Posted on 05/20/2005 11:29:32 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
Some Democrats, who are presently debating the so-called merits of retaining the filibuster in the Senate, are engaging in what could amount to nothing more than waving a red herring in the faces of those willing to listen to such balderdash.
It is a historical fact that the filibuster has been amended more than once. The filibuster rule was adopted in 1917 and amended in 1959 and 1975 due to rampant Democratic abuse of it. At one point it took a two-thirds majority to over-ride a filibuster in the Senate, but in 1975 it was changed to a three-fifths majority necessary to override the filibuster. A Democratic filibuter against the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 lasted 75 days, the longest since the rule was adopted.
The REAL reason that that there is a Democratic filibuster taking place now has nothing to do with "protecting the rights of minorities", but rather attempting to stop President Bush's Circuit Court nominees. They are the ones being targeted inordinately, not the District Court nominees. Why? Because the Circuit Court of Appeals is where the overwhelming majority of Judicial cases stop. Few cases ever make it to the Supreme Court of the United States.
At the Circuit Court of Appeals level is where state bans on same-sex marriage, bans on partial-birth abortion, and other bans which the majority of Americans believe in, can and are being overturned by liberal activist judges. Were there to be numerous confirmations of Bush's strict constructionists appointed to the U.S. Courts of Appeal it could very well mean the end of judicial tyranny at this level or at least to a large degree.
The Judiciary is the primary conduit by which liberal activists can thwart the overwhelming will of the people, and we are seeing more and more the Judiciary overstep its constitutional bounds and impose upon Americans that which could be called no less than minority rule tyranny.
It is time for the Senate to once again place a check on those who seem to be yet again abusing the filibuster. There is no other way to end this abuse and unconstitutional use of the filibuster.
What "rights" does the minority have?
They've been heard and none of them were lined up and shot.
Now its time to vote. If they are right and have been persuasive, they will win.
I called Eleanor Norton's office yesterday (5/19) to tell them as a man of color (Italian = Latin = if Hispanic is color, so then should be Italian), I am utterly outraged by her incomplete, yada, yada, yada. I felt better.
Think Tim Russert, that Wallace jerk or the midget Stephanopolous will bring this up? The DEMOCRAT filibustering of the Civil Rights Act is a fact.
For anyone who wants to check, true.
Filibustering presidential appointments in order to deny the executive a full Senate vote, has been rare.
Making up senate committee rules to thwart the plain Constitutional obligations of the full Senate is unheard of. That it also frustrates the proper function of both the Executive and the Judicial branches makes it slam-dunk unconstitutional.
I often tell my girlfriend, who is from El Salvador, that I am a true Latin because my family is from Italy. Of course the reason being Italian isn't considered a "minority" status is because they emigrated to America en masse to America just a little too soon. If Italians came here in the 1960's, we'd be card-carrying minorities with all of the benefits. I guess we missed the gravy train.
Italians NEVER miss the gravy train--they've got it ALL--the most beautiful country, the best music, the best art, SOME of the best literature, the best food . . . it doesn't get any better. All they need (over there!) is jobs . . .
During the Civil Rights era the Democratic Party consisted of two factions. The progressive northern/central component and the "Dixiecrats". These were southern Democrats who opposed Civil Rights and were generally much more conservative than the rest of the party.
It is the Dixiecrats that filibustered. The rest of the party put up with this because they didn't want to lose their majority. This was disgraceful, but is standard in the world of political expediency.
What has happened in the past 40 years is that those people who supported the Dixiecrats have migrated to the Republican Party. Which is why the south is now Republican and not Democratic.
So liberals were always conflicted over use of the filibuster. The issue is how to protect the rights of the minority. It is perhaps a little disingenuous of the Democrats now, but there seems to be little else they can do.
While it may be pleasant to gloat while your party is in control, it must be realized that the country is very closely split on most issues and that the control by a single party is more a function of the way election districts are drawn and winner-take-all voting.
