Republican party leadership has not used filibuster to block judicial appointments, successful OR unsuccessful ? period. In fact, according to your chart explanation, none of the 35 (of both parties) were related to judicial appointments.
I'm sorry you spent so much time on that long post, because the whole thing is based on this one easily demonstrable inaccuracy. I've already provided you with the factual information to contradict your statements, so at this point I'm not convinced facts really matter to you, but I'm an optimist, so here goes.
1. According to this report from Congress itself, the filibuster has been used 35 times for presidential appointees, 17 of which were judicial appointees. The vast majority of those were used by Republicans against Clinton. I watched Trent Lott on C-SPAN II yesterday list all their names. He doesn't have any problem admitting it. His argument was simply that Republicans haven't typically been successful in blocking the appointees with the filibuster, whereas Democrats look like they may be.
2. If you include other blocking techniques in addition to the filibuster, according to this chart from Leahy, 20% of Clinton's judicial nominees were blocked while the Republicans had the majority, whereas only 2% of Bush's appointees have been blocked.
So what we've learned from this Republican party/Fox news filibuster is that Republicans block or attempt to block judicial appointees much, much more frequently than Democrats, and yet the Republicans are the ones who purport to be outraged by the practice. Funny how things like this backfire.
The fact of the matter is we live in a free society, and freedom means freedom for everybody. We don?t get to choose, and shouldn?t be able to choose and say, ?You get to live free, but you don?t.? And I think that means that people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It?s really no one else?s business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard.
The next step, then, of course, is the question you ask of whether or not there ought to be some kind of official sanction, if you will, of the relationship, or if these relationships should be treated the same way a conventional marriage is. That?s a tougher problem. That?s not a slam dunk.
I think the fact of the matter, of course, is that matter is regulated by the states. I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that?s appropriate. I don?t think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area.
I try to be open-minded about it as much as I can, and tolerant of those relationships... I also wrestle with the extent to which there ought to be legal sanction of those relationships. I think we ought to do everything we can to tolerate and accommodate whatever kind of relationships people want to enter into.
3:45 -- In the Mansfield Room, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council says: "We signed up to keep watch while most of America sleeps." Perkins is one of dozens of folks from conservative religious groups who are packing the Mansfield Room. He denounces "an out-of-control judiciary that's chipping away at our religious liberties."
When Santorum, a Catholic, comes out to address the group, somebody asks him how some senators who profess to be religious can be on the other side on this issue. "There are those who are orthodox and those who are not," he says. "There are those within these faiths who believe in a transcendent God and those who don't."
5:45 -- "The sun's rising on the East Coast," says George Allen (R-Va.). "Country singer Charley Pride urged us to 'kiss an angel good morning.' I don't see any angels around here. My angel's at home, getting the kids up."
6:51 -- Schumer is back on the floor with his "168 to 4" sign. "We can do all the arguments you want," he says. "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
7:20 -- Outside, the sun is fighting through heavy gray clouds, illuminating the magnificent dome of the Capitol.
Police in heavy coats are standing guard. One of them has been watching the debates on and off through the long night.
"I could see if it was something important like the budget or Iraq," the cop says, "but who cares about judicial appointments?"
This marathon has been going on for more than 13 hours now. There's still nearly 17 hours to go, and some Republicans are talking about continuing past midnight.
Are you arguing with yourself again. Clean the mirror this time. I said it was ironic because the when the REPUBLICAN do not support someone for office because of credentials, or ideology, Democrats call that racism. When the reverse occurs, it is called, advising. Double standard, as I mentioned in the first post. I hope you finally get it.
Well Shawn, there is this little thing in school you learn to use called CONTEXT.
Now tell me Shawn what would you, being the bright lad you are, infer from the following phrases...
I suppose you are one of those that think someone isn't saying a politician is lying when they say he/she is being "disingenuous" because, hey they didn't say liar.
How about this one...
or this one...
Yep, you heard it here folks from Shawn the protector of John Ashcroft. None of these things make him racist or even imply racism because they didn't say the word "racist."
You are going to become a running gag around here if you keep up such "feats" of reasoning.
Yep.. You caught me. Because in the special Shawn-universe... none of those things implies racism or even would be considered racist.
I needed that laugh... thanks...
Nick
How does that prove the following reaction ever happened?:
Quote:
What I think ironic is how venomous the Democrats were toward Ashcroft, declaring that he was a racist for standing against the nomination of a black judge.
I know of no one else who is so opposed to being accountable for his own statements. "What I think ironic is how venomous the Democrats were toward Ashcroft, declaring that he was a racist for standing against the nomination of a black judge." I'm really not sure that ever happened for that reason. In fact, I remember the controversy was how the judge was supposedly anti-death penalty in Ashcroft's eyes but really wasn't according to his record. Some people went so far as to call John Ashcroft racist- the most vociferous critic was Rep. Maxine Waters- because Ashcroft justified his opposition on something that wasn't true. (REP. WATERS SPEAKS OUT AGAINST SENATE REPUBLICAN'S RACIST DENIAL OF JUDGE RONNIE WHITE). But I think we can agree that Maxine Waters and the eight fellow congressional members that stood behind her are not representative of "Democrats" generally speaking on that issue. In fact, Senator Dodd and 7 others actually voted for Ashcroft's appointment. I presume the rest probably fall somewhere in the middle...
So no, Democrats in Congress generally did not "declare Ashcroft a racist." Those few that did justified themselves by pointing to Ashcroft's clearly (perhaps intentionally) erroneous evaluation of Ronnie White's record. Now are you claiming that the extreme records of the four blocked judges are not extreme at all- to the point where they are actually favorable to Democrats? (as was Ronnie White's record on the death penalty to Republicans)
Quote:
What I think ironic is how venomous the Democrats were toward Ashcroft, declaring that he was a racist for standing against the nomination of a black judge. Meanwhile the Dem's are standing against women and nominees that are black and hispanic as well.
Of course when Ashcroft did it, he claimed it was because of the politics of that judge while confirming other black judges. However the left claimed (and still do) that this was proof of racism.
Of course when reversed none of the obstructionists on the left are sexist, or racist, or anything else.
Why can't the democrats simply vote no then? hmmm might it be they don't want to be seen on the record as voting no on an african american and hispanic applicant?
If I remember right some of these nominees refused to supply information asked for by the democrats. I think Estrada was particularly at fault in this regard. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Meanwhile, there is enough info available for the democrats to pronounce, quite clearly that they do not support these candidates, regardless of their race. So who's not going on the record?
One of these days I'm going to really look through the history of judicial appointments. My impression is that judicial appointments has always been a highly political event and that this notion of appointing "impartial" judges is a myth. Certainly today it is the case that both democrats and republicans are playing a game.
As for the righteousness of their tactics, I really think the republicans are splitting hairs in condemning the democrats. Whether by vote or fillibuster, they denied Clinton a third of his appointments while the democrats denied only 2%.
P.S.Forgive me if this is addressed later on in the thread, I didn't have time to read all the posts...
