Why Filibusters Should Be Allowed

The Washington Post ^ | March 20, 2005 | George F. Will

[garylmoore]

Mr. Will may appear to be intelligent but he lacks wisdom.

[SouthCarolinaKit]

How the mighty fall once they lose their strong faith.
GW hasn't been the same since his divorce and remarriage, a decade or so ago. Real Catholics don't divorce and remarry. . . unless they're like me and marry outside the Church the first time. I used to find no fault with GW's logic; no longer the case. The 'Rats hatred of GB is so great, they've used the filibuster to defang his office; that needs to be reestablished and I can't WAIT for the GOP to stand up to them. Their actions manifest their hatred of the US and it's obvious to anyone paying attention!!

[greasepaint]

I suggest that Cheney make a ruling
that rules adopted before the current Congress have expired.

[Fury]

If the Democrats ever take control of the Senate and Presidency, they will not hesitate to change the rules. Let's not pretend that by not changing the rules we are preserving the system. The Dems have already thrown precedent and respectability out the window, it's over, now put their feet in the fire.

You are SOOOOO Right!. Ever since Schumer stated that qualifications were not enough, that ideology was also an issue in confirming judges, I knew we were in trouble. Justice Scalia discussed this in his talk on 03/14/05 - he's very concerned about this "confirmation by the Majority".

I have no doubt that if the Dems gain control of the Senate, and they have candidates that they believe is qualified by virtue of qualification and ideology, that they will do WHATEVER is needed to confirm thise candidate, including following the Constitution - a novel idea.

[jamaksin]

One additional point to consider here ... in the 2006 elections, how many Senators will retire or not be re-elected if they run?

Is it not "wishful" thinking to assume the GOP will gain more seats in the Senate?

Is it not better to be aggressive when you can? Why wait - waiting for years - as this waiting has become the norm!

I can indeed Frist and all saying, should 2006 result in a loss to the GOP, "Well, we coulda' ..."

[Boot Hill]

"But it stands conservatism on its head to argue that what the Constitution does not mandate is not permitted."

Somebody needs a class in constitutional law (that or a slap upside the head).

--Boot Hill

[xzins]

And conservatives eager to confirm judges respectful of the Constitution's text should not read its stipulation that no nominee shall be confirmed without a favorable Senate vote as a requirement that the Senate vote.

Will's logic in this case is so deficient as to be embarrassing.

He says that since there is no requirement for the Senate to make any decision about nominees, even though the Constitution says that the Senate's responsibility is to advise and consent, then that means the avenue of no action should be an honorable avenue.

He bases this on a strict reading of the Constitution's simple words to the Senate: "advise and consent."

This logic that the instruction to perform a certain duty means the freedom not to perform that duty, if it were extended to every power, would mean, for example, that the president really has no requirement to act as commander in chief. This is weak in itself.

But the glaring weakness in logic is regarding Senate rules. The Senate establishes its own rules. They are changeable with every new Senate. They have been changed countless times in the past and will be changed in the future. They are designed to be changed.

There is nothing sacrosanct about the cloture rule and the filibuster. It is not necessary. It has been changed dozens of times to prevent it being used in certain ways. It has been changed to hobble and hurt republicans in the past, and it will be changed to hurt them in the future.

It is not unconstitutional to change it. It is not impolite to change it. It is not illegal to change it.

Will says we shouldn't change it because we'll never know when we might need it.

That totally ignores the fact that it is changeable and has been changed....even against us.

To change it so that the constitution operates more in keeping with its actual intent is simply to suggest that it would be nice for the constitution to operate as written in good times and in bad, in our times and in theirs.

[sgtbono2002]

The Judicial filibuster should have never gotten to this point to begin with. Blame the Democrats for that.They should have made their point and moved on.

[Pharlap]

Your analysis is correct. The basic flaw in Will's "straw man" logic that the Senate is "required" to vote may be described as follows: The Constitution merely requires that if a vote is held, that it only takes a MAJORITY to confirm. However, if a majority does not vote to confirm, or (the answer to Will) if a majority chooses NOT TO VOTE that is the equivalent of a rejection of the nominee (a down vote by inaction by a MAJORITY of senators). But, if a majority wants to vote to confirm, then the filibuster (and cloture) rule becomes an extra-constitutional bar against the "will" of the Senate majority. That is why the filibuster (and cloture) rule is unconstitutional in the case of confirmation of judges. Therefore, a majority decision by the Senate to change the filibuster rule is a valid exercise of its constitutional authority.

