets get this over with already to see how it plays out.

Posted By: Jokerman

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/23/05 04:14 PM

Quote:

So not allowing nominees to come to the floor for a vote is different from fillibustering how exactly?

I know republicans were in the majority back then, and the democrats are the minority party, but the argument being espoused is that a President's nominees deserve/require an up/down floor vote.

Republicans have not allowed up/down votes in the past, but suddenly this is of monumental importance. Hypocrisy at its finest!

If the Democrats were in the majority (see 2001-2002) and were not voting nominees out of committee, that would be one thing - that would be hypocritical if the Republicans claimed they had never done that. But what you have now is an unprecedented hold up of nominees by just over 40 senators. This is an escalation.

I personally think the best way around it is for both parties to guarantee an up or down vote on the floor for every nominee. But the Republicans can't do that by themselves. What they can do is change the filibuster rule. And if the Democrats won't make the agreement to provide an up or down vote, they'll do so.

Posted By: zaibatsu

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/23/05 04:29 PM

I think the filibuster came into being in 1833 and the rules on filibuster have been changed many times. I believe the Democrats were in power for many of the previous changes. I believe those changes involved any and all legislation. I believe that I heard this possible change would only involve judicial nominations. Someone may have detailed these changes in this thread...I don't remember. The Democrats and the media are making much too big of a deal about the possible change.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/23/05 04:51 PM

No, frankly they aren't. This is a check/balance feature that is unique to our democracy. It may well be a feature that has allowed our democracy to flourish as it has. It provides a voice for the minority party. Let's all remember that while the Republicans are the majority party, 48% did not vote Republican in the presidential election. Isn't this minority entitled to some voice?

Posted By: Bengals Fan

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/23/05 05:12 PM

Quote:

No, frankly they aren't. This is a check/balance feature that is unique to our democracy. It may well be a feature that has allowed our democracy to flourish as it has. It provides a voice for the minority party. Let's all remember that while the Republicans are the majority party, 48% did not vote Republican in the presidential election. Isn't this minority entitled to some voice?

Yes, the minority is entitled to A VOICE. They are not entitled to turn the entire session into a deadlocked lame duck refusing to let anything get done. They are entitled to disagree and voice their disagreements. They are not entitled to prevent a vote entirely because they know they will lose. They are entitled to a voice, not a tyranny of the minority.

Posted By: °X°

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/23/05 05:24 PM

Look, the abortionists are breeding (or failing to breed) themselves out of existence. Those 40 million + people they've killed would have been raised up in families that believed in the correctness of abortion.
Add to that all the other tens of millions of pregnancies that failed due to the previous occurrence of an abortion, and you can see just exactly what's going on here.

It's an entire political class, the Liberals and their running dog lackeys, who have decided to self-destruct.

In the end it probably doesn't matter what happens with the judiciary in the near term future ~ it's in the long term that there will be no Liberals to replace those on the bench.

At the end of the day, the majority will win.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/23/05 05:27 PM

Quote:

Check the constitution, it does not contain a right to privacy.

While the right to privacy is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, that does not resolve the issue. The Ninth Amendment is very specific that:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Supreme Court has held that the right to privacy is one of those rights retained by the people. You may disagree, but your statement that "Overturning Roe vs. Wade is not about right to privacy" has no connection to reality. Roe v, Wade held that the right to privacy included a woman's choice on whether to have an abortion. Overturning Roe would mean at least that the choice on abortion would no longer be protected by the right to privacy, and could mean that the other areas protected by the right to privacy (contraceptive counseling and private secual activity) might not be covered as well.

Posted By: °X°

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/23/05 05:29 PM

In other words, the political opposition is busy slaughtering it's children!

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/23/05 05:43 PM

Quote:

No, it's not. Paez received a cloture vote. Fortas' nomination was withdrawn because it did not have majority support. In neither case did Republicans use a filibuster to kill a nomination.

Now, it would be fair to say that some Republicans tried to use a filibuster to kill the Paez nomination, however, enough Republicans wouldn't go along with that, so they were unable to do so. If five Democrats would vote for cloture on these appeals court nominees, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

Once again, the following is from the official US Senate website:

" Filibuster Derails Supreme Court Appointment

...Although the 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"

I don't know if you think you know more about the history of the Senate than the US Senate website shows, but I would tend to believe them over your interpretation.

