[Buke]

quick question about the filibuster. i have talked with some liberal friends of mine and they claim that the republican party used this during Clinton's administration. now i am an independent who votes for who i think is right regardless of party. i figured a group of republicans would know the truth. has the republican party used the filibuster during Clinton nominations, and if so, why is it any different then the democrats doing it to Bush's?

[Prince Caspian]

My understanding is that, although liberals like to claim the Republicans did the same thing to some of Clinton's appointees, it was not. In Clinton's case, it was a matter of the appointee not being voted out of committee in the first place. It is necessary to receive a majority of judicial committee votes in order to even have the opportunity to be voted on by the full Senate. The Republicans were the majority party in the Senate and therefore had the majority number of committee members. Some of Clinton's appointees did not receive a majority of the judicial committee members' votes.

The current situation is one where the appointee has been voted out of the judicial committee and awaits a vote by the full Senate. But the full Senate vote requires cloture, or the vote of 60 Senators to cut off debate. The Democrats stall the vote by means of the threat of a fillibuster (less than 60 votes for cloture). This latter situation has never before been done to a judicial appointee. It is most definitely not the same thing as what happened to some Clinton appointees. A vote to change the Senate rules eliminating fillibusters on judicial appointment votes eliminates a fillibuster option that has never before been exercised. The understanding and agreement has always been that nominees who get voted out of committee receive an up or down vote by the full Senate -- no fillibusters. Eliminating the judicial vote fillibuster DOES NOT eliminate the fillibuster in any other legislative circumstance.