I know of no one else who is so opposed to being accountable for his own statements. "What I think ironic is how venomous the Democrats were toward Ashcroft, declaring that he was a racist for standing against the nomination of a black judge." I'm really not sure that ever happened for that reason. In fact, I remember the controversy was how the judge was supposedly anti-death penalty in Ashcroft's eyes but really wasn't according to his record. Some people went so far as to call John Ashcroft racist- the most vociferous critic was Rep. Maxine Waters- because Ashcroft justified his opposition on something that wasn't true. (REP. WATERS SPEAKS OUT AGAINST SENATE REPUBLICAN'S RACIST DENIAL OF JUDGE RONNIE WHITE). But I think we can agree that Maxine Waters and the eight fellow congressional members that stood behind her are not representative of "Democrats" generally speaking on that issue. In fact, Senator Dodd and 7 others actually voted for Ashcroft's appointment. I presume the rest probably fall somewhere in the middle...
So no, Democrats in Congress generally did not "declare Ashcroft a racist." Those few that did justified themselves by pointing to Ashcroft's clearly (perhaps intentionally) erroneous evaluation of Ronnie White's record. Now are you claiming that the extreme records of the four blocked judges are not extreme at all- to the point where they are actually favorable to Democrats? (as was Ronnie White's record on the death penalty to Republicans)
Shawn,
You need some psychological help. Seriously...
The reason you know of no one else who "is so opposed to being held accountable for his own statements" is because you don't wander around with some personal vendetta attempting to misconstrue and characterize as a liar anyone else on these boards. You do this pretty much exclusively to me and then you have the cluelessness to wonder why I no longer give you the time of day. Here's a hint Shawn, I don't have to argue with you about what English or my own words mean. I don't have to argue with you about whether a source is "valid," what the definition of words are, or any other such nonsense. You twist these all the time in some weird attempt to prove me wrong.
You link to the press release yourself that has Waters characterizing Ashcroft as racist. I link to an article that associates every action possible with racism while not actually using the word racism. (I even give an example where I say, hey people don't call the president a liar, they just say disengenous.)
You then want to argue that this isn't "representative" of all Democrats or the sample isn't big enough, or well whatever else floats your boat.
When are you going to get over yourself? I don't have to check with the personal Shawn-Dictionary before I use a word. I don't have to get approval on the number of people within a group to draw a conclusion or have you determine what number is appropriate. You aren't my editor, I don't work for you, and you determine nothing. There IS a universe beyond the end of your nose, even if you refuse to see it.
If you don't like my characterizations, just disagree with them. But you aren't going to get anywhere with your pointed questions, word games and other inane nonsense. You become more of a joke by the day even to the people on the left who engage in serious debate on here. (a group you are no longer associated with)
I'm sorry you spent so much time on that long post, because the whole thing is based on this one easily demonstrable inaccuracy. I've already provided you with the factual information to contradict your statements, so at this point I'm not convinced facts really matter to you, but I'm an optimist, so here goes.
1. According to this report from Congress itself, the filibuster has been used 35 times for presidential appointees, 17 of which were judicial appointees. The vast majority of those were used by Republicans against Clinton. I watched Trent Lott on C-SPAN II yesterday list all their names. He doesn't have any problem admitting it. His argument was simply that Republicans haven't typically been successful in blocking the appointees with the filibuster, whereas Democrats look like they may be.
Rather than extending mock sympathy, I?d much rather have more substantive comments on the core issue of the thead, as well as the theme of my post. Rest assured, while I am firm in my convection, I am more than willing to correct factual errors and, if needed, modify assertions.
To wit:
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Republican party leadership has not used filibuster to block judicial appointments, successful OR unsuccessful ? period. In fact, according to your chart explanation, none of the 35 (of both parties) were related to judicial appointments.
Yes, I am mistaken in my assertion that your chart explanation shows none of the 35 ("filibusters") were related to judicial appointments - Leahy's chart had no information regarding filibusters. However, after reviewing your linked congressional document, I can see where you obtained your "demonstrable error" regarding filibustering. The document says there were 35 cloture votes (not filibusters) of which 11 or 17 were judicial.
Sorry, it does not undermine my previous assertion that never before, in modern history, has political party leadership used, or attempted to use, the filibuster to deny a Judicial nominee, who had a majority of votes, their confirmation. Let?s be specific, and not use slippery obfuscation: I am not talking about ?blocking? appointments via majoritarian support, nor am I talking about blocking non-Judicial appointments, nor am I talking about a maverick Senator holding up an appointment - I am speaking to the unprecedented use of filibuster by Party leadership to deny a majority vote in the Senate. In fact, from what I have read, ONLY Abe Fortas comes close to being an exception to that assertion ? of course he did not even have a simple majority for cloture or support, and the blockage was bi-partisan.
Perhaps in your impatience for long posts, you didn't note that that the congressional document admits that its methodology to determine an actual filibuster is speculative and premature. It cautions readers that:
Quote:
??supporters of a nomination may move for cloture, in order to speed action, even when opponents may not consider themselves to be conducting a filibuster against it, or when they may have only threatened, but not actually conducted, a filibuster.
Since filibusters may be conducted through a variety of tactics, there are no specific actions that definitively indicate the occurrence of a filibuster, much less of a mere threat to filibuster. To this extent, the presence of cloture attempts may at least be a readily available means for attempting to identify some cases in which filibusters may have occurred??
To date, I have not noted any legal historian that provides contrary evidence to my assertion. In fact, I invite you to note the following:
Quote:
"JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 1:03CV01066 (CKK)
THE UNITED STATES SENATE, et al.,
"With only one even arguable exception,[2] the Senate simply has no modern history of filibusters against judicial nominees.[3] At no point in their lengthy review of the Senate?s history and customs do Defendants (the Senate) contend otherwise.?
And from another source:
"Now for the first time in 214 years of American history a minority of senators is seeking to extend the tradition of filibustering from legislation to judicial nominees who they know enjoy support of a majority of the Senate...While a filibuster was briefly used in 1968 against chief justice nominee Abe Fortas?he was supported by fewer than 50 senators?there was only one cloture vote on his nomination.
The unprecedented extension of the filibuster to judicial nominees supported by a majority of the Senate threatens to raise the vote required for confirmation from 51 to 60 in violation of the Advice and Consent Clause"
Mr. Calabresi is a professor at the Northwester University Law School and a co-founder of the Federalist Society.
Also a third source:
"By invoking Senate Rule XXII (filibuster), used now for the first time in connection with a nominee to the lower federal courts (there is one instance of the practice having been used against a Supreme Court nominee, the bipartisan move against Lyndon Johnson?s nomination of Abe Fortas for chief justice, which nomination was eventually withdrawn), the Democrat minority in the Senate, has, in effect, raised the number of Senators necessary to confirm a nominee from the mere majority previously regarded as sufficient to confirm, to the super-majority requirement of 60."
Stephen B. Presser is the Raoul Berger Professor of Legal History at Northwestern University School of Law, a Professor of Business Law at Northwestern?s Kellogg Graduate School of Management, and an Associate Research Fellow at the University of London?s Institute of United State?s Studies.
The essential data needed to refute my contention remains undelivered: What specific judicial nominations were: a) blocked by an actual filibuster or by threat of filibuster (successful and/or unsuccessful), b) if they have occurred, which ones were at the direction of Party leadership (not a maverick Senator), and c) If both a & b's criteria are met, then which judicial filibuster denied the majority who supported the nomination the opportunity to vote?
Until you (we) can come up with all three specifics, I'll have to rely on the above information (among others).