As far as Paez is concerned your argument that the fact that cloture was invoked to stop the filibuster means that there never was a filibuster does not hold up. You said: "If five Democrats would vote for cloture on these appeals court nominees, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now." By your logic, if that happened it would mean that the Democrats never filibustered the current nominees! A cloture vote stops a filibuster, it does not mean that the filibuster never occurred.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/23/05 06:16 PM

Quote:

No, frankly they aren't. This is a check/balance feature that is unique to our democracy. It may well be a feature that has allowed our democracy to flourish as it has. It provides a voice for the minority party. Let's all remember that while the Republicans are the majority party, 48% did not vote Republican in the presidential election. Isn't this minority entitled to some voice?

Some voice? Like the ability to block a nomination that has the support of a majority of the representatives? I don't think so. The minority should never have that sort of voice over nominee. The minority party has 48% of the voice; why should they be able to use it to create a 100% block of a nominee?

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/23/05 06:19 PM

Well, past representatives of the Senate disagree with you. But I'm sure that you know more and have a greater understand than they do.

It's this pack of Republican morons that want to change the rules to suit their own needs. If the shoe was on the other foot (i.e. dems changing the rules) the screaming would be deafening.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/23/05 06:26 PM

Quote:

Overturning Roe would mean at least that the choice on abortion would no longer be protected by the right to privacy...

Not true at all.

First of all, the Supreme Court did not give abortion an absolute right to privacy. What about the 3rd trimester?

Secondly, the Supreme Court can use their "right to privacy" when they rule on abortion cases legislating the way Roe does. This will free up our judicial nominees and free up our presidential hopefuls from the abortion issue. Roe is bad judicial precendent.

My opinion on this is completely and totally separate from my views of abortion.

-Z-

Posted By: Jokerman

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/23/05 06:32 PM

Quote:

Quote:

No, it's not. Paez received a cloture vote. Fortas' nomination was withdrawn because it did not have majority support. In neither case did Republicans use a filibuster to kill a nomination.

Now, it would be fair to say that some Republicans tried to use a filibuster to kill the Paez nomination, however, enough Republicans wouldn't go along with that, so they were unable to do so. If five Democrats would vote for cloture on these appeals court nominees, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

Once again, the following is from the official US Senate website:

" Filibuster Derails Supreme Court Appointment

...Although the 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"

I don't know if you think you know more about the history of the Senate than the US Senate website shows, but I would tend to believe them over your interpretation.

As far as Paez is concerned your argument that the fact that cloture was invoked to stop the filibuster means that there never was a filibuster does not hold up. You said: "If five Democrats would vote for cloture on these appeals court nominees, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now." By your logic, if that happened it would mean that the Democrats never filibustered the current nominees! A cloture vote stops a filibuster, it does not mean that the filibuster never occurred.

Look, you're getting into a debate about what the meaning of "filibuster" is. Let's be clear, if they want to have extended debate, that is fine (Frist has offered a deal that includes up to 100 hours of debate). But they should not use the filibuster to block nominees. And that is what has been happening for YEARS now.

Justice Fortas did not have majority support. The purpose of the debate on his nomination was not to block his appointment, which would not have come anyway - it was because there was new information coming out about alleged ethical improprieties. It is in NO WAY comparable to the current situation.

Also, if 40 Democrats wanted to filibuster these nominations, but 5 of them recognized this was inappropriate, then no, I would not call that a filibuster. An "attempted filibuster", maybe.

Anon, the facts just don't back up your argument. What is being done is a systematic use of the filibuster to block appointments to courts of appeals, and has never been done before.

If this was a Republican minority doing this to Clinton appointees, the screaming would be deafening.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/23/05 06:32 PM

Quote:

Well, past representatives of the Senate disagree with you. But I'm sure that you know more and have a greater understand than they do.

It's this pack of Republican morons that want to change the rules to suit their own needs. If the shoe was on the other foot (i.e. dems changing the rules) the screaming would be deafening.

