Posted on 05/12/2005 12:02:54 AM PDT by nickcarraway
WASHINGTON -- Students of American politics are about to witness a real battle royal in the Senate. The use of the filibuster is the issue. We are not talking about the filibuster as used by Southern Democrats to preserve segregation. That filibuster was the parliamentary standby resorted to by Democratic reactionaries for much of the 20th century. This filibuster is the parliamentary standby resorted to by liberal Democrats. They use it to preserve not segregation but rather judge-made law. They are the reactionaries of the 21st century.
In the federal system of government, created by our Constitution, the legislature makes the law, the president executes the law, and the courts judge whether the law is constitutional. Yet as the Democrats' power in legislatures all over the land has slipped into minority status they have increasingly favored the courts to make law. That is not very democratic, but then neither was segregation. In the Senate today Democrats comprise the minority just as Southern Democrats once did. Thus like the Southern Democrats they must needs resort to the filibuster.
Not surprisingly the liberal Democrats use the filibuster to preserve a form of governance as antithetical to the Constitution as segregation once was, that is to say, judge-made law. Increasingly laws made in the legislatures have reflected the wishes of the growing American majority, the conservative majority. Judge-made law is the law of the Democratic minority. The battle royal we are about to see in the Senate is essentially about whether the Democrats can continue their rear guard action against progress or, to use another of the words liberal Democrats have long thought they held the franchise on, change.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is ready to end the impasse over seven of the President's judicial nominees in the Senate. They are being held up by the Democrats' threat to filibuster against them, a filibuster that takes 60 votes to shut off. Frist is threatening to pass a parliamentary rule that judicial nominees cannot be filibustered against. Creating that rule takes only 51 votes, which he believes he has. There is talk from some senators such as Senator Trent Lott that a compromise is advisable, but no compromise is possible.
Control of judicial nominations is the Democrats' last means of making policy in this increasingly conservative country. They are unlikely to control the Congress for years to come. In the national vote for the presidency they seem to come close to beating the Republicans, but consider the mediocre field of potential presidential candidates they have for 2008. With a field led by such a polarizing figure as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, they are unlikely to win the presidency. In the weeks ahead the Democrats will fight to the end for the filibuster. It is all they have.
The Republicans have been preparing for the fight for weeks. They have gotten essential legislation out of the way. The Senate is about ready for the battle over the filibuster, and the Republicans will either fight it as vigorously as the Democrats defend it or they will let the Democrats dictate the shape of the federal judiciary. Frankly I doubt that Senator Lott can work out a compromise. The looming openings on the Supreme Court make Republican compromise impossible. At the end of the Supreme Court's session, probably in mid-June, the Chief Justice might well retire. By the end of the summer there could be two vacancies. By the time Supreme Court vacancies open the filibustering of judicial appointees must no longer be possible. Surely all Republicans know this.
Thus, my fellow political connoisseurs, pull up a chair. Prepare for the fireworks. The 527 committees of both parties have already been preparing the debate. If the liberal Democrats lose this one their fate is sealed. If the Republicans lose the judiciary remains in reactionary hands for a while longer. My guess is that the Republicans are going to win.
Did anyone hear Rush today, reading a history from 1889 or so, when a similar Senate rules battle took place?
To have a battle, don't you need two sides? I haven't seen my GOP senators show a pair yet.
I think teddy the swimmer should be challenged with harpoon gun's at 100 yards.
Never misunderestimate the power of weakness to reward the enemy with victory.
To ask for a majority of Senators to embark upon something that they perceive as being "dangerous" politically generally gets the same results as asking a class of thrid graders to probe a field of landmines. It just doesn't get done. Now, if the Repulican Senate were composed of "normal people" who have faced adversity and/or real danger in their lives beyond the near paralyzing fear of being called a name by someone in the opposition, this wouldn't even be an issue.
Out here in the real world, when someone's inaction can cause you to lose money that you actually NEED to live on, or cause you to lose your job and all that goes with it, it becomes a simple matter to actually threaten their safe little world. Actions have consequences for the little guy. It's time for our Senators to understand that they aren't merely living in some syndicated soap opera. It's time for them to face consequences for malfeasance of office, for violating their oath of office, and for violating the laws they write.
They aren't our LORDS. The last set of those we had 225+ years ago, we ran out on a rail. We can do the same with this set as well.
It's up to the people to phone in and convince them it's financially and politcally "safer" in the minefield. : )
bump
"My guess is that the Republicans are going to win."
I hope he is right.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Gold_Gupta_JLPP_article.pdf
Lots of history. Before 1806, Senate rules expressed, specifically, a process of moving to the vote on a simple majority. The unanimous consent rule was used rarely from then, through the 1800's, to stifle taking a vote. The first use of Senate Rules to avoid taking the vote were in the late 1830's, over censuring President Jackson for withdrawing federal deposits from the Bank of the United States. Filibuster reform was attempted in 1850, 1873 and 1883 by trying to add the pre-1806 rule. In 1890, some Senators tried to create a cloture precedent via majority vote. The cloture rule we have today (Rule XXII) didn't exist until 1917. The use of parliamentary maneuvers aiming to modify Rule XXII by a majority vote, for at least some class(es) of matters, were undertaken in 1959, 1975 and 1979.
The article also cites the significant filibusters in Senate history, but in the context of the parliamentary rules that permit a minority of Senators to stifle moving to the vote. Good article, in places tough slogging. I recommend it HIGHLY. The media and politician presentations do NOT illuminate that the nature of the battlefield is parliamentary procedure. The fact that the Senate is stepping on the president's toes, and in effect thrwarting the Constitution, is (unfortunately) merely a point of debate.
Concerning his comments on the Republicans winning, from his lips to God's ears. BUMP for the article!
The writer had better think this part over. Once you give the judicial branch of government the power to "interpret" the meaning of any constitution that constitution becomes meaningless, and we get law by judges. We're seeing that happen now. That's what all the judicial fuss is about.
Yet as the Democrats' power in legislatures all over the land has slipped into minority status they have increasingly favored the courts to make law.
Yup. And, courts can only do that if they becomes the interpreters of constitutional law. Once the Constitution becomes what judges say it is why do we need a Congress?
After the filibustering of judges is over does anyone really think that the new judges appointed by Bush to a lifetime job, and accountable to no one, will be any better ten years from now than the bunch we currently have on the bench? Is there any guarantee?
"Get ir done"
Larry, the cable guy
He's right, friend.
Republicans know that a loss is not acceptible. The judiciary, along with the War on Terror, is the reason the electorate gave them the majority.
There will be well over 50 votes to end the filibuster. Warner will vote with the republicans. As will several of the 'moderate' GOP. I expect at least two democrats (Nelson of Nebraska, Salazar and possibly Landrieu) to vote with the GOP or abstain.
Hey there, Cboldt.
I say there will be 55 votes to end the filibuster. I say Warner and at least a couple of the 'mod-squad' (Chaffee, Collins, Snowe) will vote to end. We can expect a couple dems to vote to end as well. What say you?
Actually it only takes 50 votes in this instance because V.P. Cheney is the tie breaker.
Thanks! That was fascinating to hear yesterday.
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.