We have a winner!!!
Click on the detestable KKK Byrd below:
Posted on 03/02/2005 5:16:19 AM PST by OXENinFLA
In 1939, one of the most famous American movies of all time, “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” hit the box office. Initially received with a combination of lavish praise and angry blasts, the film went on to win numerous awards, and to inspire millions around the globe. The director, the legendary Frank Capra, in his autobiography “Frank Capra: The Name Above the Title,” cites this moving review of the film, appearing in “The Hollywood Reporter,” November 4, 1942:
Frank Capra’s “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” chosen by French Theaters as the final English language film to be shown before the recent Nazi-ordered countrywide ban on American and British films went into effect, was roundly cheered...
Storms of spontaneous applause broke out at the sequence when, under the Abraham Lincoln monument in the Capital, the word, “Liberty,” appeared on the screen and the Stars and Stripes began fluttering over the head of the great Emancipator in the cause of liberty.
Similarly cheers and acclamation punctuated the famous speech of the young senator on man’s rights and dignity. ‘It was... as though the joys, suffering, love and hatred, the hopes and wishes of an entire people who value freedom above everything, found expression for the last time....
For those who may not have seen it, “Mr. Smith” is the fictional story of one young Senator’s crusade against forces of corruption, and his lengthy filibuster for the values he holds dear.
My, how times have changed. These days Smith would be called “an obstructionist.” Rumor has it that there is a plot afoot in the Senate to curtail the right of extended debate in this hallowed chamber, not in accordance with its rules, mind you, but by fiat from the Chair.
The so-called “nuclear option” purports to be directed solely at the Senate’s advice and consent prerogatives regarding federal judges. But, the claim that no right exists to filibuster judges aims an arrow straight at the heart of the Senate’s long tradition of unlimited debate.
The Framers of the Constitution envisioned the Senate as a kind of executive council; a small body of legislators, featuring longer terms, designed to insulate members from the passions of the day.
The Senate was to serve as a “check” on the Executive Branch, particularly in the areas of appointments and treaties, where, under the Constitution, the Senate passes judgement absent the House of Representatives. James Madison wanted to grant the Senate the power to select judicial appointees with the Executive relegated to the sidelines. But a compromise brought the present arrangement; appointees selected by the Executive, with the advice and consent of the Senate. Note that nowhere in the Constitution is a vote on appointments mandated.
When it comes to the Senate, numbers can deceive. The Senate was never intended to be a majoritarian body. That was the role of the House of Representatives, with its membership based on the populations of states. The Great Compromise of July 16, 1787, satisfied the need for smaller states to have equal status in one House of Congress: the Senate.
The Senate, with its two members per state, regardless of population is, then, the forum of the states. Indeed, in the last Congress, 52 members, a majority, representing the 26 smallest states accounted for just 17.06% of the U.S. population. In other words, a majority in the Senate does not necessarily represent a majority of the population. The Senate is intended for deliberation not point scoring. It is a place designed from its inception, as expressive of minority views. Even 60 Senators, the number required for cloture, would represent just 24% of the population, if they happened to all hail from the 30 smallest states. Unfettered debate, the right to be heard at length, is the means by which we perpetuate the equality of the states.
In fact, it was 1917, before any curtailing of debate was attempted, which means that from 1806 to 1917, some 111 years, the Senate rejected any limits to debate. Democracy flourished along with the filibuster. The first actual cloture rule in 1917, was enacted in response to a filibuster by those who opposed U.S. intervention in World War I.
But, even after its enactment, the Senate was slow to embrace cloture, understanding the pitfalls of muzzling debate. In 1949, the 1917 cloture rule was modified to make cloture more difficult to invoke, not less, mandating that the number needed to stop debate would be not two-thirds of those present and voting, but two-thirds of all Senators.
Indeed, from 1919 to 1962, the Senate voted on cloture petitions only 27 times and invoked cloture just four times over those 43 years.