Quote:
2. If you include other blocking techniques in addition to the filibuster, according to this chart from Leahy, 20% of Clinton's judicial nominees were blocked while the Republicans had the majority, whereas only 2% of Bush's appointees have been blocked.
I've made several previous comments on the nature of majoritarian blocking, as well as the history of Senate control. I have no special desire to expand the discussion into all nominations, or analyize blocking statistics for all the congresses since 1949 - it was not a part of my assertion. After previewing several other documents that suggest contrary numbers, I noted that the methodology for determing such is rather complicated and debateable, for both sides. However I do offer a tid bit for you to chew on regarding recent Democratic cooperativeness offered by a Democrat:
Quote:
?A recent study by the Constitution Project at Georgetown University and Professor Wendy Martinek of Binghamton University suggests the continuing nature of the problem. In the first year of President George W. Bush's term in office, successful nominees took an average of 112 days from nomination to confirmation. This compares with 36 days in the first year of President Reagan's first term, 46 days in the first year of his second term, 62 days in the first year of the first President Bush's administration and 52 days in the first year of President Clinton's first term.?
Loyd Cutler, Special Council to President Jimmy Carter
Sorry, it does not undermine my previous assertion that never before, in modern history, has political party leadership used, or attempted to use, the filibuster to deny a Judicial nominee, who had a majority of votes, their confirmation. Let?s be specific, and not use slippery obfuscation: I am not talking about ?blocking? appointments via majoritarian support, nor am I talking about blocking non-Judicial appointments, nor am I talking about a maverick Senator holding up an appointment - I am speaking to the unprecedented use of filibuster by Party leadership to deny a majority vote in the Senate. In fact, from what I have read, ONLY Abe Fortas comes close to being an exception to that assertion ? of course he did not even have a simple majority for cloture or support, and the blockage was bi-partisan.
...
To date, I have not noted any legal historian that provides contrary evidence to my assertion. In fact, I invite you to note the following: The essential data needed to refute my contention remains undelivered: What specific judicial nominations were: a) blocked by an actual filibuster or by threat of filibuster (successful and/or unsuccessful), b) if they have occurred, which ones were at the direction of Party leadership (not a maverick Senator), and c) If both a & b's criteria are met, then which judicial filibuster denied the majority who supported the nomination the opportunity to vote?
Heh, OK. Wow. You know, I see an opportunity for agreement here. You've said what the Dems are doing is unprecedented in history, if we set certain conditions:
1. Other types of blocking don't count. Even if a single Senator such as Jesse Helms, let alone 41, refuses to give a nominee a fair up-or-down vote, that's OK, because, well I guess because that was the Republicans and not the Democrats.
2. If it doesn't involve party leadership, it doesn't count. If Republicans do it, but they're not party leadership, that's OK. And actually I want to check on that. You wanna place a side bet that at some point in one of those many filibusters Republicans tried on Clinton's nominees, that at least one of the Republican leadership at one time participated, i.e., voted against cloture? I know that Frist filibustered one of Clinton's judicial nominees, but he wasn't majority leader at that time, so I guess that doesn't count. But do you want to place a bet before we look it up?
3. Other types of appointees don't count either, such as Clinton's surgeon-general nominee, Henry Foster, who was filibustered by the Republican party leadership and never confirmed, because it was the Republicans who did that, and so it's OK by definition. Even though they're treated the same in the Constitution, and even though executive branch nominations should arguably be given more leeway because they only serve in government as long as the president is in office. But, yeah, OK, you set the rules.
4. Filibusters that were attempted but failed don't count either. Republicans filibustered Clinton nominees dozens of times, but were generally not very successful. So those of course can't count.
So, if we agree on those conditions, then yeah, what the Democrats are doing is absolutely without historical precedent!
Why does it matter that there's never been a filibuster to prevent a majority party from making judicial appointments?
This little point keeps getting bandied about as if it's a horrible breach of some rule of decorum, and yet clearly, the tactic of the filibuster exists precisely for this purpose. Just because it's being used for the first time does not mean that something nefarious is going on. Indeed, that the democrats have resorted to this (their only) last resort indicates the degree to which they do not want these four judges confirmed.
So, if we agree on those conditions, then yeah, what the Democrats are doing is absolutely without historical precedent!
Ah good, we agree!
Actually your post brought a good natured chuckle. It would be interesting to see if any judicial nomination, in any circumstance by anyone, was actually fought through filbuster (other than Fortas). My readings imply, but do not quite state, that there are none.
As for Foster (and Brown) it is my understanding that that cloture requests were made before debate even began, in an effort to hurry them through...that there was no attempted filibuster.
As for Frist, I don't know - of course Helms (I believe he was a democrat at one time) may have used it for sometime, particularly in civil rights legislation.
As for the other points you made, it is fair to ask broader questions about the judicial nomination process, and how and who blocks nominations of all types, etc. - but not as an answer to my concerns. As you seem interested in it, I'll take a shot at researching it and try to give a little more depth to Leahy's counter-complaint.
In the meantime, I believe this development judicial filibustering is unprecedented and, frankly, for both political and constitutional reasons, an ominious sign. I'll explore more of that in my response to midnight.
It is a simple up or down vote and the democRATS will not work for the people.
So, by your definition, the only way for Democrats to "work for the people" is to lay down and give in on everything the Republicans want?
Do you think the only right thing for a minority party to do is to always give in to what the majority party wants? That there should be absolutely no mechanisms whereby a minority party can exercise a little clout other than maybe a little jaw flapping before giving in on a vote they know they'll lose?
A little math: The Senate has 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and 1 Independent. When Jim Jefford's in on their side, the Democrats are a mere 1% away from a tied position. A mere 3% from a clear majority without tie-breakers going to VP Cheney for a vote.
So you really prefer a "winner takes all" system, where in a nearly split scenario a slim majority gets all of what it wants all of the time? It makes the Democrats "rats" because they put up a big fight to keep out a mere 2% of Bush's nominees?
You have a very strange sense of fairness if you're on the Democrats case about this.
Why does it matter that there's never been a filibuster to prevent a majority party from making judicial appointments?
This little point keeps getting bandied about as if it's a horrible breach of some rule of decorum, and yet clearly, the tactic of the filibuster exists precisely for this purpose. Just because it's being used for the first time does not mean that something nefarious is going on. Indeed, that the democrats have resorted to this (their only) last resort indicates the degree to which they do not want these four judges confirmed.
Cheers
Scott
-----?You don?t burn down a house to roast a pig? (my saying).-----
Recently, a friend of mine made the point that, unlike 20 or 30 years ago, the two Parties are more ideological than ever. My response was that the parties are probably less ideological (remember the conflicts over the New Deal and Great Society?), but they are far more angry and partisan. Traditions, principles, and protocols that kept emotions and ideological differences in check ? at least enough to assure effective government ? have slowly eroded into intense and vicious partisanship. The idea of working within principles, or with mutual respect, are no longer in play - citizens have become far more base and cynical, and like their leaders, often consumed by personal bitterness and hate of the other Party.
It was not always so. For most of the Republic?s existence, Presidential nominees didn?t even have to appear before the Senate, they were simply affirmed or denied, as required by the constitution. For the first time in 1939, Justice Frankfurter, in his confirmation, appeared before the Senate committee and read a statement (no questions allowed). As late as 1962, confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee took only 2 hours. Appropriate and constitutional conduct was accepted and understood.
