Posted on 03/19/2005 10:26:40 PM PST by neverdem
With Republicans inclined to change Senate rules to make filibusters of judicial nominees impossible, Democrats have recklessly given Republicans an additional incentive to do so. It is a redundant incentive, because Republicans think -- mistakenly -- that they have sufficient constitutional reasons for doing so.
Today 60 Senate votes are required to end a filibuster. There are 55 Republican senators but not five Democrats who will join them. Republicans may seek a ruling from the chair -- Vice President Cheney presiding -- that filibustering judicial nominees is impermissible, a ruling that a simple majority of senators could enforce.
Democrats say they would retaliate by bringing the Senate to a virtual halt -- easily done within Senate rules. Republicans rejoice that such obstructionism would injure the Democrats. But conservatives would come to rue the injury done to their cause by the rule change and by their reasoning to justify it.
Some conservatives call filibusters of judicial nominations unconstitutional because they violate the separation of powers by preventing the president from doing his constitutional duty of staffing the judiciary. But the Senate has the constitutional role of completing the staffing process that the president initiates.
Some conservatives say the Constitution's framers "knew what supermajorities they wanted" -- the Constitution requires various supermajorities, for ratifying treaties, impeachment convictions, etc.; therefore, other supermajority rules are unconstitutional. But it stands conservatism on its head to argue that what the Constitution does not mandate is not permitted. Besides, the Constitution says each house of Congress "may determine the rules of its proceedings."
Some conservatives say there is a "constitutional right" to have an up-or-down Senate vote on nominees. But in whom does this right inhere? The nominees? The president? This is a perverse contention coming from conservatives eager to confirm judges who will stop the promiscuous...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Mr. Will may appear to be intelligent but he lacks wisdom.
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!!
I suggest that Cheney make a ruling
that rules adopted before the current Congress have expired.
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.
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' ..."
Somebody needs a class in constitutional law (that or a slap upside the head).
--Boot Hill
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.
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.
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.
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.
Does the whole Senate approve rules every two years,
or do rules continue from last time?
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).
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.
That's what I'd like to see, real filibusters. With technology today, CSPAN feeds would be all over the internet. :=)
If the enemy democrats were in this position--what would they do?
*whatever they needed to do*
"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.
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.
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.