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.
And of course you have some grand scheme that will explain why the Republican party moves left to go conservative I suppose....
Does that statement make sense to you?
I gathered from that that the only way to reach a conservative goal is incrementally instead of all at once. I would like to know how moving left is moving toward a conservative goal of any sort. If I misunderstood you, please clarify
There are even more "countless postings" on FR, that apply to actual political conservatism. You're confusing traditional conservatism with rightwing extremism.
The question for you is simple. Don't you want to have more conservatives like Scalia's, Thomases and Rehnquist's on the USSC, then moderates like O'Conner and Kennedy?
Nope.
The question for you is simple. Don't you want to have more conservatives...
The answer is simple. Use the best strategies to attain that goal.
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.