Posted on 04/09/2005 9:12:17 PM PDT by blam
Republicans plan to end cherished political tradition of the filibuster
By Philip Sherwell in Washington
(Filed: 10/04/2005)
Republican Senate leaders are planning to curb the cherished American political tradition of the filibuster in an effort to prevent the minority Democrats from using the tactic to block the appointment of conservative judges.
The furore over the case of Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman who died last month after state and federal courts refused appeals from her parents for her feeding tube to be reinstalled, has given fresh momentum to the campaign by powerful Republicans to challenge the judiciary.
The showdown over the filibuster - a two-centuries-old Senate rule that in effect allows just 41 of the 100 members to obstruct legislation and nominations by talking for as long as they can - is developing into the biggest political clash of President George W. Bush's second term.
Democrats have condemned what has widely been described as the "nuclear option" of rewriting the rules on filibustering and are threatening to retaliate by bringing Senate business to a standstill through a series of other delaying procedures.
Used alongside other tactics such as inviting questions while holding the floor, the filibuster has long been a potent weapon of obstruction in US legislative battles. The right of senators to unlimited debating time dates to the second Congress in 1791. The name filibuster originally referred to the French term for buccaneers in the Caribbean.
The longest filibuster was staged by Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, who held forth for 24 hours and 18 minutes in an unsuccessful attempt to block the 1957 Civil Rights Act, only surrendering the floor after his doctor warned him that he risked imminent kidney failure.
Under the rules filibusters must remain standing, cannot lean on the podium or take toilet breaks. Prior to his record-breaking filibuster, Mr Thurmond dehydrated himself in a sauna to delay the call of nature. Filibusters can also choose to "tag-team", speaking as long as possible before yielding the floor to a colleague.
There is no need for a filibustering speech to bear any relevance to the issue the Senate is supposed to be discussing. In the 1930s Senator Huey Long of Louisiana famously used to extol the virtues of fried oysters and recite Shakespeare while opposing legislation that he claimed favoured the rich over the poor.
Among Americans, perhaps the best-known filibuster was the fictional 23-hour speech in Mr Smith Goes to Washington in which the young Senator Jefferson Smith, played by James Stewart, takes on his corrupt and powerful peers.
The filibuster now looms as a potential weapon in the confrontation between conservatives and liberals over President Bush's judicial nominations, which are seen as the key political battleground in what both sides refer to as America's "culture wars".
The immediate conflict is over nominations to federal appeals courts - 10 of the 52 names that Mr Bush put forward during his first term were blocked by filibusters or the threat of one.
The President has resubmitted seven of the rejected 10 to Congress in a signal that he is not willing to compromise on his choices. Democrats claim that the nominees are radical conservatives determined to impose their social agenda on issues such as abortion and gay marriage. Supporters of the nominees say they are well-qualified justices who oppose the sort of so-called judicial "activism" that allowed the courts to establish abortion rights in the first place.
The stakes, however, are expected to escalate because up to three of the nine Supreme Court justices are expected to be replaced during Mr Bush's second four-year term. The separation of powers between the executive, legislature and judiciary gives senior judges considerable clout, meaning that appointments are often hotly contested.
The rules governing the use of the filibuster are complex. Republicans control 55 of the 100 Senate seats, enough for the straight majority required to approve Mr Bush's judicial nominees if they are able to reach a vote.
A filibustering operation can prevent the vote going ahead, however, unless a separate majority of 60 out of the 100 senators votes that the filibuster should not be allowed.
Unable to muster the required figure of 60, Republicans now want to scrap the filibuster option by amending the Senate rules. Plans to do so have been drawn up by Senator Bill Frist, the Republican majority leader expected to run for his party's presidential nomination in 2008.
Conservative and liberal pressure groups have brought their money and power to the opposing sides. On the right, delivering a new tranche of conservative judges is seen as payback to conservative lobbyists for their success in turning out voters for Mr Bush and Republican senators last November.
The poisonous mood in Washington deepened last week when Tom DeLay, the Republican leader in the House of Representatives, the lower chamber, accused federal courts of "running amok" in a speech to a conference entitled Confronting the Judicial War on Faith. Mr DeLay, who has led the condemnation of the courts over the Terri Schiavo case, added: "Judicial independence does not equal judicial supremacy."
The pro-Democrat grouping, People for the American Way, has countered with a series of prime-time television commercials defending the role of the filibuster as an important part of the system of checks and balances that America's founders created to rein in the power of the majority party.
After the Republican attacks on the courts over the Schiavo case, the Democrat minority says it is defending the judiciary against political interference and intimidation. "If they don't get what they want, they attack whoever is around," said Senator Harry Reid, the leader of the Democrat minority. "Now they're after the courts. I think it goes back to this arrogance of power."
The rancour over nominations on Capitol Hill goes beyond new justices. Democrats plan to mount a strong challenge tomorrow when confirmation hearings begin for John Bolton, the hawkish number three at the State Department whom Mr Bush wants to be the next ambassador at the United Nations.
I imagine he has sufficient fat reserves to last quite awhile, but can you imagine how bad he'd look and feel if he couldn't get someone to smuggle him in some hootch for the length of a filibuster?
While that's probably right, political parties are not permanent fixtures of the landscape. They aren't even mentioned in the Constitution, and none other than George Washington was opposed to them. He'd be appalled to see how ingrained into the structure of the legislative branch, not to mention our electoral process they've become. That said, they have been known to die. I think what we are seeing is the death throes of the Democratic Party. I suspect it's far left wing, which now dominates the party hierarchy, will hang on for some time, while a new party is formed of it's more moderate members, along with some RINOs. Although if you listened just to the MSM, you'd not know there was such a thing as a "moderate" Democrat, that term is only applied to Republicans, where they imply that it right wing fanatic", but it really means a "RINO"
Stopping the filibuster of judicial nominees is going to be a hard fight.
When Americans rally behind a good cause, they are invincible.
Let's rally!
Good writing skills.
Bobby Byrd would've just peed in a cup.
Filibusters are not for and have never been able to eliminate the "tyranny of the majority". That is what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is for. True filibustering never has worked much, the famous filibuster on the Civil Rights Act by Strom Thurmond being exhibit A. How long can one talk non-stop? Not too long, and then your issue will be swept away by the majority.
However, what is being debated today is not true filibustering. Like everything else, it has been lost in the debate. What Frist should do is not eliminate, but rather restore the true filibuster. If he did, then the demonRATs can have their say, and then we can move on with what the majority wants.
Interesting how these things always come in cycles. Coincidence or are the mods having way too much fun altering the order of posts.
First sentence in the article:
Republican Senate leaders are planning to curb the cherished American political tradition of the filibuster
Yet another example of the MSM’s numerous layers of editors checking facts and biases that the bloggers just don’t have.
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.