So, if a party which has the support of about half of the populace pushes through a one-sided agenda we can expect some sort of reaction that they may not like. A better course of action would be to try and propose things which have the outlook of the majority party, but can be accepted by the minority.
Making an issue of a handful of judges is just bravado and will not lead to constructive legislation. There are plenty of other conservative judges that could be nominated without deliberately provoking a confrontation.
"Pride goeth before the fall"
This is more than just making an issue of a handful of judges.
1/3 of Bush's Circuit Court nominees have been filibustered, the worst record of any President since Roosevelt.
The Democrats will filibuster any judge which they deem to be a threat to their liberal activist, through the courts, agenda.
There really is no other way for them to advance their agenda other than through the courts, hence the fight.
If this is the case with the Democrats that they cannot advance their agenda any other way than through the unconstitutional use of activism from the bench, then they need to close shop and disband as a party.
Only problem is, that story isn't true. Even when the Democrats held a 56-44 advantage in the Senate in 1993 & 1994, the Republicans still tried to stop nominees they didn't like. Here's a tale about one of them.
In 1993, Larry LaRocco, then a Democratic Congressman from Idaho, suggested to Bill Clinton that attorney John Tait be nominated to fill a vacant federal district judgeship in the state. The following year, Clinton went ahead and put Tait's name forward.
But GOP Sen. Larry Craig (and his former Idaho colleague Dirk Kempthorne) were irked about being left out of the process - usually senators get to advise presidents about judicial nominees, but because they were Republicans, they got passed over in favor of LaRocco. Primarily, of course, they were pissed about a Democrat (Tait) getting the nod.
So what did the aggrieved Idaho senators do? Did they just take their lumps and quietly lie down? Hardly:
"Two months ago, U.S. Sens. Larry Craig and Dirk Kempthorne successfully blocked Tait's confirmation hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee."
Lewiston Morning Tribue, 12/14/1994
Only trouble with your argument is that in 1995, the Dems understood that 67 votes are required to change the Senate rules. Frist et al. aren't willing to play by the same rules, now claiming they need votes from only 50 U.S. senators to force a vote on Bush's totally unqualified judicial nominees.
Both sides have blocked nominees in committee. That has gone on for years and years.
The Democrats, though, are trying to filibuster OUTSIDE of committee, and have done this over and over again 10 times. 10 Times! This is unheard of in the 200+ years of the Senate.
Democrats rampantly abused the filibuster for decades against civil rights legislation and are engaging in unheard-of-abuse of it yet again.
What surprises me is that 19 Democrats wanted to TOTALLY eliminate the filibuster in 1995, that which even the Republicans say they don't want to do. Lieberman was one of them, so was Kennedy and Kerry. Now they say that the filibuster against judicial nominees shouldn't be done away with.
Hypocrites.
Actually, according to Senate rules, they only need 50 votes.
Bush's nominees are unqualified? Now the truth comes out.
Get out of here with your liberal rhetorical rubbish about Bush's nominees being unqualified. Yet another red herring. Most of them have received the American Bar Association's highest rating. What makes them unqualified in the eyes of liberals/Democrats is that liberal pressure groups are pushing for their defeat. Most of the overturning of bans which the majority of Americans support have come from the Circuit Court level. As I said before, if the states which have say, banned same-sex marriage in their states, have those bans overturned it will most likely come from and end at the Circuit Court level.
Numerous strict constructionists from Bush could pretty much signal an end to that particular threat, and other unconstitutional activism from the bench.
My ancestors were equally dopy. They came over from Ireland during the potato famine of 1845-6. Since there was no affirmative action program then, they got jobs and went to school and became self-supporting citizens. They also assimilated and became proud of being Americans. I'm so embarrassed.
Work hard to get ahead in life? What a novel idea!
You said "1/3 of Bush's Circuit Court nominees have been filibustered, the worst record of any President since Roosevelt."
It would be useful if you could reference the source of your information.
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.