On January 4, 1957, Senator William Ezra Jenner of Indiana spoke in opposition to invoking cloture by majority vote. He stated with conviction:
We may have a duty to legislate, but we also have a duty to inform and deliberate. In the past quarter century we have seen a phenomenal growth in the power of the executive branch. If this continues at such a fast pace, our system of checks and balances will be destroyed. One of the main bulwarks against this growing power is free debate in the Senate . . . So long as there is free debate, men of courage and understanding will rise to defend against potential dictators. . .The Senate today is one place where, no matter what else may exist, there is still a chance to be heard, an opportunity to speak, the duty to examine, and the obligation to protect. It is one of the few refuges of democracy. Minorities have an illustrious past, full of suffering, torture, smear, and even death. Jesus Christ was killed by a majority; Columbus was smeared; and Christians have been tortured. Had the United States Senate existed during those trying times, I am sure these people would have found an advocate. Nowhere else can any political, social, or religious group, finding itself under sustained attack, receive a better refuge.
Senator Jenner was right. The Senate was deliberately conceived to be what he called a “better refuge,” meaning one styled as guardian of the rights of the minority.
The Senate is the “watchdog” because majorities can be wrong, and filibusters can highlight injustices. History is full of examples.
In March 1911, Senator Robert Owen of Oklahoma filibustered the New Mexico statehood bill, arguing that Arizona should also be allowed to become a state. President Taft opposed the inclusion of Arizona’s statehood in the bill because Arizona’s state constitution allowed the recall of judges. Arizona attained statehood a year later, at least in part because Senator Owen and the minority took time to make their point the year before.
In 1914, a Republican minority led a 10-day filibuster of a bill that would have appropriated more than $50,000,000 for rivers and harbors. On an issue near and dear to the hearts of our current majority, Republican opponents spoke until members of the Commerce Committee agreed to cut the appropriations by more than half.
Perhaps more directly relevant to our discussion of the “nuclear option” are the seven days in 1937, from July 6 to 13 of that year, when the Senate blocked Franklin Roosevelt’s Supreme Court-packing plan.
Earlier that year, in February 1937, FDR sent the Congress a bill drastically reorganizing the judiciary. The Senate Judiciary Committee rejected the bill, calling it “ an invasion of judicial power such as has never before been attempted in this country” and finding it “essential to the continuance of our constitutional democracy that the judiciary be completely independent of both the executive and legislative branches of the Government.” The committee recommended the rejection of the court-packing bill, calling it “a needless, futile, and utterly dangerous abandonment of constitutional principle. . . without precedent and without justification.”
What followed was an extended debate on the Senate Floor lasting for seven days until the Majority Leader, Joseph T. Robinson of Arkansas, a supporter of the plan, suffered a heart attack and died on July 14. Eight days later, by a vote of 70 to 20, the Senate sent the judicial reform bill back to committee, where FDR’s controversial, court-packing language was finally stripped. A determined, vocal group of Senators properly prevented a powerful President from corrupting our nation’s judiciary.
Free and open debate on the Senate floor ensures citizens a say in their government. The American people are heard, through their Senator, before their money is spent, before their civil liberties are curtailed, or before a judicial nominee is confirmed for a lifetime appointment. We are the guardians, the stewards, the protectors of our people. Our voices are their voices.
If we restrain debate on judges today, what will be next: the rights of the elderly to receive social security; the rights of the handicapped to be treated fairly; the rights of the poor to obtain a decent education? Will all debate soon fall before majority rule?
Will the majority someday trample on the rights of lumber companies to harvest timber, or the rights of mining companies to mine silver, coal, or iron ore? What about the rights of energy companies to drill for new sources of oil and gas? How will the insurance, banking, and securities industries fare when a majority can move against their interests and prevail by a simple majority vote? What about farmers who can be forced to lose their subsidies, or Western Senators who will no longer be able to stop a majority determined to wrest control of ranchers’ precious water or grazing rights? With no right of debate, what will forestall plain muscle and mob rule?
Many times in our history we have taken up arms to protect a minority against the tyrannical majority in other lands. We, unlike Nazi Germany or Mussolini’s Italy, have never stopped being a nation of laws, not of men.
But witness how men with motives and a majority can manipulate law to cruel and unjust ends. Historian Alan Bullock writes that Hitler’s dictatorship rested on the constitutional foundation of a single law, the Enabling Law. Hitler needed a two-thirds vote to pass that law, and he cajoled his opposition in the Reichstag to support it. Bullock writes that “Hitler was prepared to promise anything to get his bill through, with the appearances of legality preserved intact.” And he succeeded.
