Filibuster Myth-Busters

The Washington Times ^ | April 15, 2005 | Wendy E. Long

[Choose Ye This Day]

Myth No. 1:Filibuster of judges is a sacred tradition.

Fact: The filibuster is nowhere in the Constitution. It is not among the "checks and balances" our Founding Fathers created. It did not even exist until the 1830s, and the "tradition" involves legislation, not judicial appointments. The filibuster was used to defend slavery and oppose the Civil Rights Act — hardly noble purposes. The current obstruction of judges is no "traditional" filibuster: it is the first time in more than 200 years that either party has filibustered to keep judges with majority support off the federal bench.

Myth No. 2: Mr. Bush's nominees are being treated no differently than other presidents' nominees.

[RightWingMama]

bump for later

[upchuck]

From the article:

The American people want senators to do the job our tax dollars pay them to do. Senators who fail to do their jobs - either by failing to show up for their committee meetings, by voting against restoring the Senate tradition of up-or-down votes for judges, or by halting the work of the federal government - might find themselves out of work when they really need the consent of the governed: at their next election.

Wouldn't that be nice? Won't happen though. There are way too many RAT-bots who vote straight RAT no matter who is running.

[chaosagent]

bookmark

[gobucks]

mega bump; the 200 years thing I wanted to know...

[JesseJane]

The American people want senators to do the job our tax dollars pay them to do. Senators who fail to do their jobs — either by failing to show up for their committee meetings, by voting against restoring the Senate tradition of up-or-down votes for judges, or by halting the work of the federal government — might find themselves out of work when they really need the consent of the governed: at their next election.

Might??

Will.

[OXENinFLA]

PING!!

[Robert A Cook PE]

I would recommend adding a specific list (list the one above, if not a copy of it) be added to your earlier words.

A question-and-answer format, or a short list that exposes the specific "lies" the liberals are endlessly repeating, adds to the more elaborate, more reasoned justifications and explanations you've got.

Figure the typical "media" person has a 5 sec period they will let a conservative speak without interrupting. Hence, the liberals use focus groups extensively to figure out WHAT their targeted suckers (er, voters) WANT to hear that will reinforce WHAT the targeted suckers already believe.

Then, with their scripts held tightly in their hand, the liberal spin begins flooding the "news media" 20-28 hours AFTER a story breaks with the scripted, highly effective 5 second sound bites and prejudiced labels that the media promotes. (Er, "reports objectively and in an unbiased way".)

Same thing could be applied to print releases: In print, but much less so than in TV or radio, a list is easier to focus somebody's attention on the lies the liberal will say next.

[Bahbah]

Very nice. Saved it.

[bertmerc1]

WCBS just reported that the filibuster has been used to approve judges for over 200 years! Will they stop at nothing?

[hattend]

BTTT

[Choose Ye This Day]

That's why I am leery of calling the Democrats' bluff and saying, "Fine! Go ahead and filibuster!" Their willing accomplices in the MSM will paint them as patriotic Mr. Smiths.

[Choose Ye This Day]

Also good to know--the ONLY things that REQUIRE a Super-Majority:

1. Convicting an Impeachment (2/3 majority in the Senate - Article 1, Section 3)

2. Expulsion of a member of one house of Congress (2/3 vote of the house in question - Article 1, Section 5)

3. Override a Presidential Veto (2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate - Article 1, Section 7)

4. Ratify a treaty (2/3 majority in the Senate - Article 2, Section 2)

5. Passing of a Constitutional Amendment by Congress (2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate - Article 5)

6. Calling for a Constitutional Convention (2/3 of the state legislatures - Article 5)

7. Ratifying a Constitutional Amendment (3/4 of the states - Article 5)

8. Restore the ability of certain rebels to serve in the government (2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate - 14th Amendment)

9. Approval or removal of the President from his position after the Vice President and the Cabinet approve such removal and after the President contests the removal (2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate 25th Amendment)

Confirming Judicial Appointees? Not on the list.

[mrsmith]

"But Mr. Fortas was opposed by a Senate majority (both Republicans and Democrats)"

Technically, he wasn't actually opposed by a majority: he wasn't supported by a majority.

The cloture vote on Abe Fortas's nomination to be Chief Justice on 10/1/68 failed on a vote of 45-43. The 43 votes for the filibuster included 24 Republicans and 19 Democrats.

12 Senators were not present, and neither side had a majority (= 50+).

[AnOldCowhand]

Ping for later

[bitt]

mark