Just the fact that you call the Republicans morons pretty much says it all. I have not once derided the Democrats, but I will now: I'm just sorry the Republicans don't have such geniuses as Kennedy, Byrd, and Dean on our side.

BTW: The Republicans are not suiting their own needs; they are saving the process. They are well aware of the consequences when they will surely be in the minority. But I am sure that you know much more and have a greater understanding than they do.

Tell me "O Wise One" what would you do? I guess you want to allow the minority party to prevent any judicial nominee from becoming a federal judge without a vote? BRILLIANT!!!

-Z-

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/23/05 06:37 PM

When we're talking about 10 nominees of which 7 are re-submitted from already being rejected, I would leave the rules in place. Bush has had more judges (as a percentage) approved than any president in recent history. (205 out of 215) What you're saying is that the minority has NO right to reject any judges, under any circumstances.

Posted By: Bengals Fan

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/23/05 06:38 PM

Quote:

When we're talking about 10 nominees of which 7 are re-submitted from already being rejected, I would leave the rules in place. Bush has had more judges (as a percentage) approved than any president in recent history. (205 out of 215) What you're saying is that the minority has NO right to reject any judges, under any circumstances.

No, they don't have a right to reject judges under any circumstances. This nation was founded to PREVENT tyranny of the minority.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/23/05 06:40 PM

And to prevent the tryanny of the majority.

Posted By: Jokerman

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/23/05 06:41 PM

Quote:

When we're talking about 10 nominees of which 7 are re-submitted from already being rejected, I would leave the rules in place. Bush has had more judges (as a percentage) approved than any president in recent history. (205 out of 215) What you're saying is that the minority has NO right to reject any judges, under any circumstances.

Ten appeals court nominees rejected out of how many total appeals court nominations, anon?

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/23/05 07:01 PM

Quote:

And to prevent the tryanny of the majority.

I thought this country was founded on the rule of the majority vote. Did I wake up in the wrong country again?

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/23/05 08:17 PM

Checks and balances have been installed to prevent the tyrannical takeover by the majority.

Posted By: Bengals Fan

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/23/05 08:31 PM

Quote:

Checks and balances have been installed to prevent the tyrannical takeover by the majority.

The filabuster isn't a check or balance, it's an abuse of the system. The CHECK is that the congress, by majority, must approve the appointment.

Posted By: zaibatsu

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/23/05 08:48 PM

Quote:

Checks and balances have been installed to prevent the tyrannical takeover by the majority.

Oh, come on, just admit it--you just think that the Republican agenda is tyrannical, don't you. It scares you to death.

Posted By: kfridge

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/23/05 09:00 PM

Does a 'no' vote not count as rejection? If you give the minority the 'right' to reject anything, what good does it do to be in the majority?

Posted By: Creditcop

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/23/05 09:26 PM

The voters spoke and the Republicans won. Give them an up or down vote. The ulitmate check is the voters and the dems were checkmated for now.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/24/05 12:31 AM

Quote:

First of all, the Supreme Court did not give abortion an absolute right to privacy.

I never said the word "absolute", you did that to try to establish a "strawman" argument to attack. Didn't work.

As far as Roe being "legislating", the Constitutional right to privacy wasn't first cited in Roe v. Wade. It came from Griswold v. Connecticut in which the Court said that the state had no right to prohibit contraceptive counseling because it was a private matter in which the state had no right to interfere. The right to privacy is a tremendous limitation on the power of government to intervene in our personal lives.

And it is unquestionably the basis of the Roe v. Wade decision. It's there in print whether you choose to admit it or not.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/24/05 12:44 AM

What many people don't understand is that the "nuclear option" does not just refer to judicial filibusters. Ordinarily it takes 67 votes to change the permanent rules of the Senate. Since the Republicans don't have the votes to change the filibuster rule, they want Cheney to "rule" as head of the Senate that the rules don't apply. It would only take 51 votes to uphold his ruling. The "nuclear option" refers to the changing of the permanent rules in this underhanded fashion. The filibuster just happens to be the rule involved here.

