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.
Pray for W and Our Troops
I'm pretty tired of the fainthearts and whiners who have been bashing Frist for months. If they would stop and think for a moment (admittedly, a lot to ask), they would realize that Frist has more personally at stake in this battle than anyone in Washington. He HAS to win, or he is finished in the Senate and will lose any hope of 1600 Penn. Ave.
I have complete confidence in the President and Dr. Frist. The Operating Room is being prepared; major surgery is scheduled. Don't worry, Searchlight, this won't hurt a bit! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
"Is there any guarantee?"
Setting death and tases aside, are there ANY gurantees. It's All probabilities my FRiend.
Tough call. It's close. McCain, Snow and Chaffee have made the strongest statements against a return to a simple majority being adequate to move a judicial nominee to the vote. Collins, Specter, Hagel, and few others have made noises that they aren't keen on the idea, but that doesn't mean they won't vote to end the present practice.
The showdown will play in the arena of parliamentary procedure, couched in Senate rules and precedent.
I'm not sure how many DEMs will cross over. If it was more than a few, I think Reid would have negotiated a settlement. My guess is the DEMs will pull the trigger by objecting to taking a vote, Frist will call for a ruling from the chair, a bunch of confusing parliamentary stuff will go down, and we'll have a vote on at least that one nominee. I can imagine a series of similar showdowns. We won't know, until it happens, the phrasing of the "nuclear question" or the ruling from the chair. If the question is of Constitutional import, the chair sends the question back to the Senators (i.e., the chair "doesn't rule" on the question).
At any rate, I expect it to be closer than 55-45. I will not be surprized at 51-50.
I'm not sure why all the fear and buildup. Even if the vote fails, we're at status quo. Nothing to lose!
right now on CSPAN , the democRAT speakers are all bashing W and filibuster rule , while the pubbies are NOT challenging them at all!!!!!!!
I agree. Thats why I'd like to see federal judges limited to 12 year terms. It cuts down on the damage any one judge can do, and still gives them the "independence" they say they need.
Apointing Constitutionalists is only the first step in fixing the Courts. It's an important one, but does not stop there. If it did, a Democrat (or Republican) could eventually be elected that would appoint an activist to the Courts.
This is important for a few reasons. One, if Reps succeed against the MSM, Dems and RINO's they have weakened all three. I would hope that would give them a sense of confidence they have lacked to start governing as though they own the place. Since they do, because we gave them the keys.
Two, it will be seen as a challenge to the Judiciary. That the Congress, House and President are serious about addressing the overreach of power by the Judiciary.
The long term solution needs to be a construct of Congress that includes enough Senators devoted to the Constitution that will exercise their constitutional authority and personally vote to toss questionable verdicts from the Courts. Shake up the Jurisdictions of the Courts if need be. That is what we need to work towards.
We need to educate the public about the Constitution, elect Constitutionalist with spine as Senators, and keep a Republican in the W.H. that can be depended on to do his duty to stand firm for Constitutionalists on Courts. This will take years, but it'll be worth it in the end. The first step, though, must be to break the filibusters.
Yes, I heard Rush on 24/7 since baseball decided to interfere. I hope he reads it again because it deserves more attention. It was fascinating, and of course, I was never taught these events in public education.
I wonder if it's been posted as it's own thread. It should be.
David slew the giant that all men feared. The Republican Senate can do it, too. The democrats are vulnerable. They are so busy thumping their chests and wailing with tirades of empty threats that they cannot stop to actually look at the situation clearly. The problem the Republicans have right now is selecting their David, and telling everyone else in the army to stand down and shut up. This is where I blame Frist. If he's the leader, then dammit, LEAD. Threaten your own, if you must. But LEAD. Go-lieth CAN be destroyed.
I can agree that the filibusters need to be broken, and constructionist judges put on the bench. In a perfect world that would end the problem of an activist judiciary. But, we don't live in a perfect world, and there's no guarantee that the constructionist judge of today won't be the activist judge of tomorrow.
If American history has taught us anything it's that Congress will not use its authority over the courts to control the courts. Neither will the President. True, we've had a few standoffs with the Judiciary in the past, but in the long run nothing has changed the Judiciary.
How can we expect to give a man or woman a lifetime job, let them do as they please with impunity, and expect them not to abuse their office? Very few people qualify for sainthood in politics.
The only way to control the courts, in the long term, is to limit the time any one judge can spend on the bench. 12 years would give any judge the independence judges say they need, and would act as an additional check on the Judiciary. Because term limits bypass Congress, and are an automatic "off switch", there's no need for urging Congress to do what it should have been doing for years.
Aside from implementing term limits we will always be relying on politicians to do the will of the people, and we will always be disappointed.
I received this from the Center for Reclaiming America (e-mail), and if you can't call them all, please at least call one or two.
If you can't call them, at least e-mail them (but calling is more effective).
THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR. PLEASE make that call!
The Center has identified six key senators whose votes may well
decide the fate of the filibuster rules change. We are asking
all member of our online team to contact these individual
senators, urging each to FULLY SUPPORT THE FILIBUSTERING
RULES CHANGE.
Even if none of these six senators is your own senator,
please invest the time needed to call each right now.
Here are their names and contact information:
Sen. Susan Collins (ME) 202-224-2523
Sen. Lamar Alexander (TN) 202-224-4944
Sen. Trent Lott (MS) 202-224-6253
Sen. Olympia Snowe (ME) 202-224-5344
Sen. Chuck Hagel (NE) 202-224-4224
Sen. John Warner (VA) 202-224-2023
Here is the toll-free number to reach all of them:
877-762-8762
You know, I don't think it imperative that Frist get a "yeah" majority on this, but if he fails to bring this to a vote he's toast. Not many of those of us who are fighting for conservative causes will find fault with Frist if the RINOs defeat this vote - heck, we're never really surprised about that. It is essential that the effort be credibly made. I think Frist has done just about all he could to this time, but if he fails to even get even a losing vote on the floor here, that effort will count for nothing in my mind.
Nam Vet
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.