Filibusters of Judicial Nominations: Myth and Fact

Fact: Republicans are seeking to restore the advice and consent constitutional obligations of the Senate for judicial nominees -- not eliminate the legislative filibuster (filibusters on bills or amendments) -- even though Democrats have supported in the past abolishing all forms of filibusters.

In 1995, Democrats (Bingaman, Boxer, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Lieberman, and Sarbanes) wanted to end the legislative filibuster. In 1995, the only senators on record supporting the end of the legislative filibuster were all Democrats, nine of whom are still serving in the Senate.

i don't think anyone is doubting that the party in power is likely to screw around with the rules. When FDR was President he attempted to stack the Supreme Court by opening more seats for example.

However, it should be noted that the most lasting impact a President can have on this nation is whom he appoints to the Courts. For instance, can you imagine how much more impact the new deal would have had if they could have simply added more judges? To end the filibuster for the nominating process could bite the GOP in the butt just as if the Democrats had been able to pass the reforms you noted in 1995 would have crippled the party today.

However, it should be noted that the most lasting impact a President can have on this nation is whom he appoints to the Courts. For instance, can you imagine how much more impact the new deal would have had if they could have simply added more judges? To end the filibuster for the nominating process could bite the GOP in the butt just as if the Democrats had been able to pass the reforms you noted in 1995 would have crippled the party today.

Duly noted.

The Democrats have never forgiven President Bush and the Republicans for having "stolen" the presidential election...twice. They will do whatever it takes, smear whomever it takes, and bend whatever rules it takes to keep this "unelected" president from having the lasting impact you mention.

It doesn't matter what the credentials of these particular judges are. By definition, they're conservative and, therefore, less likely to legislate from the bench. Getting legislation pushed through the court system is the only hope left to the dwindling power and influence of the Democratic party.

End of story.

...and welcome to FreeRepublic!

One thing the republicans haven't made clear enough: That they only want to end the filibuster on judicial nominees, not all filibusters.

Once again we lose the soundbite war of words.

Another example is how democrats go on television and quote the high percentage of Bush judicial nominees who have received their floor vote. It sounds like an impressive number because no anchor or no republican points out these appointments are all low level courts.

.

To end the filibuster for the nominating process could bite the GOP in the butt..

Letting someone get away with the wrong thing today so they will let you get away with the wrong thing later is hardly a winning strategy.

Bullies need to be deal with, not appeased. The dimocrats are trying to bully their way through the judicial nominee process because they know they don't have the votes to do it constitutionally.

Another example is how democrats go on television and quote the high percentage of Bush judicial nominees who have received their floor vote.

Another example is democrats asserting that the GOP has done this in the past (Hatch not letting Clinton nominees out of committee; Abe Fortas in 1968). Effort is made to divert attention from the distinguishing characteristics of those cases.

Another example is pundits playing devil's advocate or turn-the-tables. The GOP should "keep the filibuster" because it will need it when it is out of power. Misdirection here is that the Senate is shirking a DUTY it has to the people, to the president, and to the Constitution.

Others say the timing is bad because the GOP spent political capital on the Terri Schiavo case. That the GOP Congress, by statute (and by Delay's follow-up comments), over-reached into the province of the judiciary. Therefore, Congress shouldn't be adamant about confirming (some) of the president's judicial nominees. But having "good" judges would reduce the incidence of Congressional urge to step in. Congress is a check against the judiciary, why deny it?

The myth is carried by the Demrat's. . .and the facts are in short supply; the truth, not being shared by many Repubs, for sure.

'Privatizing Social Security is another Demrat myth; their myth list is a long one. . .but they all come from the same Demrat playbook on how to insure that the second term of a a majority-elected President; is rendered, 'null and void'.

Where art thou Repubs?. . .Drinking the Demrat's poison it seems.

To end the filibuster for the nominating process could bite the GOP in the butt just as if the Democrats had been able to pass the reforms you noted in 1995 would have crippled the party today.

I don't believe that's true, especially if the Republican leaders, and we within our own circles of friends, make folks understand that what the Dems are doing is NOT Constitutional! Sure, filibusters are allowed in other legistlation, but the Constitution makes it clear that the Senate is in an Advise and Consent role when it comes to Judicial choices, and all that is needed is a SIMPLE MAJORITY! Anything else is monkeying with the rules for political advantage.

"However, it should be noted that the most lasting impact a President can have on this nation is whom he appoints to the Courts."

The Dems are attempting a huge impact. . .by demanding that Judges/Justices conform to their litmus test. . .so as to impose their agenda by an 'over-ruling' Judiciary.

The only 'test' should be that these Judges are committed to the belief that the strength of our Country is embedded in our Constitution - as it is written - rather than viewing it as a 'living document'; meant to morph into new/and or altered interpretations so as to serve a particular culture. . .

. . .and a belief that our Judiciary shares the 'balancing act' - that it is not meant to serve political idiologies that are determined to circumvent the 'checks and balances' of our Legislature. . ..

This is a battle that never 'should be'. . .but the Liberal Left has 'brought it on'. . .

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.