The reason this is such a crisis is that if the permanent rules can be dodged, no rule is safe. Either party that gains the majority would be able to push through whatever it wants, by wahtever rules it wants. Our way of government has worked well over the years, such a radical change would be dangerous.

In any case, it is being reported that individual senators have reached a compromise to avoid this train wreck. It should never have come to this.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/24/05 02:00 AM

Quote:

Quote:

First of all, the Supreme Court did not give abortion an absolute right to privacy.

I never said the word "absolute", you did that to try to establish a "strawman" argument to attack. Didn't work.

As far as Roe being "legislating", the Constitutional right to privacy wasn't first cited in Roe v. Wade. It came from Griswold v. Connecticut in which the Court said that the state had no right to prohibit contraceptive counseling because it was a private matter in which the state had no right to interfere. The right to privacy is a tremendous limitation on the power of government to intervene in our personal lives.

And it is unquestionably the basis of the Roe v. Wade decision. It's there in print whether you choose to admit it or not.

I did not say that Roe legislated the right to privacy for the first time. I also never said the Supreme Court did not legislate a right to privacy, but the Consitution did not contain one--and that is all I said.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/24/05 02:03 AM

Senator Kennedy, another liberal who is crying “foul” at a rules change, had this to say in 1975: “The filibuster rule is not enshrined in the Constitution. Instead, it is a rule that
was made by the Senate, and it is a rule that can be unmade by the Senate.”

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/24/05 02:15 AM

Quote:

“The filibuster rule is not enshrined in the Constitution. Instead, it is a rule that
was made by the Senate, and it is a rule that can be unmade by the Senate.”

All very true - if you have the 67 votes to unmake it.

Posted By: Jokerman

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/24/05 04:20 AM

Quote:

Ordinarily it takes 67 votes to change the permanent rules of the Senate. Since the Republicans don't have the votes to change the filibuster rule, they want Cheney to "rule" as head of the Senate that the rules don't apply. It would only take 51 votes to uphold his ruling.

Well, that's not quite right. What is being established is a Senate precedent, not a changing of a Senate rule. Precedents, by rule, only require 51 votes. Mr. Cheney will be asked to make a ruling, and that ruling will undoubtedly be challenged, and then it either will or will not be upheld by a vote of the Senate which would only include Mr. Cheney if there is a tie.

At any rate there is supposedly a deal. The "moderate" Republican Senators have apparently agreed to not vote to end the filibuster of judicial nominees so long as the Democrats don't filibuster except in "extreme circumstances," which, appropriately enough given that this agreement is between members of the evil party and the stupid party (not my characterizations), are undefined.

These Republicans have apparently thrown several nominees overboard, even though they were not the dreaded Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor, or Priscilla Owen. (They were the much less noted Michigan appointees, who were being held up because a Sen. Levin (D-MI) was pouting that the Republican Senate didn't grant a hearing to some relative that fmr. President Clinton appointed late in his second term - anybody want to guess whether the Democratic Senate in power at the end of the first Bush Presidency might have done the same?)

Anyway, if the Democrats' feet aren't held to the fire, if more nominees are filibustered, this will have proven to be a completely useless excercise. I predict we'll have this same argument as soon as Justice Rhenquist announces his retirement.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/24/05 01:32 PM

I'm glad that's been resolved for now. Thanks goodness for McCain, Nelson, Lieberman, et al.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/24/05 01:47 PM

Quote:

I'm glad that's been resolved for now. Thanks goodness for McCain, Nelson, Lieberman, et al.

Nothing has been resolved. There will likely be a Supreme Court nomination in the near future and this "fix" does nothing to prevent the use of filibuster to reject candidates that the Democrats do not like. Likewise, the Democrats will set a precendent that the Republicans are likely to follow when the shoe is on the other foot.

If Democrats feel entitled to change the ideological balance of the Supreme Court in their favor or if they are determined to preclude Republicans from altering the court's balance in favor of Republicans, then the nuclear option will become inevitable. If not today, then probably in the not-too-distant future.

