Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my FoxFan list. *Warning: This can be a high-volume ping list at times.
Posted on 05/23/2005 2:52:08 AM PDT by ajolympian2004
The debate about filibusters has narrowed to a single proposition — that Republicans, eager to push through George W. Bush’s nominees to the federal bench, have decided to change the rules of the Senate, and thus change the terms under which the august body does its business.
This claim casts Republicans as bad losers who face defeat not with equanimity and courage, but by whining and changing the rules. Most public-opinion polls frame the issue in precisely this way, and predictably invite the public to take a dim view of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s attempt to clarify the proper uses of the filibuster. Frist supports its use for all legislative and internal Senate deliberations, but never for judicial nominations — and, one presumes, other matters that involve relations with another branch of government.
Democrats buttress the bad-loser theme by grousing that Republicans sabotaged 67 judges during the Clinton years.
Let’s assess the claims, starting with the “change-the-rules” allegation.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
excellent piece, Tony....keep up the good work, brother.
Carolyn
Now, If we can just get someone to clean it, we'll be okay.
Here’s a challenge for historical nerds in the audience: Name one filibuster conducted in order to advance a noble purpose. Jimmy Stewart’s performance in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” doesn’t count.
Excellent article!
In my opinion, the best options politically:
1) If you were going to change the rules, you should have done so within seconds of the first failed cloture vote. The media and the rats would not have had time to massage public opinion.
2) At this point, the only honorable thing to do is a proper filibuster. If the Dems want to block specific judges, the Republicans should roll in the cots, pee cans, sit quietly and let them talk themselves out of it. I doubt Teddy's alliance can make it through more than one Happy Hour without failing.
This is political battle. The winner is not determined by who is right, the winner if determined by who is left.
I do want to take issue with one element however,
Senate Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act because they wanted to preserve Jim Crow.
As I understand it, the principal ground for this filibuster was the ability of a landowner to sell or rent their property to whomever they wished, IOW, a property right. Aside from the racial argument, there are excellent practical reasons having nothing to do with race for an owner to have such discretion that have since been lost. More importantly, the Federal government effectively gained regulatory powers over individual property where those police powers had previously resided in the Several States. Such has since visited serious harm to private property ownership, especially in the realm of environmental law.
IOW, there was an excellent Constitutional reason to filibuster that legislation having nothing to do with its political subject.
IamConservative wrote:Republicans should FORGET ABOUT CHANGING THE SENATE RULES. That's the best way to damage the Republican Senators the worst in this mess.
2) At this point, the only honorable thing to do is a proper filibuster. If the Dems want to block specific judges, the Republicans should roll in the cots, pee cans, sit quietly and let them talk themselves out of it. I doubt Teddy's alliance can make it through more than one Happy Hour without failing.
When the pollsters ask if judicial nominees should get an up or down vote in the Senate, somewhere between two thirds and four fifths of the poll respondents say that judicial nominees should get an up or down vote. When as many as 80 percent of the people in this country want an up or down vote, it's political suicide to vote against cloture. The Dems can bluster and posture all they want, but if the only choice is vote for cloture or continue debate, at least a few of them will break ranks and vote for cloture.
When the pollsters ask if the rules on the fillibuster should be changed, somewhere between half and two thirds say it shouldn't be changed. So, why are Republicans offering this as a third choice?
The are saying, "Democrat Senators, if you vote against cloture, we're going to do something unpopular and hurt our reelection chances, but the nominees will get an up or down vote." And the press and the Dems will call it a "power grab." And anytime the Dems want it back in the news, they can filibuster something else and say, "If Frist and the Republicans hadn't grabbed power like that back on the Judicial nominees, we could be a little more cooperative." The bad side of this will be in the news through at least the next two election cycles. Dem candidates will focus on the Republicans "changing the rules in the middle of the game." This is not how you win elections.
At this point, the only reason the Dems will all vote against cloture is because it benefits them if the Republicans change the rules in the middle of the game. It's stupid to give them that option.
Focus on the nominees, and focus on a confirmation vote. The Dems can't sustain a filibuster if the only options are delay or vote. The first cloture motion might fail, but eventually one will pass.
Pretty much sums up my thinking. The rule change is a bad political move IMO at this late point in the game. Are the votes for or against ending debate public?
Well .. as a Libertarian - I can understand why you have that view.
However unrealistic it is.
Carolyn
It may be YOUR OPINION but that still doesn't mean it's realistic.
Carolyn
"Nobody cares anyway. Our hard-earned money is taken by force by the clowns who run the three-ring circus in Wash. D.C. to do with as they will. All this is just boob bait for the bubbas, IMO."
Your statements show a total disrepect for EVERYBODY in govt - which is not a realistic view. To judge EVERYBODY in a lump - is not even rational.
And .. then to start the whole thing off with an erroneous statement "NOBODY CARES ANYWAY" - means you aren't paying attention. There are hundreds of thousands of us right here on FR who care and who are doing more than just whining about those things in the govt that we have issue about. And .. after years of working hard at it we are starting to see some results.
You, on the otherhand, have chosen to lump everybody together as one evil govt attitude - but like I said - because you're a Libertarian - I can understand why you do that .. but it's still not realistic.
Thanks for the great post!
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my FoxFan list. *Warning: This can be a high-volume ping list at times.
Thanks for the ping!
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.