Starting in the late 1960?s, all that changed. Politicization of nominations started at the Supreme Court level, finally culminating in Bork?s lynching (the first purely ideological rejection). Now, politics are moving down into appeals and district court positions.
Most recently, politics have reached new highs in the pursuit by Democrats to abandon the Constitutional provisions that ensure the President has the exclusive authority to nominate and appoint candidates of his/her choice, and the constraints on the Senate to simply ?advise and consent? on a candidates presumption of fitness and his/her judicial commitment to interpret laws neutrally. Shumer, among others, have made it clear they intend only to approve court judges in accordance to their ?political ideology?, and he demands candidates commit to ?correct? decisions on issues prior to a judge?s hearing them. He, and many democrats, are part of the new legal school that believes ideological objectives should be actively legislated by right thinking judges in the areas of race, gender, etc. and that it is their duty to make sure that happens, by any means.
Now, the use of the filibuster, introduces another fundamental constitutional challenge, i.e.; the constitution specifies that the Senate will affirm or deny a Presidential nominee by a simple majority vote. In using the filibuster to avoid that constitutional requirement, Shumar & Co. are intruding on executive powers and attempting to create an unremunerated ?super majority? for the approval of those judicial candidates that meet their ideological criteria. (The constitution defines ?super majorities? for amendments, impeachments, etc., but not judicial appointments.)
Why does it matter? Well it only matters if one believes, as I do, that in order to create a just society, justice must be neutral. For the country, the credibility of the courts, and the system, lie in a belief in a philosophy of principled, neutral, system of justice that is not in the service of immediate political interests.
I suppose you can maintain that the courts are just politics, and that there is no real justice but power. I also suppose you can hope, as Thomas More?s son-in-law Roper, that it is better to get after the Republican Devil, even if it requires that every law be cut down.
I can only ask what More asked of Roper: ?And when the devil turns on you Roper ? where will you hide, every law being laid flat?.
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
So, by your definition, the only way for Democrats to "work for the people" is to lay down and give in on everything the Republicans want?{/Quote] Yes!
Quote:
Do you think the only right thing for a minority party to do is to always give in to what the majority party wants? That there should be absolutely no mechanisms whereby a minority party can exercise a little clout other than maybe a little jaw flapping before giving in on a vote they know they'll lose?
Well,I think the right thing is for the Democrats to give in on everything and do what the Republicans want. Barring that, both parties have a right to pork barrel, log roll, trade favors, and cut deals. And they have a right to create customary arrangements on rules of conduct that will promote future cooperativeness.
Quote:
A little math: The Senate has 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and 1 Independent. When Jim Jefford's in on their side, the Democrats are a mere 1% away from a tied position. A mere 3% from a clear majority without tie-breakers going to VP Cheney for a vote.
So you really prefer a "winner takes all" system, where in a nearly split scenario a slim majority gets all of what it wants all of the time? It makes the Democrats "rats" because they put up a big fight to keep out a mere 2% of Bush's nominees?
A little more math: the democrats are losing several Senate seats in the South to retirement, no doubt there will be four or five new Republicans for you to plug in your equations at the end of next year.
Its not a matter of "winner take all", its a matter of constitutional authority vested in the President. Don't like it ? Change the constitution.
And by the way, the fight is over the critical positions in the Appeals court...not the hundreds of lower court judges.
Quote:
You have a very strange sense of fairness if you're on the Democrats case about this.
I'd say following the constitution is fair, as is following agreed upon Senate tradition.
My response was that the parties are probably less ideological (remember the conflicts over the New Deal and Great Society?), but they are far more angry and partisan.
I don't know that I buy that. I *would* argue that during the Clinton presidency, the right in this country became, largely because of the rise to prominence of folks like Limbaugh, an invective-spewing ball of hatred focused squarely on Clinton and his family--and that hatred extended to include all liberals, since the rhetoric of the right under Limbaugh never admits that not all liberals think alike.
And while Limbaugh himself is not too bad, those who emerged in his wake knew how to do little more than get folks angry, which is also, of course, a way to get very popular very quickly, since we're a culture that, despite our claims about civility, loves to watch meanness and cruelty. We can't get enough of it. Turn on the television at any time and you can get your fill of it.
And the right *dominated* the media by appealing to this: Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Coulter...you name it. They were seemingly everywhere. It is the right in this country who calls liberals unamerican and unpatriotic for their dissent against the president's policies. It is the right in this country who claim that liberals hate Bush. It is the right in this country who calls liberals traitors for simply not being conservative. It is the right in this country who claim liberals want to destroy America. It is the right in this country who claim liberals want to see Americans die in Iraq. It is the right in this country who claim liberals support al Qaeda. It is the right in this country who have transformed dissent into treason.
And so I ask: if there's equal parts hate on both sides, where is the liberal equivalent of someone like Ann Coulter? Ted Rall, perhaps? Tom Tomorrow? Eric Alterman? Krugman? Are they constantly on the talk shows? Are they constantly on the radio? Do they get their own television shows? Where's their hate? Where's their bile?
No. They don't.
But the right does. And you can't argue that Coulter represents some kind of extreme position of the right wing. She's thoroughly mainstream in right-leaning political discourse these days. Hell, just look around on these boards and you can see the influence of that kind of rhetoric.
Quote:
Traditions, principles, and protocols that kept emotions and ideological differences in check ? at least enough to assure effective government ? have slowly eroded into intense and vicious partisanship. The idea of working within principles, or with mutual respect, are no longer in play - citizens have become far more base and cynical, and like their leaders, often consumed by personal bitterness and hate of the other Party.
...
Quote:
Why does it matter? Well it only matters if one believes, as I do, that in order to create a just society, justice must be neutral. For the country, the credibility of the courts, and the system, lie in a belief in a philosophy of principled, neutral, system of justice that is not in the service of immediate political interests.
I suppose you can maintain that the courts are just politics, and that there is no real justice but power. I also suppose you can hope, as Thomas More?s son-in-law Roper, that it is better to get after the Republican Devil, even if it requires that every law be cut down.
I do not see how justice can ever be neutral, and you are right in supposing that I will argue that it is all politics. Any opinion about the way the world ought to be is a political position, and judges do two things: they interpret opinions about the way the world ought to be, and they set precedent. Our judicial system works, largely, on precedent, and because of that, cannot be fixed, or even neutral. It must change with the times. And indeed, there is no justice but what those in power say it is.
Your last supposition, however, is wrong. I'm pretty sure that the right in this country will self-destruct with no help from me.
In reply to the first MaxParrish Quote contained in the midwinter post above I thought this was interesting:
Quote:
At both the macro and micro levels, there?s plenty of evidence that well-off liberals are using their increased disposable income ? much of which can be attributed to the Bush tax cuts ? to sate their desires for luxury goods and for political revenge. This odd condition of consumerist self-indulgence and political indignation ? fueled by the same source ? has reached epidemic proportions in areas where high-income
Quote:
We?ve all seen the symptoms. A table of four raging over Bush?s Iraq policy while sampling the $58 tasting menu at Virot, an expensive new bistro on the Upper West Side.
Comments
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Republican party leadership has not used filibuster to block judicial appointments, successful OR unsuccessful ? period. In fact, according to your chart explanation, none of the 35 (of both parties) were related to judicial appointments.
