McCain Sees 'Slippery Slope' in Filibuster Ban

LA Times ^ | 04/11/05 | Ronald Brownstein

[advance_copy]

WASHINGTON — Sen. John McCain, breaking from his party's Senate leadership, said Sunday that he would oppose any move to prohibit filibusters against judicial nominations.

Appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation," McCain said a ban on filibusters for judicial nominations could spread to other legislative issues, fundamentally changing the Senate.

"I think that there's a problem with a slippery slope," he said.

In that way, he argued, the precedent could ultimately hurt the GOP by allowing Democrats to bar the filibuster the next time they hold the White House and a majority in the Senate.

"If we don't protect the rights of the minority … if you had a liberal president and a Democrat-controlled Senate, I think that it could do great damage," said McCain, who sought the GOP presidential nomination in 2000 and is considering another run in 2008.

[advance_copy]

This just makes you want to spit. Bottom line is McCain will back the supermajority hurdle for Bush appointments. Does anyone think Sen-a-ter McCain would support a supermajority requirement for judges appointed by a DemocRAT?

[Prophet in the wilderness]

For a second there ( maybe I need to get my eyes checked, I thought the thread lines said " McCain see a Sloppy Joe in the filibuster ban "

[sirchtruth]

Sen. John McCain, breaking from his party's Senate leadership

How many times do you Rep in Arizona have too see this to relize this guy is a loser?

[leprechaun9]

I wish he would go back to Hanoi where he would be more comfortable!

[InterceptPoint]

"If we don't protect the rights of the minority … if you had a liberal president and a Democrat-controlled Senate, I think that it could do great damage," said McCain

Does anyone but this idiot McCain believe that the Dems would hesitate for more than a minute if they were in power and the Pubbies tried to filibuster one of their nominees? The fact is the Dems would execute the Nuclear Option in a heartbeat if it served their purpose.

[Jim Noble]

Does anyone think Sen-a-ter McCain would support a supermajority requirement for judges appointed by a DemocRAT?

You don't get it.

There are not 20 Republican senators who would vote against President Hillary Clinton's nominees. There certainly aren't 41.

When radical feminist and left-wing activist Ruth Bader Ginsburg was nominated in 1993, only THREE Republicans voted against her.

The Democrats don't have to worry about a minority Republican filibuster because most of the Republicans support the same kind of judges that they do-leftist, internationalist, pro-death, pro-criminal, pro group rights.

We need to take over the party the way the leftists took over the Democratic party in 1969-1974.

[Cboldt]

McCain, Snowe, Collins favor ceding minority control over the confirmation of judges.

They best not complain about DEM obstruction. IIRC, they don't. (complain about DEM obstruction).

Maybe the battle for judicial confirmation by a majority of the Senate will go the way of the GOP's idea to dismantle the federal Department of Education.

[Solamente]

McCain just can't shake off the Stockholm Syndrome..

[tkathy]

If this gives the dims fodder to return to majority in 2006, it will be disaster.

[InterceptPoint]

Now we see why Frist isn't executing the Nuclear Option. Even with 55 so called Republicans in the Senate, he doesn't have the votes. To many RINOs.

[sure_fine]

of course he does, it would hurt 'his party'

[OXENinFLA]

And what kind of slippery slope are we on when we let Judges make law senator Beavis?

[moehoward]

I agree.

I mean the guy seems nice and all, but I'll never forget his panicked, deer in the headlight routine years ago when asked about the constitutionality of anchor baby citizenship. I've never heard so many "uhs" and "I thinks" in a single sentence in my life.

[anniegetyourgun]

GGGRRRRR.....

[firewalk]

oxeninfla
& rinos in washington
plus...now we got those slippery slopes
yikes!

[ken5050]

What this really means is that he's given up any chance of running for the WH in 2008 as a Republican..

[advance_copy]

Does anyone but this idiot McCain believe that the Dems would hesitate for more than a minute if they were in power and the Pubbies tried to filibuster one of their nominees? The fact is the Dems would execute the Nuclear Option in a heartbeat if it served their purpose.

I bet McCain would vote against a filibuster if it were a GOP minority doing it. The silver lining here is that McCain can FORGET about the GOP nomination for President, forever.

[gridlock]

We should let the Democrats fillibuster, but we should make them actually do it. If they want to block a judicial nominee, they should have to extend debate and actually debate, to keep the vote from happening. I wanna see Teddy Kennedy in the well of the Senate, reading from the phone book. I wanna see Robert Byrd waxing lyrical about the memories of his mis-spent youth. I wanna hear Hillary! Rodham Clinton run through her continuous-run loop of tape about the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy at least eight times in a row.

If the Democrats think it is that important, let them shut down the Senate for weeks at a time. Eventually, they will cave. Enough of them will fall away that cloture can be invoked and the nominee approved. The Senate 'Pubbies would only have to do this once, and the lesson will resonate for a long, long time.

[Walkure]

--We should let the Democrats fillibuster, but we should make them actually do it. If they want to block a judicial nominee, they should have to extend debate and actually debate, to keep the vote from happening--

This whole mess obscures two important points:

1. A serious flaw in the Constitution is that appointment of federal judges is left to the Senate, and not the House. One reason elimination of the fillibuster is so constitutional is because a judge may get 51 (out of 100) floor votes in the Senate, but those 51 Senators may represent ONLY EIGHTEEN PERCENT of the US population. The injustice of this is obvious and inherent. What conservatives should move for--and yes this will take a long time of course--is a constitutional amendment to move federal judicial nominations to a body (House) representative of the people and sensitive to popular will, and away from a remote, elitist body (Senate) out of touch with the masses of Americans.

2. The real problem, though, is not 1., above. Rather JUDICIAL REVIEW itself is the real problem. Judicial review of legislation passed by legislators elected by a free people is expressed nowhere in the US Constitution. Furthermore it is inherently un(small d)democratic. Legislators and the POTUS, along with state governors and legislators take an oath to uphold the Constitution, it should be assumed that any legislation passed by the above bodies and signed into law by the above executives is consitutional per se. Judicial review merely spits in the face of popular will. I hate to praise Europe (or even the UK) but they have had the good sense not to be burdened by this odious doctrine.

[nina0113]

We should let the Democrats fillibuster, but we should make them actually do it. If they want to block a judicial nominee, they should have to extend debate and actually debate, to keep the vote from happening.

Absolutely! That's what I put in my letter to Senator Warner who remains undecided about the constitutional option: Compel the Democrats to make it a real filibuster.