Posted on 04/26/2005 10:26:04 AM PDT by BlackRazor
Nuke the Filibuster
These are confusing days in Washington. Born-again conservative Christians who strongly want to see President Bush's judicial nominees voted on are leading the charge against the Senate filibuster, and liberal Democrats are born-again believers in that reactionary, obstructionist legislative tactic. Practically every big-name liberal senator you can think of derided the filibuster a decade ago but now sees the error of his or her ways and will go to amusing lengths to try to convince you that the change of heart is explained by something deeper than the mere difference between being in the majority and being in the minority.
At the risk of seeming dull or unfashionable for not getting our own intellectual makeover, we still think judicial candidates nominated by a president deserve an up-or-down vote in the Senate. We hardly see eye to eye with the far right on social issues, and we oppose some of these judicial nominees, but we urge Republican leaders to press ahead with their threat to nuke the filibuster. The so-called nuclear option entails a finding by a straight majority that filibusters are inappropriate in judicial confirmation battles.
But the Senate shouldn't stop with filibusters over judges. It should strive to nuke the filibuster for all legislative purposes.
The filibuster debate is a stark reminder of the unprincipled and results-oriented nature of politics, as senators readily switch sides for tactical advantage. Politicians' lack of consistency on fundamental matters — the debate over the proper balance of power between Washington and the states would be another case in point — is far more corrosive to the health of American democracy and the rule of law than any number of Bush- appointed judges could ever be. For one thing, it validates public wariness about politicians professing deep convictions.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Some things in life are just hard to believe. This editorial from the LAT is one of them.
Well, that's the way it's supposed to work. The Senate will advise & consent on each nominee, then an up or down vote.
What's this super majority crap anyway?
. . . ratcheting jaw up from desk to face.
The LA Times?
Did hell freeze over in the bowels of the LA Slimes?
The filibuster (I mean real filibuster, with cots and 48 hour speeches and peeing into buckets)can be a useful tool for bringing out public outrage over a certain bill or policy, but when used in the past was only saved for issues of such importance since it required shutting down the Senate for a strech untill the issue was resolved. Currently it allows for a minority to run the Senate with no possibility of retribution.
Another sign that we have the votes?
It seems that the LA Times has a bigger agenda here!
As with Harry Reid "negotiating" on the issue by agreeing to let certain judges pass and replacing others, this editorial proves that liberals are not afraid of what conservative legislation and a conservative judiciary will net as a result, they are upset over what they won't get. Gay marriage, euthenasia, last minute abortions, every semblance of faith removed from daily life, etc.
The Democrats smell blood. One act of terrorism because of a loose border and the Slave Party will have a majority in the Senate and maybe the Presidency too. Perhaps the LAT is salivating at the possibilities?
Bingo. Chip away at the Constitution every way they can...
Don't know about you, but I wouldn't mind doing away with the filibuster for legislation. Little known fact - up until the Senate rules changes of 1806 the majority could vote to end debate. Filibusters really are about minority rule anyway.
The true “nuclear option” is the unprecedented Democrats use of filibusters to stop President Bush’s judicial nominees.
Let’s take the use of filibusters into the future. What will the Senate Republicans do the next time a Democrat sits in the White House? Will they politely pass whatever nominee the Democrat President sends them? No, as long as there is even one Republican in the Senate, they will now also filibuster any Democrat nominee.
Thus we will move from a nominally independent judiciary appointed to life terms to a highly political judiciary appointed only in recess appointments to get around the Senate.
This, because the Democrats would rather destroy the federal judiciary than give the Republicans a power that they rightfully earned at the ballot box.
I don't have problems with filibusters, provided they're used as originally intended -- to allow additional time for debate. But they shouldn't be abused as tool to indefinitely prevent votes.
I don't have a problem with a filibuster, provided it's used as originally intended -- to provide additional time for debate before voting. I do have a problem with filibusters being used to indefinitely prevent the holding of a vote (whether it be for legislation or for judges).
About 1000 more editorials like this ad the LA Times might see an improvement in their circulation.
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.