I'm sorry you spent so much time on that long post, because the whole thing is based on this one easily demonstrable inaccuracy. I've already provided you with the factual information to contradict your statements, so at this point I'm not convinced facts really matter to you, but I'm an optimist, so here goes.
1. According to this report from Congress itself, the filibuster has been used 35 times for presidential appointees, 17 of which were judicial appointees. The vast majority of those were used by Republicans against Clinton. I watched Trent Lott on C-SPAN II yesterday list all their names. He doesn't have any problem admitting it. His argument was simply that Republicans haven't typically been successful in blocking the appointees with the filibuster, whereas Democrats look like they may be.
2. If you include other blocking techniques in addition to the filibuster, according to this chart from Leahy, 20% of Clinton's judicial nominees were blocked while the Republicans had the majority, whereas only 2% of Bush's appointees have been blocked.
So what we've learned from this Republican party/Fox news filibuster is that Republicans block or attempt to block judicial appointees much, much more frequently than Democrats, and yet the Republicans are the ones who purport to be outraged by the practice. Funny how things like this backfire.
The fact of the matter is we live in a free society, and freedom means freedom for everybody. We don?t get to choose, and shouldn?t be able to choose and say, ?You get to live free, but you don?t.? And I think that means that people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It?s really no one else?s business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard.
The next step, then, of course, is the question you ask of whether or not there ought to be some kind of official sanction, if you will, of the relationship, or if these relationships should be treated the same way a conventional marriage is. That?s a tougher problem. That?s not a slam dunk.
I think the fact of the matter, of course, is that matter is regulated by the states. I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that?s appropriate. I don?t think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area.
I try to be open-minded about it as much as I can, and tolerant of those relationships... I also wrestle with the extent to which there ought to be legal sanction of those relationships. I think we ought to do everything we can to tolerate and accommodate whatever kind of relationships people want to enter into.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...03Nov13_3.html
The best part is at the end...
3:45 -- In the Mansfield Room, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council says: "We signed up to keep watch while most of America sleeps." Perkins is one of dozens of folks from conservative religious groups who are packing the Mansfield Room. He denounces "an out-of-control judiciary that's chipping away at our religious liberties."
When Santorum, a Catholic, comes out to address the group, somebody asks him how some senators who profess to be religious can be on the other side on this issue. "There are those who are orthodox and those who are not," he says. "There are those within these faiths who believe in a transcendent God and those who don't."
5:45 -- "The sun's rising on the East Coast," says George Allen (R-Va.). "Country singer Charley Pride urged us to 'kiss an angel good morning.' I don't see any angels around here. My angel's at home, getting the kids up."
6:51 -- Schumer is back on the floor with his "168 to 4" sign. "We can do all the arguments you want," he says. "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
7:20 -- Outside, the sun is fighting through heavy gray clouds, illuminating the magnificent dome of the Capitol.
Police in heavy coats are standing guard. One of them has been watching the debates on and off through the long night.
"I could see if it was something important like the budget or Iraq," the cop says, "but who cares about judicial appointments?"
This marathon has been going on for more than 13 hours now. There's still nearly 17 hours to go, and some Republicans are talking about continuing past midnight.
"They should get a life," the cop says.
Originally posted by trumptman
Are you arguing with yourself again. Clean the mirror this time. I said it was ironic because the when the REPUBLICAN do not support someone for office because of credentials, or ideology, Democrats call that racism. When the reverse occurs, it is called, advising. Double standard, as I mentioned in the first post. I hope you finally get it.
Well Shawn, there is this little thing in school you learn to use called CONTEXT.
Now tell me Shawn what would you, being the bright lad you are, infer from the following phrases...
I suppose you are one of those that think someone isn't saying a politician is lying when they say he/she is being "disingenuous" because, hey they didn't say liar.
How about this one...
or this one...
Yep, you heard it here folks from Shawn the protector of John Ashcroft. None of these things make him racist or even imply racism because they didn't say the word "racist."
You are going to become a running gag around here if you keep up such "feats" of reasoning.
Yep..
I needed that laugh... thanks...
Nick
How does that prove the following reaction ever happened?:
What I think ironic is how venomous the Democrats were toward Ashcroft, declaring that he was a racist for standing against the nomination of a black judge.
You are making things up again.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
How does that prove the following reaction ever happened?:
You are making things up again.
Keep practicing denial. You are so good at it.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Keep practicing denial. You are so good at it.
Nick
I know of no one else who is so opposed to being accountable for his own statements. "What I think ironic is how venomous the Democrats were toward Ashcroft, declaring that he was a racist for standing against the nomination of a black judge." I'm really not sure that ever happened for that reason. In fact, I remember the controversy was how the judge was supposedly anti-death penalty in Ashcroft's eyes but really wasn't according to his record. Some people went so far as to call John Ashcroft racist- the most vociferous critic was Rep. Maxine Waters- because Ashcroft justified his opposition on something that wasn't true. (REP. WATERS SPEAKS OUT AGAINST SENATE REPUBLICAN'S RACIST DENIAL OF JUDGE RONNIE WHITE). But I think we can agree that Maxine Waters and the eight fellow congressional members that stood behind her are not representative of "Democrats" generally speaking on that issue. In fact, Senator Dodd and 7 others actually voted for Ashcroft's appointment. I presume the rest probably fall somewhere in the middle...
So no, Democrats in Congress generally did not "declare Ashcroft a racist." Those few that did justified themselves by pointing to Ashcroft's clearly (perhaps intentionally) erroneous evaluation of Ronnie White's record. Now are you claiming that the extreme records of the four blocked judges are not extreme at all- to the point where they are actually favorable to Democrats? (as was Ronnie White's record on the death penalty to Republicans)
What I think ironic is how venomous the Democrats were toward Ashcroft, declaring that he was a racist for standing against the nomination of a black judge. Meanwhile the Dem's are standing against women and nominees that are black and hispanic as well.
Of course when Ashcroft did it, he claimed it was because of the politics of that judge while confirming other black judges. However the left claimed (and still do) that this was proof of racism.
Of course when reversed none of the obstructionists on the left are sexist, or racist, or anything else.
Double standards sure are nice, aren't they?
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Why can't the democrats simply vote no then? hmmm might it be they don't want to be seen on the record as voting no on an african american and hispanic applicant?
If I remember right some of these nominees refused to supply information asked for by the democrats. I think Estrada was particularly at fault in this regard. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Meanwhile, there is enough info available for the democrats to pronounce, quite clearly that they do not support these candidates, regardless of their race. So who's not going on the record?
One of these days I'm going to really look through the history of judicial appointments. My impression is that judicial appointments has always been a highly political event and that this notion of appointing "impartial" judges is a myth. Certainly today it is the case that both democrats and republicans are playing a game.
As for the righteousness of their tactics, I really think the republicans are splitting hairs in condemning the democrats. Whether by vote or fillibuster, they denied Clinton a third of his appointments while the democrats denied only 2%.
P.S.Forgive me if this is addressed later on in the thread, I didn't have time to read all the posts...
