if the RATS want to "Filibuster" then let their RATTY ass get up there a FILLIBUSTER! none of this just saying "We're Filibustering" crap get up there and DO IT!!!
Posted on 05/10/2005 6:56:28 PM PDT by Benherszen
The Not-So-Secret History of Filibusters
By GEORGE J. MITCHELL Published: May 10, 2005
EVERYONE recalls "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," but too few remember the real-life Mrs. Smith. So, as the Senate nears a vote on a proposal to unilaterally change Senate rules for confirming federal judges, I am reminded of the words spoken 55 years ago by Senator Margaret Chase Smith of Maine in her famous "Declaration of Conscience" against the tactics of Senator Joe McCarthy, a member of her own party.
"I don't believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest," the senator said. "Surely we Republicans aren't that desperate for victory. While it might be a fleeting victory for the Republican Party, it would be a more lasting defeat for the American people. Surely it would ultimately be suicide for the Republican Party and the two-party system that has protected our American liberties from the dictatorship of a one-party system."
The circumstances are obviously different; there is no McCarthyism in the current dispute. But the principles of exercising independent judgment and preserving our system of checks and balances are at the heart of the Senate rules debate.
Senator Smith embodied independence and understood the Senate's singular place in our system of checks and balances. Our founders created that system to prevent abuse of power and to protect our rights and freedoms. The president's veto power is a check on Congress. The Senate's power to confirm or reject judicial nominees balances the president's authority to nominate them. The proposal by some Republican senators to change rules that have governed the Senate for two centuries now puts that system in danger.
Since 1789, the Senate has rejected nearly 20 percent of all nominees to the Supreme Court, many without an up-or-down vote.
In 1968 Republican senators used a filibuster to block voting on President Lyndon B. Johnson's nominee for chief justice of the Supreme Court. During the debate, a Republican senator, Robert Griffin, said: "It is important to realize that it has not been unusual for the Senate to indicate its lack of approval for a nomination by just making sure that it never came to a vote on the merits. As I said, 21 nominations to the court have failed to win Senate approval. But only nine of that number were rejected on a direct, up-and-down vote."
Between 1968 and 2001, both parties used filibusters to oppose judicial nominees. In 2000, the last year of Bill Clinton's presidency, Republican senators filibustered two of his nominees to be circuit judges. They also prevented Senate votes on more than 60 of Mr. Clinton's judicial nominees by other means.
So much for the assertion that filibustering to prevent votes on judicial nominees is a new tactic invented by Senate Democrats.
Senate rules can be changed, and they often have been. But Senate Republicans don't have the votes for a change within the rules. So they propose to go around them, to act unilaterally to get their way. It's what they call the "nuclear option."
They claim that their actions are justified because the filibuster is being used unfairly to stop the confirmation of President Bush's nominees. But 208 of the president's 218 judicial nominees have been approved. That's right: the Senate has confirmed 95 percent of Mr. Bush's judicial nominees. That's a higher percentage of approval than any of his three predecessors achieved.
During my six years as majority leader of the Senate, Republicans, then in the minority, often used filibusters to achieve their goals. I didn't like the results, but I accepted them because Republicans were acting within the rules; and we were able to work together on many other issues. There were 55 Democratic senators then. We had the power to take the drastic action now being proposed, but we refrained from exercising that power because it was as wrong then as it is now.
Most Americans may not be aware of the complexities of the Senate's rules, but they do know and understand two fundamental principles: playing by the rules and dealing fairly with others.
The nuclear option violates both. If it's exercised, I hope that enough modern-day Senator Smiths, guided by what is best for the nation and the Senate, will vote to stop it.
Benherszen, you don't post often, so I would like to hear your point of view. Thanks
Thanks.. that's helpful. Mitchell says two nominees were filibustered. No idea about the other?
Since 1789, the Senate has rejected nearly 20 percent of all nominees to the Supreme Court, many without an up-or-down vote.
What Mitchell fails to state is that most of those 20 percent were rejected BY THE MAJORITY (something that happens when the President is in one party, and the Senate majority is the other party.