Hitler’s originality lay in his realization that effective revolutions, in modern conditions, are carried out with, and not against, the power of the State: the correct order of events was first to secure access to that power and then begin his revolution. Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality; he recognized the enormous psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made illegality legal.
And that is what the nuclear option seeks to do to Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate.
It seeks to alter the rules by sidestepping the rules, thus making the impermissible the rule. Employing the “nuclear option”, engaging a pernicious, procedural maneuver to serve immediate partisan goals, risks violating our nation’s core democratic values and poisoning the Senate's deliberative process.
For the temporary gain of a hand-full of “out of the mainstream” judges, some in the Senate are ready to callously incinerate each Senator’s right of extended debate. Note that I said each Senator. For the damage will devastate not just the minority party. It will cripple the ability of each member to do what each was sent here to do – – represent the people of his or her state. Without the filibuster or the threat of extended debate, there exists no leverage with which to bargain for the offering of an amendment. All force to effect compromise between the two political parties is lost. Demands for hearings can languish. The President can simply rule, almost by Executive Order if his party controls both houses of Congress, and Majority Rule reins supreme. In such a world, the Minority is crushed; the power of dissenting views diminished; and freedom of speech attenuated.
The uniquely American concept of the independent individual, asserting his or her own views, proclaiming personal dignity through the courage of free speech will, forever, have been blighted. And the American spirit, that stubborn, feisty, contrarian, and glorious urge to loudly disagree, and proclaim, despite all opposition, what is honest and true, will be sorely manacled.
Yes, we believe in Majority rule, but we thrive because the minority can challenge, agitate, and question. We must never become a nation cowed by fear, sheeplike in our submission to the power of any majority demanding absolute control.
Generations of men and women have lived, fought and died for the right to map their own destiny, think their own thoughts, and speak their minds. If we start, here, in this Senate, to chip away at that essential mark of freedom – – here of all places, in a body designed to guarantee the power of even a single individual through the device of extended debate – – we are on the road to refuting the Preamble to our own Constitution and the very principles upon which it rests.
In the eloquent, homespun words of that illustrious, obstructionist, Senator Smith, “ Liberty is too precious to get buried in books. Men ought to hold it up in front of them every day of their lives, and say, ‘I am free – – to think – – to speak. My ancestors couldn’t. I can. My children will.”
We have a winner!!!
Click on the detestable KKK Byrd below:
The old coot, Byrd, apparently has more balls than all the Republicans.
Mr. Byrd seems to have forgotten that at the end of that debate there should be a vote. Debate is not an end unto itself, it serves a purpose. That purpose is to delineate the pros and cons so each Senator can make up his mind as to how to vote. To use endless debate to prevent a vote is stifling the will of the people, but then I suppose that is the true end as seen by Mr. Byrd. His self-righteous indignation is ludicrous and so transparent as to be laughable. He is an old man who has lost sight of his duty, a sad sight.
Byrd flu.........
EXcellent comment.
Remember the 39hrs. of Debate on Judicial Nominations ?
Remember how little the dems actually talked about judges?
Hitler never asked for a casualties list. I wonder if Byrd ever asked those he recruited for the Klan how many Black people they killed?
Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner in the "develop a nickname for Byrd" Contest! Do you mind if I start using that?
That's because you and I are not as smart and enlightened as the unelected judges who have special powers to see them. :)
The Filibuster
by Ronald D. Rotunda
Ronald Rotunda, author, and law professor at George Mason University, is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute.
The filibuster has a long history, but its pedigree should not make us proud. It prevented civil rights legislation from being adopted for nearly a century. Now a minority of senators is using it to prevent the Senate from voting on judicial nominees even though a majority of the senators from both parties would vote to confirm if they only could vote.
The modern filibuster is much more powerful than its historical predecessor because it is invisible: The Senate rules do not require any senator to actually hold the floor to filibuster. Instead, a minority of 41 senators simply notifies the Senate leadership of its intent to filibuster. Other Senate business goes on, but a vote on a particular issue -- a nomination -- cannot be brought to a vote. The present Senate rules that create the filibuster also do not allow the Senate to change the filibuster rules unless 67 senators agree. However, these rules should not bind the present Senate any more than a statute that says that it cannot be repealed until 67 percent of the Senate votes to repeal the statute. An earlier Senate cannot bind a present Senate on this issue.
