What is a Filibuster?

ThisNation ^ | timely reports/current | Contributing Author, Shad Satterthwaite, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma

[.30Carbine]

Knowledge is power. The word 'filibuster' is being bandied about so much of late in reference to President Bush's judicial nominees that I thought it important for all FReepers to know exactly what it is, what it is used for, and how to overcome it. I've learned a great deal myself.

[.30Carbine]

Here it is! Please bump to your list and thank you for your help.

[.30Carbine]

Examples of the use of the word 'filibuster' in breaking news on Free Republic.

[.30Carbine]

Miguel Estrada's nomination moving into full Senate for a vote.

[.30Carbine]

"Democrats argued for more time to consider the nomination, but decided against trying to block Estrada in committee. Senators, however, expect a vigorous debate on the floor on Estrada, and Democrats previously have threatened a filibuster. It was not known when the full Senate will take up the nomination." AP report.

[.30Carbine]

Thank you for contributing to my education!

[.30Carbine]

[W]e need to restore, against judicial usurpation, the separation of powers. That the decisions of the Supreme Court and many state supreme courts have less and less to do with the historic Constitution is undeniable. Indeed, that fact is glorified by those who urge the Court on to greater adventures in policy making. Justice Antonin Scalia accurately described the state of play: "Day by day, case by case, [the court] is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize."

The Supreme Court has created a more permissive abortion regime than any state had enacted; prohibited any exercise or symbol of religion touching even remotely upon government; made the death penalty extremely difficult to impose and execute; disabled states from suppressing pornography; catered to the feminist agenda, including outlawing state all-male military schools; created a labyrinth of procedures making criminal prosecutions ever more difficult; used racial classifications to exclude children from their neighborhood public schools; perverted the political process by upholding campaign-finance limits that shift political power to incumbents, journalists and labor unions; licensed the advocacy of violence and law violation; and protected as free speech computer-generated child pornography. These decisions are activist, i.e., not plausibly related to the actual Constitution.

Robert H. Bork, OpinionJournal.

The time to stop judicial activism is now. We must not allow the obstructionist use of the filibuster by Democrat Senators to prevent men and women of sterling character and proven history from being appointed to the judiciary.

[.30Carbine]

Will you please help to spread the word? The guarantee of President Bush's great legacy will depend upon his judicial appointments as much as his handling of the War on Terror. Both have far-reaching implications to the continuation of peace and stability at home and abroad.

[.30Carbine]

Marching Orders:

"I fully expect pro-choice senators to filibuster any nominee
who does not affirm a woman's constitutional right to choose,"
NARAL President Kate Michelman warned.

[.30Carbine]

Here is a continuation of the discussion we had a couple of days ago, with some solid answers.

[.30Carbine]

We must fight judicial activism, support President Bush's judicial nominees, and do all we can to help our Republican senators fight the Democrat's filibusters.

[Bullish]

If the dumbocrats strategy is to stage filibusters, they are walking a political tightrope without a net. Their whole party may be at stake.

The people have seen enough of their obstruction. They would be wise to learn a lesson from their defeat at the polls last November.

But then, we're talking dumbocrats here, and stupid is, as stupid does.

[.30Carbine]

True, NARAL lost something like 99% of their well-sponsered battles for pro-choice candidates in the last election. I hope that trend continues.

The Dems are either stupid or evil or both. They are not trying to hide their obstructionism or their pro-death stance. Rush was right: when the liberals are not in power they get even weirder.

[Claire Voyant]

Frist should INSIST that they actually DO filibuster. It's like someone saying they will take the FIFTH so the committee doesn't make them come in to do it.....I say MAKE them do it in front of the world.

[.30Carbine]

Word for the Day fodder! (I'm late for work again, too.)

[.30Carbine]

I'm awful glad Frist is in there now, to lead us through these battles.

[Bullish]

Rush was right: when the liberals are not in power they get even weirder.

Boy, aint' that the truth?

They go crazy when they can't control everything. And the funny part is, they couldn't manage a Taco-Bell in the real world.

They would have this country bankrupted 100 times over if it weren't for some fiscal conservatives on the right.

[.30Carbine]

And the funny part is, they couldn't manage a Taco-Bell in the real world.

That is both very funny and very true.

[.30Carbine]

In my most recent hard-copy issue of Human Events, in the Capital Briefs section, I read that "Hatch announced last week that he would drop the requirement that both senators from a given state submit positive reviews - or 'blue slips' - for a nominee to receive committee consideration.....if committee Republicans go along with Hatch, Democrats will have only the filibuster as a recourse against conservative judges."

[scooter2]

What I want to know is, what's a fili and why would anyone want to bust one?