It is not unusual for a party in power in the Senate to hold up nominees ... and it can be more polite than having the vote come to the floor, where the majority could then vote the nominee down. That might be more embarrassing for all concerned.
The Democrats "held up" more judical candidates of GHWBush than the Republicans held up Clinton's nominees over 6 years when they held power in the Senate.
What has to be considered is that only recently has a minority sought to provide a "check" on the right of the majority ... one that the Dems. would never tolerate if the Dems were in power.
Scum. Scum and liars ... all of them!!
Mike
No, I'm not positive but I think it was pretty obscure and well before "the modern era". I checked , fact check.org but I didn't see an actual history available. If I find out I'll let you know.
Don't forget, Ive been told Coulter is on Leno tonight
I agree, Mitchell is distorting. There seems to be alot of that on both sides. You would think, if two district court nominees were filibustered in 2000, someone would have remembered that... or been able to look it up.
I'm not sure I agree that GHW Bush had more nominees held up than Clinton did.... it seemed to me that we Republicans were pretty guilty of "dragging our feet" on Bubba's picks.. hence, his resorting to recess appointments.
There has been a constant, accelerating degredation of the process ever since Bork. He was the first who was opposed soley due to his political beliefs. It's been a downhill slide for both sides since then.
I believe we NEED this vote to re-establish the historical norm. PRESIDENTS get to pick Judges. The Senate should veto nominees who are not qualified... end of story.
I love the way the Rats claim the filibuster is a 'Constitutional Right". Sorry guys... it's NOT IN THERE!
Ann on Leno? Oh great.. now I have to stay awake. :-)
I feel the same way, I tend to write nasty letters to these jerks and I pull no punches. It may not do any good but at least they know your there!
I believe the 2 were going to be or for a short time were before they were confirmed. If I recall, they were and are pretty radical and after the disasters that had happened prior to them, the GOP was prepared and talking about it, I believe it was Lott who said this isn't right and brought them forward to be confirmed, or something to that effect. But the bottom line is that they were not denied an ultimate vote by filibuster. If Im wrong please correct me
if the RATS want to "Filibuster" then let their RATTY ass get up there a FILLIBUSTER! none of this just saying "We're Filibustering" crap get up there and DO IT!!!
Blue slip is the tradition of a home state senator being able to pocket veto people from his state.
Filibuster is the tradition of using debate to prevent a vote. It had not been done before, and when Clinton's Judges were blocked they were blocked by majority vote, as Bork was blocked when nominated by Reagan and Haynes and Carswell were blocked when nominated by Nixon.
The Dems would change the rules so fast on any attempted Rep filibuster that it would make our heads spin.
Now or never, friends. If it is unconstitutional for them, it is for us.
Senate rules dont work that way.
Go to www.fairjudiciary.com -- there is a link on the homepage to an article by Marty Gold in the Harvard Law Journal on the history of filibusters, filibuster reform and it makes the case for why it should not, can not, be applied to the judicial nominees.
He didn't address how in the past, a filibuster required staying up, speaking. This crap has gone on for far too long. They would have worn themselves out.
This is just a temper tantrum. Holding out on a quarrum (like when the Chicken D's left Texas to avoid voting on the 200x redistricting).
BUMP
I posted this Mitchell piece because i was curious about peoples thoughts on it.
Personally, , i mean the GOP has the votes to bring them to the floor for a vote and they have votes to confirm them. THE COMMIE LEFTIST DEMS KNOW THIS. So the dems are not happy about this so of course they dont want votes on them. LET THEM HAVE A real filibuster , let them read contents of the communist manifesto if they want to. LOL
Did you notice that Mitchell identifies the struggle in political terms instead of Constitutional terms? The democrats are a party who wish to engineer the destruction of our republic by using the judiciary.
Perhaps that is the idea?! Thanks for responding, Benherszen...
While your queries were not addressed to me- I fully concur with your implied answers- 2xhard!!!!
Hear! Hear!
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.