Depending upon one's perspective, the path to today's showdown began with different events. Democrats point to the 1968 filibuster against Associate Justice Abe Fortas. Republicans point to the rejection of Judge Robert Bork, who was unanimously confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 1982 and whom President Reagan nominated to the Supreme Court in 1987. Despite having participated in hundreds of rulings and opinions over six years on the D.C. appellate court, not one of which was overturned by the Supreme Court, Judge Bork was nonetheless considered by 52 of 54 Democratic senators to be "outside the judicial mainstream."

Healthy institutions, including the Senate, evolve to deal with new challenges and forces. Senate tradition has become less important to both political parties than gaining substantive victory. Members of both parties have reversed positions on numerous procedures, ranging from the Senate's "blue-slip" policy to the entitlement of an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. Even former Democratic Majority Leader Robert Byrd, who is leading the charge against the use of a majority vote to end judicial filibusters, argued in 1979: "This Congress is not obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past," approvingly adding, "The first Senate, which met in 1789, approved 19 rules by a majority vote." (I think Senator Byrd was there.

)

Both sides have exploited dormant procedures, in committee and on the floor, that were not systematically used before. The Democrats' systematic use of the filibuster, which is unprecedented, is the latest manifestation of a trend of evolving judicial-confirmation traditions.

Traditional measures, such as the filibuster, were bearable when used sparingly. So, the Republican majority has turned to its own dormant procedure -- the 51-vote rule-change first used in 1789, but rarely since then. When Bush nominates a justice to replace Rehnquist, they will likely face another filibuster by the Dems and be forced to return to this dormant procedure again. It is all a part of the evolving judicial nominations process in a brave new world.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/24/05 01:50 PM

Quote:

I predict we'll have this same argument as soon as Justice Rhenquist announces his retirement.

If, and only if, Bush insists on nominating an extreme conservative to the bench. The Senators involved in the compromise said repeatedly that their hope was that the White House got the message that cooperation was paramount moving forward. The Dems (at least the reasonable ones) realize that the nominees will be conservative, they just don't want radical conservatives. Much as the Republicans would not want radical liberal nominees if the roles were switched. And, in past history, generally speaking, Presidents have been conscious of the need for moderate nominees. It seems that this President is not as conscious as most.

Posted By: Bengals Fan

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/24/05 01:54 PM

Quote:

Quote:

I predict we'll have this same argument as soon as Justice Rhenquist announces his retirement.

If, and only if, Bush insists on nominating an extreme conservative to the bench. The Senators involved in the compromise said repeatedly that their hope was that the White House got the message that cooperation was paramount moving forward. The Dems (at least the reasonable ones) realize that the nominees will be conservative, they just don't want radical conservatives. Much as the Republicans would not want radical liberal nominees if the roles were switched. And, in past history, generally speaking, Presidents have been conscious of the need for moderate nominees. It seems that this President is not as conscious as most.

Horsepoopy! Bush was elected in part to put a conservative on the bench, and the dems have filabustered moderate conservative nominees.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/24/05 01:59 PM

Quote:

Quote:

I predict we'll have this same argument as soon as Justice Rhenquist announces his retirement.

If, and only if, Bush insists on nominating an extreme conservative to the bench. The Senators involved in the compromise said repeatedly that their hope was that the White House got the message that cooperation was paramount moving forward. The Dems (at least the reasonable ones) realize that the nominees will be conservative, they just don't want radical conservatives. Much as the Republicans would not want radical liberal nominees if the roles were switched. And, in past history, generally speaking, Presidents have been conscious of the need for moderate nominees. It seems that this President is not as conscious as most.

By radical conservatives, what do you mean? What does a radical conservative believe that a conservative does not believe? Oh, by the way, why can't you log in? Do you feel threatened or just embarrassed by your radical liberal views?

BTW: I am logged out until you log in.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/24/05 01:59 PM

Quote:

Horsepoopy!

Michael P,

You've outdone yourself. Is that the word on your Word for the Day calendar?

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/24/05 02:03 PM

Quote:

BTW: I am logged out until you log in.

That's okay Jman, we know who you are.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/24/05 02:12 PM

Quote:

Quote:

BTW: I am logged out until you log in.

That's okay Jman, we know who you are.

