Posted on 05/10/2005 6:56:28 PM PDT by Benherszen
The Not-So-Secret History of Filibusters
By GEORGE J. MITCHELL Published: May 10, 2005
EVERYONE recalls "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," but too few remember the real-life Mrs. Smith. So, as the Senate nears a vote on a proposal to unilaterally change Senate rules for confirming federal judges, I am reminded of the words spoken 55 years ago by Senator Margaret Chase Smith of Maine in her famous "Declaration of Conscience" against the tactics of Senator Joe McCarthy, a member of her own party.
"I don't believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest," the senator said. "Surely we Republicans aren't that desperate for victory. While it might be a fleeting victory for the Republican Party, it would be a more lasting defeat for the American people. Surely it would ultimately be suicide for the Republican Party and the two-party system that has protected our American liberties from the dictatorship of a one-party system."
The circumstances are obviously different; there is no McCarthyism in the current dispute. But the principles of exercising independent judgment and preserving our system of checks and balances are at the heart of the Senate rules debate.
Senator Smith embodied independence and understood the Senate's singular place in our system of checks and balances. Our founders created that system to prevent abuse of power and to protect our rights and freedoms. The president's veto power is a check on Congress. The Senate's power to confirm or reject judicial nominees balances the president's authority to nominate them. The proposal by some Republican senators to change rules that have governed the Senate for two centuries now puts that system in danger.
Since 1789, the Senate has rejected nearly 20 percent of all nominees to the Supreme Court, many without an up-or-down vote.
In 1968 Republican senators used a filibuster to block voting on President Lyndon B. Johnson's nominee for chief justice of the Supreme Court. During the debate, a Republican senator, Robert Griffin, said: "It is important to realize that it has not been unusual for the Senate to indicate its lack of approval for a nomination by just making sure that it never came to a vote on the merits. As I said, 21 nominations to the court have failed to win Senate approval. But only nine of that number were rejected on a direct, up-and-down vote."
Between 1968 and 2001, both parties used filibusters to oppose judicial nominees. In 2000, the last year of Bill Clinton's presidency, Republican senators filibustered two of his nominees to be circuit judges. They also prevented Senate votes on more than 60 of Mr. Clinton's judicial nominees by other means.
So much for the assertion that filibustering to prevent votes on judicial nominees is a new tactic invented by Senate Democrats.
Senate rules can be changed, and they often have been. But Senate Republicans don't have the votes for a change within the rules. So they propose to go around them, to act unilaterally to get their way. It's what they call the "nuclear option."
They claim that their actions are justified because the filibuster is being used unfairly to stop the confirmation of President Bush's nominees. But 208 of the president's 218 judicial nominees have been approved. That's right: the Senate has confirmed 95 percent of Mr. Bush's judicial nominees. That's a higher percentage of approval than any of his three predecessors achieved.
During my six years as majority leader of the Senate, Republicans, then in the minority, often used filibusters to achieve their goals. I didn't like the results, but I accepted them because Republicans were acting within the rules; and we were able to work together on many other issues. There were 55 Democratic senators then. We had the power to take the drastic action now being proposed, but we refrained from exercising that power because it was as wrong then as it is now.
Most Americans may not be aware of the complexities of the Senate's rules, but they do know and understand two fundamental principles: playing by the rules and dealing fairly with others.
The nuclear option violates both. If it's exercised, I hope that enough modern-day Senator Smiths, guided by what is best for the nation and the Senate, will vote to stop it.
Just who the hell is checking the Judiciary anyway?
George Mitchell - gag me.
It's very interesting, if the nuclear option is not invoked, what do Mitchell and his Dem pals think is going to happen the next time there's a Democratic President? Now that the Dems have upped the ante does he think that the Republicans will turn the other cheek and choose not to filibuster Democratic judicial nominees?
If Senate rules allow for a "Nuclear Option," then how is wrong when the Senate exercises this rule?
A lot of this guy's logic comes from this statement, which is seriously misleading. The fact is that it's the Dems who have already dropped the 'Nuclear Option', insisting on a super-majority for judicial confirmation. The Repubs are just reacting, no matter how it sounds in the MSM echo chamber.
Checks and balances ARE NOT something the Constitution is set up to guard BETWEEN POLITICAL PARTIES. The parties we have had for the last 100 years didn't even exist, and essentially weren't even envisioned by the Founders who wrote the Constitution.
So all this talk about Democrats needing to provide checks and balances to the power of the Republicans (or vice versa over the past 60 years) are really just a lame smokescreen to the real issue being contested and debated.
Let's accept Mitchell's claims at face value: he claims that three Democratic nominees in 33 years were filibustered.
Now that the Dems have filibustered 7 in 2 years, it would seem that revenge has been achieved. Or do the Dems have to filibuster 33 nominees in 3 years to make up for 3 alleged filibusters in 33 years?
Why all of the talk about filibusters? Nobody filibusters anymore.
Mitchell is the inventor of the smile and stilleto to the liver.
I don't believe but a couple of these were actually obstructed?
Between 1968 and 2001, both parties used filibusters to oppose judicial nominees. In 2000, the last year of Bill Clinton's presidency, Republican senators filibustered two of his nominees to be circuit judges. They also prevented Senate votes on more than 60 of Mr. Clinton's judicial nominees by other means.
Ok so he mentioned the one in 1968 and implies that it means regular occurrence and as for the Clinton nominees weren't they eventually confirmed?
They also prevented Senate votes on more than 60 of Mr. Clinton's judicial nominees by other means.
Maybe I have my facts wrong but weren't the other means by Vote?
The dems are doing this because they are/were close to gaining complete control over the government through activist judges. They continue to howl about it and see the chance of someday they might have the chance of doing just that.
What Mitchell means, but fails to mention, is that many of the "failed" nominees never got out of committee. Either they were rejected in committee, bottled up in committee, or their nominations were withdrawn. All those are appropriate responses to questionable nominations. If the Dems have the votes to reject these nominees in committee, so be it. If they don't have the votes, then don't change the rules.
Clarification: By "don't change the rules" I'm referring to the Democrats' decision to use filibusters to block nominations in the face of 200 years of precedent to the contrary.
or blue slip, I believe it's called.
So in other words he is using the typical MSM/Progressive tactic of relating issues that have nothing to do with the subject while mixing in a single event that does, the 1968 filibuster, thereby implying that it's a common tactic?
Don't they hang people for this type of deceit?
For the love of pete, CAN SOMEONE JUST ANSWER THE FREAKING QUESTION?? Have Judicial Nominees been filibustered?? or Not?
If so, who? When? If not, then why are Rush and Hannity running around saying it's never been done.
This is NOT subjective. It either was done, or was not. Which is it?
Where are the victory celebrations? Where are the President's Judicial Nominees?
Isn't it time for the Republican Party to stop playing the downtrodden and start leading as the victor? And, may I request that the mavericks, the lone rangers, and of course our Northeastern Moderate Wing of Whatever the Wind Blows in the republican party for once just ride solidly with our CIC?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.