Originally posted by ShawnJ
I know of no one else who is so opposed to being accountable for his own statements. "What I think ironic is how venomous the Democrats were toward Ashcroft, declaring that he was a racist for standing against the nomination of a black judge." I'm really not sure that ever happened for that reason. In fact, I remember the controversy was how the judge was supposedly anti-death penalty in Ashcroft's eyes but really wasn't according to his record. Some people went so far as to call John Ashcroft racist- the most vociferous critic was Rep. Maxine Waters- because Ashcroft justified his opposition on something that wasn't true. (REP. WATERS SPEAKS OUT AGAINST SENATE REPUBLICAN'S RACIST DENIAL OF JUDGE RONNIE WHITE). But I think we can agree that Maxine Waters and the eight fellow congressional members that stood behind her are not representative of "Democrats" generally speaking on that issue. In fact, Senator Dodd and 7 others actually voted for Ashcroft's appointment. I presume the rest probably fall somewhere in the middle...
So no, Democrats in Congress generally did not "declare Ashcroft a racist." Those few that did justified themselves by pointing to Ashcroft's clearly (perhaps intentionally) erroneous evaluation of Ronnie White's record. Now are you claiming that the extreme records of the four blocked judges are not extreme at all- to the point where they are actually favorable to Democrats? (as was Ronnie White's record on the death penalty to Republicans)
Shawn,
You need some psychological help. Seriously...
The reason you know of no one else who "is so opposed to being held accountable for his own statements" is because you don't wander around with some personal vendetta attempting to misconstrue and characterize as a liar anyone else on these boards. You do this pretty much exclusively to me and then you have the cluelessness to wonder why I no longer give you the time of day. Here's a hint Shawn, I don't have to argue with you about what English or my own words mean. I don't have to argue with you about whether a source is "valid," what the definition of words are, or any other such nonsense. You twist these all the time in some weird attempt to prove me wrong.
You link to the press release yourself that has Waters characterizing Ashcroft as racist. I link to an article that associates every action possible with racism while not actually using the word racism. (I even give an example where I say, hey people don't call the president a liar, they just say disengenous.)
You then want to argue that this isn't "representative" of all Democrats or the sample isn't big enough, or well whatever else floats your boat.
When are you going to get over yourself? I don't have to check with the personal Shawn-Dictionary before I use a word. I don't have to get approval on the number of people within a group to draw a conclusion or have you determine what number is appropriate. You aren't my editor, I don't work for you, and you determine nothing. There IS a universe beyond the end of your nose, even if you refuse to see it.
If you don't like my characterizations, just disagree with them. But you aren't going to get anywhere with your pointed questions, word games and other inane nonsense. You become more of a joke by the day even to the people on the left who engage in serious debate on here. (a group you are no longer associated with)
What's next? You telling me I misused a comma?
Nick
Originally posted by BRussell
I'm sorry you spent so much time on that long post, because the whole thing is based on this one easily demonstrable inaccuracy. I've already provided you with the factual information to contradict your statements, so at this point I'm not convinced facts really matter to you, but I'm an optimist, so here goes.
1. According to this report from Congress itself, the filibuster has been used 35 times for presidential appointees, 17 of which were judicial appointees. The vast majority of those were used by Republicans against Clinton. I watched Trent Lott on C-SPAN II yesterday list all their names. He doesn't have any problem admitting it. His argument was simply that Republicans haven't typically been successful in blocking the appointees with the filibuster, whereas Democrats look like they may be.
Rather than extending mock sympathy, I?d much rather have more substantive comments on the core issue of the thead, as well as the theme of my post. Rest assured, while I am firm in my convection, I am more than willing to correct factual errors and, if needed, modify assertions.
To wit:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Republican party leadership has not used filibuster to block judicial appointments, successful OR unsuccessful ? period. In fact, according to your chart explanation, none of the 35 (of both parties) were related to judicial appointments.
Yes, I am mistaken in my assertion that your chart explanation shows none of the 35 ("filibusters") were related to judicial appointments - Leahy's chart had no information regarding filibusters. However, after reviewing your linked congressional document, I can see where you obtained your "demonstrable error" regarding filibustering. The document says there were 35 cloture votes (not filibusters) of which 11 or 17 were judicial.
Sorry, it does not undermine my previous assertion that never before, in modern history, has political party leadership used, or attempted to use, the filibuster to deny a Judicial nominee, who had a majority of votes, their confirmation. Let?s be specific, and not use slippery obfuscation: I am not talking about ?blocking? appointments via majoritarian support, nor am I talking about blocking non-Judicial appointments, nor am I talking about a maverick Senator holding up an appointment - I am speaking to the unprecedented use of filibuster by Party leadership to deny a majority vote in the Senate. In fact, from what I have read, ONLY Abe Fortas comes close to being an exception to that assertion ? of course he did not even have a simple majority for cloture or support, and the blockage was bi-partisan.
Perhaps in your impatience for long posts, you didn't note that that the congressional document admits that its methodology to determine an actual filibuster is speculative and premature. It cautions readers that:
??supporters of a nomination may move for cloture, in order to speed action, even when opponents may not consider themselves to be conducting a filibuster against it, or when they may have only threatened, but not actually conducted, a filibuster.
Since filibusters may be conducted through a variety of tactics, there are no specific actions that definitively indicate the occurrence of a filibuster, much less of a mere threat to filibuster. To this extent, the presence of cloture attempts may at least be a readily available means for attempting to identify some cases in which filibusters may have occurred??
To date, I have not noted any legal historian that provides contrary evidence to my assertion. In fact, I invite you to note the following:
"JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 1:03CV01066 (CKK)
THE UNITED STATES SENATE, et al.,
"With only one even arguable exception,[2] the Senate simply has no modern history of filibusters against judicial nominees.[3] At no point in their lengthy review of the Senate?s history and customs do Defendants (the Senate) contend otherwise.?
And from another source:
"Now for the first time in 214 years of American history a minority of senators is seeking to extend the tradition of filibustering from legislation to judicial nominees who they know enjoy support of a majority of the Senate...While a filibuster was briefly used in 1968 against chief justice nominee Abe Fortas?he was supported by fewer than 50 senators?there was only one cloture vote on his nomination.
The unprecedented extension of the filibuster to judicial nominees supported by a majority of the Senate threatens to raise the vote required for confirmation from 51 to 60 in violation of the Advice and Consent Clause"
Mr. Calabresi is a professor at the Northwester University Law School and a co-founder of the Federalist Society.
Also a third source:
"By invoking Senate Rule XXII (filibuster), used now for the first time in connection with a nominee to the lower federal courts (there is one instance of the practice having been used against a Supreme Court nominee, the bipartisan move against Lyndon Johnson?s nomination of Abe Fortas for chief justice, which nomination was eventually withdrawn), the Democrat minority in the Senate, has, in effect, raised the number of Senators necessary to confirm a nominee from the mere majority previously regarded as sufficient to confirm, to the super-majority requirement of 60."
Stephen B. Presser is the Raoul Berger Professor of Legal History at Northwestern University School of Law, a Professor of Business Law at Northwestern?s Kellogg Graduate School of Management, and an Associate Research Fellow at the University of London?s Institute of United State?s Studies.
The essential data needed to refute my contention remains undelivered: What specific judicial nominations were: a) blocked by an actual filibuster or by threat of filibuster (successful and/or unsuccessful), b) if they have occurred, which ones were at the direction of Party leadership (not a maverick Senator), and c) If both a & b's criteria are met, then which judicial filibuster denied the majority who supported the nomination the opportunity to vote?
Until you (we) can come up with all three specifics, I'll have to rely on the above information (among others).