Why don't you log in? You are the only one who has been the least bit derisive. You called the Republicans Senators morons. Are you logged off because you are afraid of attacks? If no one has attacked you as an Anon, I doubt they'd attack you as a registered BOLr. Or are you logged off so you can call Republicans morons without anyone knowing who you are?

Posted By: Jokerman

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/24/05 02:23 PM

Quote:

Quote:

I predict we'll have this same argument as soon as Justice Rhenquist announces his retirement.

If, and only if, Bush insists on nominating an extreme conservative to the bench.

Whatever. The three "extreme conservatives" that were supposedly the reason for all this consternation are the ones the Dems agreed to allow to go through. The ones they nixed weren't particularly conservative. It doesn't matter who the President nominates. If he or she won't genuflect before Roe, they'll filibuster, if they think they can get away with it.

Quote:

And, in past history, generally speaking, Presidents have been conscious of the need for moderate nominees. It seems that this President is not as conscious as most.

Yeah, I guess that's how we wound up with moderates like Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Posted By: Jokerman

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/24/05 02:24 PM

[

Quote:

Quote:

BTW: I am logged out until you log in.

That's okay Jman, we know who you are.

Nope. Not me.

Posted By: Creditcop

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/24/05 07:04 PM

Those wimpy republicans. The question will be: how long before the dems break this agreement?

Posted By: straw

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/24/05 08:03 PM

When Bush nominates the next Robert Bork.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/24/05 08:18 PM

If he nominates a "Robert Bork," yes I would agree with you. If he's reasonable with his selection, I do not agree with you.

Posted By: zaibatsu

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/24/05 08:33 PM

Quote:

When Bush nominates the next Robert Bork.

You mean this Robert Bork:

Robert Bork was unanimously confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 1982. President Reagan nominated him to the Supreme Court in 1987. Despite having participated in hundreds of rulings and opinions over six years on the D.C. appellate court, not one of which was overturned by the Supreme Court, Judge Bork was nonetheless considered by 52 of 54 Democratic senators to be "outside the judicial mainstream.

Posted By: Jokerman

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/24/05 08:44 PM

Quote:

When Bush nominates the next Robert Bork.

The horror! A nominee that believes in the constitution as it was written!

Posted By: straw

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/24/05 09:07 PM

So, Conn.'s contraception law (Griswold v. Conn.) is constitutional and any state can outlaw use of contraception.

FCC act and indecency statute must be unconstitutional since I don't believe the constitution enumarates a power to the federal government to regulate the public airwaves, since those airwaves did not exist in 1787.

This and a host of other modern statutes would have required a constitutional amendment if you take Bork's arguments to their logical conclusions.

Strict construction (Scalia) versus literal construction (Bork) is slightly different by degrees in theory. However, in practice, the differences can have profound impact.

Posted By: Jokerman

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/24/05 09:14 PM

What Judge Bork believes is that we were provided a federal republic - that one state can have one law about contraception or abortion, and another can have a different law. The most similar recent ruling on which Justice Scalia has opined is the Texas sodomy law, in which case he ruled exactly as Judge Bork would have.

As to the FCC, considering that the regulated transmissions cross state lines, I would imagine that Judge Bork would rule that this was acceptable since Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. But that's just a guess, and I'm not sure why you mention it. It certainly wasn't anything that Ted Kennedy used to smear him.

Posted By: straw

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/24/05 09:51 PM

I was using it to extrapolate how modern issues must be interpreted against the constitution; how these issues did not exist back then.

Why do you bring up Ted Kennedy? I don't care what he said.

Posted By: Jokerman

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/24/05 10:15 PM

Interstate commerce existed back then. And regulation of it was a power Congress was granted. Are there occassions when the people want to grant an additional power to the federal government? Sure. The power to levy an income tax, for example. But those are fairly few and far between.

In one respect, you're right - Judge Bork would require an amendment to be passed in order for the federal government to be granted the power to prevent a state from prohibiting the use of contraception (Griswold). But the real question is, if that was such an onerous law, why did the people of Connecticut not demand that their elected representatives change it? Why was it the business of the Supreme Court?

I mention Ted Kennedy because he was the lead slanderer of this fine man. And even he didn't come up with the FCC criticism.

