A threat to impartiality in the American Senate

Financial Times ^ | May 16 2005 | Bruce Ackerman

[dighton]

Bruce Ackerman

[Irontank]

You forgot the barf alert

[Preachin']

http://fundrace.org/neighbors.php?type=name&lname=ackerman&fname=bruce&search=Search+by+Name

Bruce Ackerman
Professor
Yale U

John Kerry
$2,000

5 Killams Point Rd
Branford, CT 06405

[agere_contra]

enabling Democrats to filibuster judicial nominations that pander too obviously to the religious right are sensible grown-ups who've read the Constitution.

[andyk]

Under existing rules, it takes 60 senators to terminate debate, enabling Democrats to filibuster judicial nominations that pander too obviously to the religious right.

Barf.

[cvq3842]

I was just on ebay. I bid $41; someone else bid $59. Guess who won the item?

If the Democrats don't like Bush's nominees, they should start winning more elections.

All the Christian-bashing in the world does not hide the fact that the Republicans have the majority, as they did in the 90s when they "blocked" Clinton nominees.

Couching this debate in terms of "fairness" to both Republicans and Democrats ignores the most important part of the equation - THE PEOPLE, who VOTED for a majority Republican Senate.

[zip]

enabling Democrats to filibuster judicial nominations that pander too obviously to the religious right

Wrong!!! Not pandering to the religious right BUT ENABLING DEMOCRATS TO FILIBUSTER JUDGES WHO BELIEVE IN THE US CONSTITUTION AS WRITTEN.

The writer is obviously an anti American leftist wacko liberal.

[Natty Boh]

Couching this debate in terms of "fairness" to both Republicans and Democrats ignores the most important part of the equation - THE PEOPLE, who VOTED for a majority Republican Senate.

Good point, except that while the the states voted for a Republican majority senate, I'm not sure the majority of people did. For example, Dem Senators from California and NY got a lot more votes than then Republican Senators from Wyoming.

[cvq3842]

Fair enough. But I was thinking specifically of the argument made that "well, the Republicans blocked Clinton nominees." The cases are dissimilar because there was a Republican congress from 1995 to 2001 also.

Heck, even if the Democrats fell below 40 senators (and there were no Republican defectors), they would still find a way to block nominees, and not be one bit ashamed to do so.

[Natty Boh]

I agree, the example of the Republican Senate during Clinton is not the same as today's majority Republican senate under a Republican president.

[nosofar]

A special provision requires "two-thirds of the senators present and voting" to end debate on rule changes and Mr Frist will fall far short of the 67 senators this requires. His predicament is exacerbated by another provision stipulating that no rule may be changed except as "provided in these rules".

67 senators? I thought it was 60 senators. If somehing this simple is wrong, what else did he get wrong.

[Sacajaweau]

It can be done in Committee and that's EXACTLY what Schumer said they would do.

[Natty Boh]

67 senators are needed to end debate on rule changes. You only need 60 to end debate on nominations.

[nosofar]

Heck, even if the Democrats fell below 40 senators (and there were no Republican defectors), they would still find a way to block nominees, and not be one bit ashamed to do so.

I don't see that they should be ashamed. They have a political agenda and they are expected to work to advance that agenda as long as they are withing the rules.

[VRWCmember]

So many false statements, so little time. Let's consider this one for starters:

Conservatives do not often insist on repudiating a practice dating from the founding fathers. In any event, Mr Frist's analogy to the House does not get him where he wants to go. Once the House organises itself at its opening session, it must follow its own rules if it wants to change them later.

The filibuster does not date from the founding fathers, but rather from the late 19th century. Until the filibuster was established with a requirement for 2/3 present to invoke cloture, a simple majority could call for the question (a call to end debate and take a vote) at any time. Rules regarding the filibuster have been changed several times since then and NEVER has the practice been used to prevent a confirmation vote on a judicial appointee who had clear majority support for confirmation.

[hosepipe]

[ A threat to impartiality in the American Senate ]

If impartiality were possible, why do we have PARTYS.?...
NEXT.. the Impartial Party... or Republicrat party for impartiality in anything meaningful.. or Demican party for the continual slide into socialism.. or Chaoscrats for the neglect of everything.. or... ((( TILT )))...

[nosofar]

It's very dishonest to try to elevate a Senate rule to the status of the U.S. Constituiton. If the filibuster were so important, whey isn't it part of the Constitution instead of just a Senate rule. Why hasn't someone offered an amendment to this effect?

[VRWCmember]

The filibuster permits the Senate to play a moderating role within the constitutional system of checks and balances.

While this might be a legitimate argument in the case of legislation which must pass both houses, it is a fallacious argument in regards to the Senate's constitutional advise and consent role.

[nosofar]

67 senators are needed to end debate on rule changes. You only need 60 to end debate on nominations.

Ah. Thanks. This is the first I've heard about this.