2. If you include other blocking techniques in addition to the filibuster, according to this chart from Leahy, 20% of Clinton's judicial nominees were blocked while the Republicans had the majority, whereas only 2% of Bush's appointees have been blocked.
I've made several previous comments on the nature of majoritarian blocking, as well as the history of Senate control. I have no special desire to expand the discussion into all nominations, or analyize blocking statistics for all the congresses since 1949 - it was not a part of my assertion. After previewing several other documents that suggest contrary numbers, I noted that the methodology for determing such is rather complicated and debateable, for both sides. However I do offer a tid bit for you to chew on regarding recent Democratic cooperativeness offered by a Democrat:
?A recent study by the Constitution Project at Georgetown University and Professor Wendy Martinek of Binghamton University suggests the continuing nature of the problem. In the first year of President George W. Bush's term in office, successful nominees took an average of 112 days from nomination to confirmation. This compares with 36 days in the first year of President Reagan's first term, 46 days in the first year of his second term, 62 days in the first year of the first President Bush's administration and 52 days in the first year of President Clinton's first term.?
Loyd Cutler, Special Council to President Jimmy Carter
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Sorry, it does not undermine my previous assertion that never before, in modern history, has political party leadership used, or attempted to use, the filibuster to deny a Judicial nominee, who had a majority of votes, their confirmation. Let?s be specific, and not use slippery obfuscation: I am not talking about ?blocking? appointments via majoritarian support, nor am I talking about blocking non-Judicial appointments, nor am I talking about a maverick Senator holding up an appointment - I am speaking to the unprecedented use of filibuster by Party leadership to deny a majority vote in the Senate. In fact, from what I have read, ONLY Abe Fortas comes close to being an exception to that assertion ? of course he did not even have a simple majority for cloture or support, and the blockage was bi-partisan.
...
To date, I have not noted any legal historian that provides contrary evidence to my assertion. In fact, I invite you to note the following: The essential data needed to refute my contention remains undelivered: What specific judicial nominations were: a) blocked by an actual filibuster or by threat of filibuster (successful and/or unsuccessful), b) if they have occurred, which ones were at the direction of Party leadership (not a maverick Senator), and c) If both a & b's criteria are met, then which judicial filibuster denied the majority who supported the nomination the opportunity to vote?
Heh, OK. Wow. You know, I see an opportunity for agreement here. You've said what the Dems are doing is unprecedented in history, if we set certain conditions:
1. Other types of blocking don't count. Even if a single Senator such as Jesse Helms, let alone 41, refuses to give a nominee a fair up-or-down vote, that's OK, because, well I guess because that was the Republicans and not the Democrats.
2. If it doesn't involve party leadership, it doesn't count. If Republicans do it, but they're not party leadership, that's OK. And actually I want to check on that. You wanna place a side bet that at some point in one of those many filibusters Republicans tried on Clinton's nominees, that at least one of the Republican leadership at one time participated, i.e., voted against cloture? I know that Frist filibustered one of Clinton's judicial nominees, but he wasn't majority leader at that time, so I guess that doesn't count. But do you want to place a bet before we look it up?
3. Other types of appointees don't count either, such as Clinton's surgeon-general nominee, Henry Foster, who was filibustered by the Republican party leadership and never confirmed, because it was the Republicans who did that, and so it's OK by definition. Even though they're treated the same in the Constitution, and even though executive branch nominations should arguably be given more leeway because they only serve in government as long as the president is in office. But, yeah, OK, you set the rules.
4. Filibusters that were attempted but failed don't count either. Republicans filibustered Clinton nominees dozens of times, but were generally not very successful. So those of course can't count.
So, if we agree on those conditions, then yeah, what the Democrats are doing is absolutely without historical precedent!
Why does it matter that there's never been a filibuster to prevent a majority party from making judicial appointments?
This little point keeps getting bandied about as if it's a horrible breach of some rule of decorum, and yet clearly, the tactic of the filibuster exists precisely for this purpose. Just because it's being used for the first time does not mean that something nefarious is going on. Indeed, that the democrats have resorted to this (their only) last resort indicates the degree to which they do not want these four judges confirmed.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by BRussell
So, if we agree on those conditions, then yeah, what the Democrats are doing is absolutely without historical precedent!
Ah good, we agree!
Actually your post brought a good natured chuckle. It would be interesting to see if any judicial nomination, in any circumstance by anyone, was actually fought through filbuster (other than Fortas). My readings imply, but do not quite state, that there are none.
As for Foster (and Brown) it is my understanding that that cloture requests were made before debate even began, in an effort to hurry them through...that there was no attempted filibuster.
As for Frist, I don't know - of course Helms (I believe he was a democrat at one time) may have used it for sometime, particularly in civil rights legislation.
As for the other points you made, it is fair to ask broader questions about the judicial nomination process, and how and who blocks nominations of all types, etc. - but not as an answer to my concerns. As you seem interested in it, I'll take a shot at researching it and try to give a little more depth to Leahy's counter-complaint.
In the meantime, I believe this development judicial filibustering is unprecedented and, frankly, for both political and constitutional reasons, an ominious sign. I'll explore more of that in my response to midnight.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
I'll explore more of that in my response to midnight.
<joking>That's Midwinter. As in Ozias Midwinter from Wilkie Collins's novel, Armadale.</joking>
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
It is a simple up or down vote and the democRATS will not work for the people.
So, by your definition, the only way for Democrats to "work for the people" is to lay down and give in on everything the Republicans want?
Do you think the only right thing for a minority party to do is to always give in to what the majority party wants? That there should be absolutely no mechanisms whereby a minority party can exercise a little clout other than maybe a little jaw flapping before giving in on a vote they know they'll lose?
A little math: The Senate has 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and 1 Independent. When Jim Jefford's in on their side, the Democrats are a mere 1% away from a tied position. A mere 3% from a clear majority without tie-breakers going to VP Cheney for a vote.
So you really prefer a "winner takes all" system, where in a nearly split scenario a slim majority gets all of what it wants all of the time? It makes the Democrats "rats" because they put up a big fight to keep out a mere 2% of Bush's nominees?
You have a very strange sense of fairness if you're on the Democrats case about this.
Originally posted by shetline
I see your points shetline
Fellows
Originally posted by midwinter
I have a question:
Why does it matter that there's never been a filibuster to prevent a majority party from making judicial appointments?
This little point keeps getting bandied about as if it's a horrible breach of some rule of decorum, and yet clearly, the tactic of the filibuster exists precisely for this purpose. Just because it's being used for the first time does not mean that something nefarious is going on. Indeed, that the democrats have resorted to this (their only) last resort indicates the degree to which they do not want these four judges confirmed.
Cheers
Scott
-----?You don?t burn down a house to roast a pig? (my saying).-----
Recently, a friend of mine made the point that, unlike 20 or 30 years ago, the two Parties are more ideological than ever. My response was that the parties are probably less ideological (remember the conflicts over the New Deal and Great Society?), but they are far more angry and partisan. Traditions, principles, and protocols that kept emotions and ideological differences in check ? at least enough to assure effective government ? have slowly eroded into intense and vicious partisanship. The idea of working within principles, or with mutual respect, are no longer in play - citizens have become far more base and cynical, and like their leaders, often consumed by personal bitterness and hate of the other Party.
