Posted on 11/12/2003 11:48:38 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
Among the elements in the U.S. Senate that frustrate Zell Miller _ and there are plenty _ perhaps none does he find more annoying than the fact 41 senators can kill any legislation, even if the other 59 support it. The age-old rule allowing a strong minority of lawmakers in the upper chamber to filibuster _ essentially delay _ a bill to death has always irked the Georgia senator. Never has it irked him more than now, with fellow Democrats using the parliamentary technique to block four judicial appointments, all of whom he supports. Filibusters in general and judicial filibusters particularly go on trial Wednesday as Republicans kickoff a 30-hour marathon debate designed to attract attention to the cause. When they finish, the Senate is expected to consider a rules change sponsored by Miller and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., that would outlaw the infinite filibuster of judges. Miller is well aware of the ironic fate his measure will likely meet. Assuming Republicans have the votes to pass it, the rules change itself is expected to be filibustered by Democrats. Right now the filibuster kind of runs under the radar and nobody really knows its going on, said Miller, who is retiring when his term ends next year. Someday, somebody a lot more articulate and younger and more forceful than I is going to get across to the American people just what in the world is going on here. Millers wrath toward the filibuster is so strong that he devotes an entire chapter to it in his new book, A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat. He says filibuster comes from the Spanish word pirate and argues thats a fitting translation for a majority seeing its proposals pillaged by the minority. Although the bill being considered this week would apply only to judges, Miller wants to go much further. Last month, he introduced a bill that would abolish the Senate rule allowing for a filibuster with less than 50 votes. Earlier, he tried to push through a measure limiting filibusters to six or seven days and requiring only a simple-majority vote to cut it shorter. Never has one of his proposals been considered close to passage _ at least close enough to withstand a filibuster. But Miller says the goal isnt necessarily to get the measure passed this week, or even before he retires. Its to plant the seed to get it changed in the future. You want to protect the minority, want to give them a voice, but you cant let them stop an up or down vote or you shouldnt be able to, he said. Majority rule is the principle of free government everywhere except in the United States Senate. It doesnt make any sense. Under the Miller-Frist bill applying only to judges, a nomination must have been pending for 12 hours before a senator can request cloture, a vote to end debate. The first time cloture is sought, it would take 60 votes, as is the case now. After that, there would be diminishing requirements of 57, 54, 51 and finally a simple majority of those present and voting. Besides being a smaller body than the House, the Senate is often referred to as the worlds most deliberative body, with longer debates and more powers for the minority. Proponents of the filibuster say the parliamentary tool is a major part of that. Miller and most Republicans, however, argue filibusters of judicial nominations arent part of the Senates rich parliamentary history. Until these four judicial nominees were tapped by President Bush, only one such appointment had been stalled with a filibuster _ President Lyndon B. Johnsons promotion of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas to be chief justice in 1968. Johnson later withdrew the nomination. This is a first, spanning the 200-year tradition of the Senate, said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. We need to keep the pressure on to get these judges confirmed. Unless we pass his legislation and change the rules, its not likely to change. The 30-hour Senate talkathon on judges will begin Wednesday evening and go until Friday morning. At issue are nominations of four to various U.S. Appeals Courts: Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, Texas judge Priscilla Owen, Mississippi judge Charles Pickering and Hispanic lawyer Miguel Estrada. The Republicans are consumed by those four jobs and ignore the 3 million jobs that weve lost over the course of the last three years under this administrations economic policies, said Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D.
Heck, I bet a fair number of Freepers agree with me. From everything I've seen, a southern Democrat is further to the right than a northeast Republican.
Besides, what's wrong with voting for a candidate that will side with your cause on the important issues (war, tax cut, judicial nominees)?
Or were you just ribbing me?
What do you mean like Judge Bork? What's wrong with Judge Bork?
I was being sarcastic about everything except your account. This is FreeRepublican.com now. They might boot ya, no joke.
And you would help to give control back to the Democrats and Zell would be ignored by the rest of his party. "Great" thinking.
O.K. I'll be clearer: Appoint Judge Bork as soon as they recess.
I don't doubt it sometimes. Posting history should count for something, I think. I realize that with 100,000+ members it's not practical or practicable to research a poster's probable intent with a particular post, though.
I had an idea for a FR improvement for both posts and replies: a checkbox asking the moderator to 'OK' the post or reply before it posts. This would help the users demonstrate that they are aware a post may be iffy, without just posting it and having to prove himself afterwards. I've had only one post pulled in three years. I had a little email back-and-forth with JimRob about it where he said I was posting racist troll bait.
It upsetted me, but if I had been able to submit it 'for review' I could have been told much more kindly what was wrong with my post. As it was, Jim probably thought I was just trying to stir up trouble, no matter that my posting history shows that I am very careful with my wording and tend to avoid conflict on issues that are likely to provoke me.
I'm not that stupid. I wouldn't do it if control of the Senate were remotely at stake. I just think Zell has more principles than many on 'our' side. And that is to his credit.
HillaryCare fell apart when CSPAN broadcast the images of the clerks bringing in the armloads of paper that contained the bill while the democrats were demanding a vote even before the bill had been passed out! Even a lot of democrats were upset about voting for something that big that they had never seen.
"Open Judicial Mouth, Insert Foot" concerns Justice O'Connor's speech about using foreign laws and decisions to decide US Supreme Court cases. The subject of "Janice Brown: Guilty of 'Judging while Honest'" is obvious from the title.
Normally, the appointment of federal judges (which ultimately leads to appointment of Supreme Court Justices) is a back-burner issue that most folks ignore. I hope that here, on FreeRepublic, that is has become, and will remain, a front-burner issue all the way through the 2004 election.
Congressman Billybob
A filibuster on judicial appointment is a different matter. The Constitution makes it clear that the "Advise and Consent" clause requires only a majority of the Senators present is sufficient to approve a judicial (or other) presidential appointment. Applying the filibuster to that violates the Constitution, by increasing the vote margin from 51 votes to 60 votes.
Don't get caught up in the idea -- which the Democrats are peddling -- that ending the filibuster for legislation will happen if the filibuster is ended for judicial nominations. That is flat-out false. Both methods of freeing the judicial nominations leave the filibuster untouched with respect to ordinary legislation.
Congressman Billybob
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.