Enough: End Unconstitutional Judicial Filibusters

CHRONWATCH.COM ^ | APRIL 16, 2005 | JOE MARIANI

[CHARLITE]

Joe has links to many important documents, if you go to the original on chronwatch. They are too numerous throughout Joe's column, to insert, but are clearly "clickable" from the web page.

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=14066

[Bigfitz]

Let the bastards Filibuster in the traditional way of a Filibuster. However for Filibustering Judges use the Nuke Option.

[Savage Beast]

If they are Democrats, we cannot have confidence in their leadership. They are either sociopaths or their enablers.

[Congressman Billybob]

Thank you for posting this, my friend. I agree, of course, per my speech last week in Washington (which is up on FR). And I took up the same subject in my column this week. See below.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "A Triple Black Dog Double Dare to Infinity."

[Logical me]

"In contrast, in the late 1990s, Republicans, with control of the U.S. Senate, were blocking as many as 50 Clinton judicial nominations. They refused to let the Senate Judiciary Committee hold hearings on these nominees. " Where did you get this crap. The reason was it was too late to vote on these nominees since it was the election year at too close to process. Get your facts straight.

[FlingWingFlyer]

It's simple really. The Democrats are sharpening their knives for any Supreme Court nominees that might come up. This so-called "filibuster" scam that the Democrats are trying to pull is a setup for that day. Personally, I think that if the Democrats want to filibuster, the Republicans should MAKE them filibuster. I want to see the drunken Ted Kennedy on the floor of the Senate singing "A Hundred Bottles of Beer on the Wall" over and over 24/7. Then I want to see Sheets Byrd up there whistling the long version of Dixie until his sheets are wrinkled. Let's see some real filibustering. This talk nonsense is garbage.

[CHARLITE]

Thanks for the "double dare" link. I'll go read it immediately. I didn't see it, sad to say. You must have bumped me off of your Ping list!

Char (:

[CHARLITE]

"When did the rules change that a threat was all that was needed?"

Exactly my question. How can this be? It's like shorthand. You don't need to actually do something any longer - just tell everyone to imagine that the thing is in progress. Saves a lot of wind power, but it has become the "Theater of the Absurd."

[FlingWingFlyer]

Exactly. So far. It's been nothing but a bunch of threats. I've stocked up on popcorn and want to see them get it on. If they are going to filibuster then they need to filibuster. If not, each nominee should be given an up or down vote. That's all anyone wants. The Democrats claim to be "the party of fair." Well, they need to be "fair" to these nominees.

[FlingWingFlyer]

You got that right. I haven't seen a filibuster lately. Just a bunch of "wolf tickets" from the Democrats and I'm tired of it. The more Democrats are allowed to ramble, the more absurd they become. I want to see some REAL filibustering. They'll be shooting themselves in the foot. The Republicans need to call their bluff on this. Now!

[TheForceOfOne]

The Senate must act as steward of the federal courts by returning the power to confirm judges to the Constitution's simple majority requirement. While it is the right of the President to expect the Senate to give Advice and Consent within a reasonable period of time, it is the duty of every Senator to offer Advice and Consent through an honest, up or down vote.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7054

[Muleteam1]

Either make the Dems endure a real filibuster or "nuke 'em." However, be aware that a windbag like Byrd could rail on for hours and never take a breath.

Muleteam1

[CHARLITE]

"The Republicans need to call their bluff on this. Now!"

That's why a lot of us are SO frustrated! We worked so hard to re-elect George W. Bush, and we simply assumed that many of the issues about which we feel so strongly (taxes, Soc. Sec. reform and confirmation of conservative judges) would have been well along toward completion by now. I'm personally very disappointed in all of the dilly-dallying by Frist and the rest of our congressional leadership about confirming President Bush's judicial nominees. There is no excuse for this pandering and hesitation.

WE WON! Are we on FR the only ones who realize that?

[Celtman]

Article:
In reality, filibusters have included Senators reading phone books and even the Bible while simply holding the floor in the effort to prevent a vote from taking place.

      This ain't what's happening, folks.  There ... is ... no ... filibuster.

[CHARLITE]

"This ain't what's happening, folks. There ... is ... no ... filibuster."

I've already asked the question once. Where did this come from?.........just announcing that this or that nominee will be filibusted, without actually having to go through the process which would draw ridicule from most Americans observing the senseless, time consuming harrangues reading phone books et al. How did it get to a point where an empty, time-efficient "announcment" was sufficient? Sounds like a non-filibuster to me.

Obstructionist Democrats might as well declare, "To all of you who support Bush's nominees, we're going to smack you in your heads with hammers.....so THERE!"....and then back to business. No smacking. No hammers, but the confirmation is squashed by the mere announced threat of head smashing with hammers. Never happens and nominated judges twist in the wind.

[vertium]

Let's at least be honest about the filibuster issue. Filibusters (which are nothing more than unlimited debate by any senator) have been allowed since the beginning of the Senate, not only since 1917 as has been reported erroneously by several sources. The 1917 rules change is what insituted cloture, the ability of the body to end debate when 2/3 of the members voted to do so.

Let's get past the rhetoric and discuss the real issue - should senators be allowed to debate on an umlimited basis? That is the only question which should be at hand. However, when the question get politicized and the party in majority in power (the Republicans currently) want to change the rules because they don't like the way the minority party is using them, they would be well reminded that the Republicans will not be in the majority forever. No party will be.

The senate was intended by the framers of the Constitution to be the "upper house", more deliberative and less political in nature. By that measure, it has failed for many years and continues to do so.

For those who take a purely partisan approach to this ("we're the Republicans and we don't like what Bill Clinton did to us and we're going to get our revenge now that W won again"), I simply ask that you grow up. Hey, I get it... no one likes to be in the minority. But we're better off when we're balanced - and I don't mean merely by a divided power structure between the Congress and the White House - I mean a balanced approach to the issues we face as a society and people today. We're in a global economy that continues to take jobs to overseas destinations and we've got enemies around the world who seek to prove that our form and style of government is evil and wrong. The more internal bickering that continues and petty (and I think the fact that some judges are filibustered is PETTY) infighting that occurs, the more energy is diverted from the real fight that we, as a nation, should be focusing on. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have sole custody on the issues of righteousness here. Neither do Christians, Jews, Muslims, Taoists or Pagans. Faith is different than religion and people of all political parties have faith, so get off the backs of those who don't have the same religion as you do. For the Christians in the readership, I will remind you that Jesus said, "Those without sin should cast the first stone". If you are sinless, please pick up the rock and wail away... otherwise, why not have a seat, take a breath and open your ears as much as your mouth (there's a reason we were blessed with 2 ears and one mouth - listen twice as much as we talk!)

If you are a parent, then I hope you raise your children with better discipline than we see in the political rhetoric of today. Children who don't get their way throw tantrums and the best parents I know don't give a "time out" or speak to their child as if they're negotiating good behavior like an arms treaty ("if you will behave now, I'll make sure you get a treat when we return home"). The best parents I know give a good sharp whack across the child's bottom to indicate that there are serious consequences to acting outside the societal boundaries of good behavior. If you have to have your way every single time, on every single issue, you're nothing but a spoiled child. Grow up... get along with your playmates and learn that life and liberty are best preserved when we work together as a nation rather than partisan politicians.

[llortami]

If the Judicial Filibuster were truly unconstitutional, then why hasn't it been challenged in the courts?

It seems that with a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court, the GOP would win this one, like Bush v. Gore.

Judicial filibusters are an attempt by a desperate party to cling to power but since the Senate gets to make its own rules, I don't think they are unconstitutional

[CHARLITE]