[Jim Noble]

Go HERE, scroll down and read the article by Gold and Gupta.

This issue has been debated in the Senate for 175 years. Senators long dead and Vice Presidents of all parties have used the same words you are hearing now. Rulings from the chair that supermajorities to end debate are unconstitutional have been made, but have never been upheld from the floor.

Such a ruling isn't going to be upheld this time, either.

[greasepaint]

Does the whole Senate approve rules every two years,
or do rules continue from last time?

[MortMan]

Remember - the only ruling being proposed is against filibuster of judicial nominees. The dems can then rant and rave and filibuster any other matter (except the federal budget, naturally) they want to - which is a win-win for the Republicans. The President gets his up-or-down votes on his judicial nominees, and the senate Republicans get a full-blow, hissy-fit tantrum from the dems on which to campaign.

We need to repeal the 17th amendment (I think that's the one).

[xzins]

The whole Senate approves the rules with each new Senate (every 2 years). In fact, Sen. Frist reserved the right to change the rules.

There is a tendency and tradition to simply approve the old rules, but any of them can be changed.

If the old rules were untouchable, they would have the same power as constitutional amendments which they are not. They are simply the senate's own rules, and the past is not sacrosanct.

[Bob]

Do you know if it's too late to rewrite the rules of the Senate to require an actual filibuster (Mr. Smith style) in lieu of the lame procedural filibuster currently employed?

That's what I'd like to see, real filibusters. With technology today, CSPAN feeds would be all over the internet. :=)

[Pharlap]

The fact that a majority of senators has not been willing to override and change the filibuster rule merely means that the majority has prevailed, which is the constitutional plan. However, the real issue is whether a majority can change a Senate Rule. The answer to that is yes, because a majority (not super majority) of senators must adopt (or readopt) the rules by which a new Senate will govern its proceedings. This action, which in most instances is pro forma, is required because a prior Senate cannot bind a subsequent Senate to a set of rules without the agreement of the subsequent Senate. Thus, a new (subsequent) Senate can either approve or change its rules by simple MAJORITY vote. Therefore, if your point is that the current Senate will fail to change the filibuster rule because a MAJORITY of senators will not support the rule change, that could occur, and would be a constitutional exercise of power by a MAJORITY of the current Senate. However, if you are maintaining that the current Senate is without the power to change RULE XXII by a simple majority vote then your position is incorrect.

[BamaAndy]

If the enemy democrats were in this position--what would they do?
*whatever they needed to do*

[Kozak]

I am soooo sick of liberals and other assorted moonbats.

Maybe they can get a friendly judge to overrule the Senate. After all they are the one's who seem to have all the real power. /sarcasm

[Malesherbes]

George Will, baseball expert, Oriole's board member. Hey George, steroids, what did you know and when did you know it?

[Ben Hecks]

"Democrats say they would retaliate by bringing the Senate to a virtual halt"

The Senate came to a virtual halt in 1998 and hasn't contributed anything positive to our country since.

[Condor51]

**** Before 1974, it required a two-thirds vote or 67 of the 100 Senators present, to end a filibuster. Then it was changed to reduce it to a three-fourths or 60 of the 100 Senators present to end a filibuster. ****

You're absolutely correct.
And I assume you know who changed those rules ...... but for those who don't -- it was the DEMOCRATS - led by Senator 'Sheets' Byrd and backed by "swimmer' Kennedy and IIRC senator "Plagiarizer" Biden. And the reason for the change was that the RATS complained that 'they' were being held hostage by the minority party. How's that for deja vu'!

And the rules change is really meaningless in the long run as when the RATS again become the majority party (which is inevitable someday), they can change the rule back.

Plus this rule change will only apply to presidential appointment filibusters not to any legislation. So all this whining by the RATS is nothing but hyperbole and grandstanding for the brainwashed sheeple.