It was not always so. For most of the Republic?s existence, Presidential nominees didn?t even have to appear before the Senate, they were simply affirmed or denied, as required by the constitution. For the first time in 1939, Justice Frankfurter, in his confirmation, appeared before the Senate committee and read a statement (no questions allowed). As late as 1962, confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee took only 2 hours. Appropriate and constitutional conduct was accepted and understood.
Starting in the late 1960?s, all that changed. Politicization of nominations started at the Supreme Court level, finally culminating in Bork?s lynching (the first purely ideological rejection). Now, politics are moving down into appeals and district court positions.
Most recently, politics have reached new highs in the pursuit by Democrats to abandon the Constitutional provisions that ensure the President has the exclusive authority to nominate and appoint candidates of his/her choice, and the constraints on the Senate to simply ?advise and consent? on a candidates presumption of fitness and his/her judicial commitment to interpret laws neutrally. Shumer, among others, have made it clear they intend only to approve court judges in accordance to their ?political ideology?, and he demands candidates commit to ?correct? decisions on issues prior to a judge?s hearing them. He, and many democrats, are part of the new legal school that believes ideological objectives should be actively legislated by right thinking judges in the areas of race, gender, etc. and that it is their duty to make sure that happens, by any means.
Now, the use of the filibuster, introduces another fundamental constitutional challenge, i.e.; the constitution specifies that the Senate will affirm or deny a Presidential nominee by a simple majority vote. In using the filibuster to avoid that constitutional requirement, Shumar & Co. are intruding on executive powers and attempting to create an unremunerated ?super majority? for the approval of those judicial candidates that meet their ideological criteria. (The constitution defines ?super majorities? for amendments, impeachments, etc., but not judicial appointments.)
Why does it matter? Well it only matters if one believes, as I do, that in order to create a just society, justice must be neutral. For the country, the credibility of the courts, and the system, lie in a belief in a philosophy of principled, neutral, system of justice that is not in the service of immediate political interests.
I suppose you can maintain that the courts are just politics, and that there is no real justice but power. I also suppose you can hope, as Thomas More?s son-in-law Roper, that it is better to get after the Republican Devil, even if it requires that every law be cut down.
I can only ask what More asked of Roper: ?And when the devil turns on you Roper ? where will you hide, every law being laid flat?.
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
So, by your definition, the only way for Democrats to "work for the people" is to lay down and give in on everything the Republicans want?{/Quote] Yes!
Do you think the only right thing for a minority party to do is to always give in to what the majority party wants? That there should be absolutely no mechanisms whereby a minority party can exercise a little clout other than maybe a little jaw flapping before giving in on a vote they know they'll lose?
Well,I think the right thing is for the Democrats to give in on everything and do what the Republicans want. Barring that, both parties have a right to pork barrel, log roll, trade favors, and cut deals. And they have a right to create customary arrangements on rules of conduct that will promote future cooperativeness.
A little math: The Senate has 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and 1 Independent. When Jim Jefford's in on their side, the Democrats are a mere 1% away from a tied position. A mere 3% from a clear majority without tie-breakers going to VP Cheney for a vote.
So you really prefer a "winner takes all" system, where in a nearly split scenario a slim majority gets all of what it wants all of the time? It makes the Democrats "rats" because they put up a big fight to keep out a mere 2% of Bush's nominees?
A little more math: the democrats are losing several Senate seats in the South to retirement, no doubt there will be four or five new Republicans for you to plug in your equations at the end of next year.
Its not a matter of "winner take all", its a matter of constitutional authority vested in the President. Don't like it ? Change the constitution.
And by the way, the fight is over the critical positions in the Appeals court...not the hundreds of lower court judges.
You have a very strange sense of fairness if you're on the Democrats case about this.
I'd say following the constitution is fair, as is following agreed upon Senate tradition.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
My response was that the parties are probably less ideological (remember the conflicts over the New Deal and Great Society?), but they are far more angry and partisan.
I don't know that I buy that. I *would* argue that during the Clinton presidency, the right in this country became, largely because of the rise to prominence of folks like Limbaugh, an invective-spewing ball of hatred focused squarely on Clinton and his family--and that hatred extended to include all liberals, since the rhetoric of the right under Limbaugh never admits that not all liberals think alike.
And while Limbaugh himself is not too bad, those who emerged in his wake knew how to do little more than get folks angry, which is also, of course, a way to get very popular very quickly, since we're a culture that, despite our claims about civility, loves to watch meanness and cruelty. We can't get enough of it. Turn on the television at any time and you can get your fill of it.
And the right *dominated* the media by appealing to this: Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Coulter...you name it. They were seemingly everywhere. It is the right in this country who calls liberals unamerican and unpatriotic for their dissent against the president's policies. It is the right in this country who claim that liberals hate Bush. It is the right in this country who calls liberals traitors for simply not being conservative. It is the right in this country who claim liberals want to destroy America. It is the right in this country who claim liberals want to see Americans die in Iraq. It is the right in this country who claim liberals support al Qaeda. It is the right in this country who have transformed dissent into treason.
And so I ask: if there's equal parts hate on both sides, where is the liberal equivalent of someone like Ann Coulter? Ted Rall, perhaps? Tom Tomorrow? Eric Alterman? Krugman? Are they constantly on the talk shows? Are they constantly on the radio? Do they get their own television shows? Where's their hate? Where's their bile?
No. They don't.
But the right does. And you can't argue that Coulter represents some kind of extreme position of the right wing. She's thoroughly mainstream in right-leaning political discourse these days. Hell, just look around on these boards and you can see the influence of that kind of rhetoric.
Traditions, principles, and protocols that kept emotions and ideological differences in check ? at least enough to assure effective government ? have slowly eroded into intense and vicious partisanship. The idea of working within principles, or with mutual respect, are no longer in play - citizens have become far more base and cynical, and like their leaders, often consumed by personal bitterness and hate of the other Party.
...
Why does it matter? Well it only matters if one believes, as I do, that in order to create a just society, justice must be neutral. For the country, the credibility of the courts, and the system, lie in a belief in a philosophy of principled, neutral, system of justice that is not in the service of immediate political interests.
I suppose you can maintain that the courts are just politics, and that there is no real justice but power. I also suppose you can hope, as Thomas More?s son-in-law Roper, that it is better to get after the Republican Devil, even if it requires that every law be cut down.
I do not see how justice can ever be neutral, and you are right in supposing that I will argue that it is all politics. Any opinion about the way the world ought to be is a political position, and judges do two things: they interpret opinions about the way the world ought to be, and they set precedent. Our judicial system works, largely, on precedent, and because of that, cannot be fixed, or even neutral. It must change with the times. And indeed, there is no justice but what those in power say it is.
Your last supposition, however, is wrong. I'm pretty sure that the right in this country will self-destruct with no help from me.
Cheers
Scott
At both the macro and micro levels, there?s plenty of evidence that well-off liberals are using their increased disposable income ? much of which can be attributed to the Bush tax cuts ? to sate their desires for luxury goods and for political revenge. This odd condition of consumerist self-indulgence and political indignation ? fueled by the same source ? has reached epidemic proportions in areas where high-income
We?ve all seen the symptoms. A table of four raging over Bush?s Iraq policy while sampling the $58 tasting menu at Virot, an expensive new bistro on the Upper West Side.
Tax Cuts
Fellows