Posted By: straw

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/25/05 12:04 AM

I was just trying to show how Bork's reasoning could create interesting constitutional issues with some things we take for granted and television was the first thing that popped into my head.

The interesting thing with natural law is how the same facts lead to such different interpretations. The founding fathers clearly had natural law in mind, since many referenced it in various writings.

Modern conservative jurists interpret the Constitution's silence regarding natural law to mean that the founding fathers did not consider this to be part of the social compact between the government and citizens.

Modern liberal jurists take that silence to mean that natural law was such an integral part of the founders thinking, they assumed natural law did not need to be referenced.

Bork is a lightining rod on this because he was the only nominee in recent times who actually engaged the judiciary committee in an intelligent conversation regarding this issue. Or course, it killed his nomination and subsequent nominees learned not to discuss anything substantive with during the nomination hearings.

I remember discussing the hearings in Con Law I and defending him against the ultra-liberal instructor.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/25/05 01:00 AM

Bork's hostility to the principle of judicial review by itself makes him unfit for the bench. It is hard to imagine what little there would be left of our individual rights if there were not the check and balance of the courts on the executive and legislative branches.

Our government has survived as well as it has for as long as it has because there is a balance among the branches of government. We desperately need our individual rights as Americans to be upheld. Bork would put too much power in the hands of the legislative and executive branches.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/25/05 01:27 PM

Bork was almost hostile during his hearings. I understand his distaste for the process but the process is what it is. And, to show no patience or tolerance for it had as much to do with his failure as his ideology.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/25/05 01:32 PM

Quote:

Bork was almost hostile during his hearings. I understand his distaste for the process but the process is what it is. And, to show no patience or tolerance for it had as much to do with his failure as his ideology.

It wasn't that he had a distaste for the process. He had a distaste for the inquisition the Dems put him through. How'd you like it if a bunch of politicians, including Ted Kennedy, hammered you. You wouldn't like it. Now, imagine how much you'd like it if you were one of the foremost scholars in your field. It was pathetic and his reaction was not out of line.

Posted By: Jokerman

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/25/05 01:33 PM

Twenty years later, we're still having this argument?

Look, Bork's position is that the branches are equal, that the Supreme Court is not the all-powerful branch. The idea that it is has led to our Congress and even this President approving legislation that they believe to be unconstitutional! Why? Because that's for the Supreme Court to decide. Judicial review has led to an abdication of responsibility by the other branches of government.

I'm not saying I have decided one way or the other on judicial review. But let's be honest about its consequences.

Posted By: °X°

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/25/05 06:40 PM

James Taranto's take in "Best of the Web" on OpinionJournal.com yesterday --

The most crucial passage in the agreement may prove to be this one: "Each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such ['extraordinary'] circumstances exist." As a practical matter, this applies only to the Democratic signatories, since no Republican has ever voted to filibuster a Bush judicial nominee.
The seven signatories, that is, have now declared that they will decide how to vote on judicial filibusters rather than take directions from the party. Two of them, Robert Byrd and Daniel Inoyue, probably did so largely to preserve "Senate tradition"; but the other five--Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor and Ken Salazar--are all generally moderate, and all from red states except Lieberman. Their inclinations and political interests diverge from those of Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy and other far-left blue-staters.

If left-wing Democrats want to filibuster another nominee, they will have to persuade Minority Leader Harry Reid to risk another nuclear confrontation and persuade at least one of the moderate compromising five, plus Byrd, Inoyue and every single uncompromising Dem, that it's worth it. It could happen, but we're not betting on it.
_______

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/25/05 06:47 PM

OWENS CONFIRMED!!

Posted By: Blade Scrapper

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/25/05 06:56 PM

Quote:

OWENS CONFIRMED!!

Its about time.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/25/05 07:06 PM

What do you possibly mean Swimware? It only took 4 years to assure that she was a worthy candidate.

Posted By: Quadspapa

Re: Senate Filibuster - 05/25/05 08:16 PM

Priscilla Owen will make a great 5th Circuit Court of Appeals judge. She is the sister-in-law of the president of our bank and is a fine, smart, and popular lady from Texas.

Senate Filibuster