The Senate, unlike the House, is often called a continuing body because only one-third of its members are elected every two years. But that does not give the senators of a prior generation (some of whom were defeated in prior elections) the right to prevent the present Senate from choosing, by simple majority, the rules governing its procedure. For purposes of deciding which rules to follow, the Senate starts anew every two years.
It is easy to make this point by looking at simple logic and history.
If a prior Senate can bind a later Senate, that would mean that the prior Senate could, by mere rule, impose what amounts to an important amendment to the Constitution regarding the number of votes needed to confirm a nominee. The Senate cannot change the number of votes needed to confirm a nominee any more than it can properly change the number of votes necessary for consenting to the ratification of a treaty from two-thirds to 75 percent or 51 percent.
Recall that Senator James Jeffords became an independent after the 2000 election. That shifted control of the Senate from Republicans to Democrats. The new Senate then reorganized itself, changed committee staff, and so on. However, if a prior Senate can really bind the present Senate, then an earlier Senate could have passed a rule that prevents reorganizing the Senate. We all know that such an effort would be as outrageous as the Federalist Party (which lost in the election of 1800) continuing to control the Senate and decide committee ratios, staff allocations, etc., as long as 34 percent of the Senate remained Federalist.
One might respond: But that would mean that the Senate could not vote on anything while there was a filibuster going on. Ah, but as mentioned above, the Senate rules do not require any senator to actually take the floor to speak: Senators simply notify the Senate leadership of the plan to filibuster on a particular bill or nomination and that kills it dead in its tracks. Or, think of it this way: What if the prior Senate (before the most recent election that shifted control to the Republicans) used its rule-making power to provide that judicial appointments require 75 percent or even unanimous consent, and that the Senate could not change that rule except by a two-thirds majority? Surely, no one would argue that the prior Senate could prevent the present Senate from changing that rule. Filibusters cannot be used to prevent changes in the rules that govern filibusters.
The present Senate rules are no more sacrosanct than a statute. If the president signs a law, it remains in effect until the House and Senate repeal it and the president signs the repealing legislation. The prior law cannot provide that it remains law unless 67 percent of the senators approve the repeal. Similarly, a Senate rule remains in effect only until a majority of the Senate changes that rule. The prior rule cannot provide that it remains law unless 67 percent of the senators approve the repeal, but that is what the Senate rules now provide.
Precedent also supports this principle. In 1975 the Senators changed the filibuster requirement from 67 votes to 60, after concluding that it only takes a simple majority of Senators to change the rules governing their proceedings. As Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-MT) said at the time: "We cannot allow a minority" of the senators "to grab the Senate by the throat and hold it there." Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Byrd, and Biden, all agreed. Nearly a decade ago, Lloyd Cutler, the former White House Counsel to Presidents Carter and Clinton, concluded that the Senate Rule requiring a super-majority vote to change the rule is "plainly unconstitutional."
That was then. Now, a minority of senators once again claims that the Senate cannot change it rules to prevent this filibuster unless a super-majority agree. That is wrong. To paraphrase Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, to vote without debate is unwise, but to debate without even being able to vote is ridiculous.
The Senate never meant to be popularly elected.
You said: How odd that Senator Byrd fails to mention that in 1975 he voted (as part of a simple majority) to change the filibuster requirement from 67 votes to 60.
Thank you for that information. Senator Byrd also neglects to mention that modern "filibusters" do not include ANY real debate, rather, they are used to stifle votes and debate, clearly contrary to his stated point (but not his actual intent) that debate should be paramount in the workings of the Senate.
The irony. When it was about Gore, it was all about the majority vote. All of a sudden, the democrats discovered state's rights. Amazing.
See the second last paragraph of the linked article for more info:
http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-16-03.html
Granted, emmanations and penumbras are difficult to spot. Perhaps some special glasses would help. They would have a piece of duct tape over any part of the lens that permitted viewing of plain language.
What an old fraud. He is the one trying to Muzzle the Vote . He is the one trying to obstruct the will of the majority of the senators.
That's probably what happenned when they first discovered penumbras and emantions. The supremes had these glasses secretly developed to see them better.
Only someone as senile as this old f@rt would consider a filibuster (monopoly of the Senate Floor) "debate". When will this pompous shaky old racist move on?
Bobby was then in his fifteenth term as WV's senator, so I guess he knows all about it.
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.