Sen. Charles Schumer claims that he is in the Mainstream of America
and that the judges he's blocking are outside of it. What has he been smoking?
Posted on 04/21/2005 5:38:03 PM PDT by OESY
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D., Conn.) on Wednesday held a press conference to criticize Republican efforts to restore Senate tradition to the judicial confirmation process. But another proposal regarding Senate rules somehow escaped his ire, and has received scant attention despite the New York Times editorial board’s recently saying it would go “even further than the ‘nuclear option’ in eliminating the power of the filibuster.”
That proposal would amend Senate rules to end all filibusters, not just those against judicial nominees. The proposal’s sponsor said that “the filibuster rules are unconstitutional” and was quoted as saying “the filibuster is nothing short of legislative piracy.” He announced his intent to end all filibusters with an unambiguous statement: “We cannot allow the filibuster to bring Congress to a grinding halt. So today I start a drive to do away with a dinosaur — the filibuster rule.”
Despite its support by several senior senators, you haven’t heard about this proposal in the MoveOn.org ads blasting Senate Republicans. And you probably haven’t heard about it from Senate Democrats who now give their full-throated support to filibusters against President Bush’s nominees. Why? Because the proposal wasn’t offered by Republicans; it was introduced in 1995 by senior Democrats, including Sens. Lieberman and Tom Harkin (D., Iowa). When it came to a vote, 19 Democrats, including leading blue-state senators such as Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, supported the measure.
Unlike the attempts by Democrats to end all filibusters, the effort by Senate Republicans is limited to the judicial confirmation process. As Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Tuesday: “If I must act to bring fairness back to the judicial nomination process, I will not act in any way to impact the rights of colleagues when it comes to legislation.”
Despite efforts by special-interest groups on the left and their champions in the Senate, there is nothing sacrosanct about the filibuster of nominees — regardless of the Mr. Smith Goes to Washington imagery Democrats now conjure in support of filibuster rules, the same rules they once called “legislative piracy.” Our founders did not use filibusters. In fact, for the first several Congresses (from 1789 to 1806), a majority of senators always had the power to bring debate to a close (cloture) by a majority vote.
Rules guaranteeing up-or-down majority votes and abolishing the filibuster in various contexts are commonplace in modern Congresses as well. In fact, there are at least 26 laws on the books today abrogating the filibuster. For example:
* You cannot filibuster a federal budget resolution (Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974). * You cannot filibuster a resolution authorizing the use of force (War Powers Resolution). * You cannot filibuster international trade agreements (Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002). * And as the minority leader, Sen. Harry Reid (D., Nev.), well knows, you cannot filibuster legislation under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
The vote on the Harkin proposal was not the only effort to reform Senate rules. It is important to note that in 1975 the Senate voted three times in support of the power of a Senate majority under Article I of the Constitution to change the rules. Those precedents forced the Senate to act and led to a major change in the cloture rule.
So the restoration of Senate rules and traditions for judicial nominees enjoys both historical support and Senate precedent. But the constitutional power of a majority of Senators to strengthen, improve, and reform Senate rules and procedures is also expressly stated in the Constitution, and was unanimously endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Ballin.
In Ballin, the Court unanimously held that unless the Constitution expressly provides for a supermajority vote, the constitutional rule is majority vote. For example, the Constitution clearly states that each house of Congress “may determine the Rules of its Proceedings” (Article I, Section 5).
The truth is that throughout our nation’s more than 200-year history, the constitutional precedent and Senate tradition for confirming judges has been majority rule. Senators should have the right to restore that tradition. And Republican efforts to do so with the “Byrd Option” — named for Sen. Robert Byrd (D., W. Va.), who pioneered the procedure when he served as Senate majority leader — should not be demonized, particularly by those Senate Democrats who so tenaciously argued against filibusters under previous presidents.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) said recently that the current attempt to restore Senate rules on judicial nominations would turn the Senate into a “banana republic.” Given their attempts to end all filibusters in the past, at least 19 Democrats should take issue with that assertion.
Which will be very soon, by the looks of these mega-loser Republicans in the Senate. Spineless and toothless.
I must be smoking crack because I can't find the list of 19 democrat Senators that voted to do away with the filibuster altogether.
Okay, this is about the 3-4 article like this that I have seen, spelling out verb by verb and consonant by consonant that what the Republicans are doing IS NOT blowing up rules that have been in place for over 200 years, like the dems like to frame it---
SO,SO, SO---when are these articles going to be read on the floor of the Senate with all Senators in attendance and VP Dick Cheney sitting in the catbird seat with one of his famous crooked grins??
Bump
I dunno, but I have an image in my head of Cheney sitting there with his catbird smile, and it is making me have one of those grins myself. Indeed, it is. It'll be must-see tee vee.
"the evil democrats will instantly kill the filibuster rule the second they regain power"
And .. 40 years from now .. who will care if they do.
Some of our congressional people are very short-sighted.
McCain is the one bringing this up - and that may be because he believes that if he runs as a VP candidate with the dems - the dems will win - I DON'T THINK SO!!!
Everytime that guy on Saturday Night Live does Cheney, I just have to laugh, because they can't make him look dumb or silly, he is just TOO, TOO, Cheney....
This was an excellent article. The should be a slam dunk PR issue for the GOP. It makes me sick that they are so weak as to lose this PR battle.
The GOP has on their side:
A) a unanimous Supreme Court decision that says filibusters are illegal except where the Constitution specifically calls for a supermajority vote,
B) various other specific cases where filibusters are specifically banned,
C) Byrd's filibuster rule changes,
D) the 1995 attempt by Dems to ban ALL filibusters, etc..
The fact that the Democrats (including Kerry, Harkin, Kennedy, etc) voted to ban ALL filibusters just 10 years ago needs to be put in a commercial and played repeatedly all over this country.
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.