Filibusters Right or Wrong

“Both parties have used filibusters in the past to stop the other party from doing something. Neither side liked it but they lived with it.

Since both have used it why does the Republican party want to do away with it now. Will they go back and change it when it suits their needs again.

Is it time to get rid of filibustering so that neither party can use it again or should it stay the way it is.”

“Maybe we should just get ride of political parties.”

“If it is to STALL an appointment to buy time for further review; fine. If it’s to OVERTURN an appointment; it’s bull chit. Stalling an appointment for 4 years is nothing short of obstructionism.”

“I agree with Nigal, don't use it to obstruct indefinately. Use it to gain time to bring more info to the floor, but don't drag it out forever.”

“both parties have done that in the past and present and will in the future. Question is should it be done away with.

Are the Republicans wanting to do away with it cause it suits their needs NOW. What happens when they want to filibuster and it isn't there. Will they try to bring it back?”

“It has always seemed to me that the whole idea of a filibuster was wrong. I can't see any legitimate use for it. The House of Representatives did away with it a long time ago (60's I think). They seem to have survived ok.”

“The system's been in place long before any of us. I understand the concerns, but it's not cut and dried. It's designed as part of the system of checks and balances, so one side can't bulldoze their agenda through that easily. If it is to be done away with, then fine. But, let's not stop there. If we are going to amend history, then let's put some recourse on the table that may benefit the minority party and give them a voice. This will prevent simple party-line politics. Frist's nuclear option is clearly ignorant of this proposal...
last edited: 5/20/05 10:07:10 AM”

“Now, it’s been a long time sense I was in 9th grade government class but…aren’t they supposed to do nothing but talk non-stop and not leave until it’s over? I want these basturds sleeping on cots, not showering and eating until this is over! LOL!”

“Hey, they can sleep upside down in a f_cking closet, for all I care!”

“Would it not be fair to maybe put a limit on the length of a filibuster? While I’m not for railroad politics the same as tree beard, I find it even scarier that the minority can defeat a majority. Doesn’t sound too democratic to me. When the repubs did it last they only held out for a short time and then sent it to the vote on the floor. I don't remember them ever trying to kill the nomination (but I could simply be ignorant on the subject).

It would be interesting to see the Clinton nominees beside the Bush nominees and see who was the more "slanted". Not saying one way of the other.
last edited: 5/20/05 10:14:27 AM”

“Most of Bush's nominees have gone through. The numbers are not as great as you might think...”

“Not even half by my last count. And I mean, it's not like he's trying to get people appointed that will do stuff like turn over roe V. Wade. I think they are afraid of setting a precedence for a Supreme Court nomination.”

“During Bush's first term, Senate Democrats used filibusters to block 10 of his 218 court nominees. Bush renominated seven of them this year, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is threatening to force a confrontation over the issue this week.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/17/filibuster.fight/”

“Using a filibuster to block even one is extremist and obstructionism (is that a word?).”

“Simple

When Dems in power - Filibusters BAD
When Reps in power - Filibusters GOOD

This is what I read from all the shouting going on. ;-)”

“Umm.... a filibuster by definition is obstructionism.

Thats the whole point of it, to keep a vote from happening.”

“Stove, who is shouting?”

“The idea is to get away from votes that go strictly by party lines. Don't like the filibuster? Replace it with some other method of providing checks and balances. The nuclear option is bullsh_t power grab. If you can't see that, or simply won't admit it, then you're in denial...

Extreme measures over 10 judges out of 218? Give me a freakin' break!
last edited: 5/20/05 1:55:33 PM”

“What in the world is wrong with a vote going strictly by party lines? Some times that is how the system works. And when that happens, the system IS working. Nothing wrong with that. Democrats often vote as a solid block. I see nothing wrong with that.”

“So, you are sying that there should be no recourse here. That one man, GWB, should have no checks and balances on him when he leans on his party faithful to push through his judges? I don't think you would have been saying that if Clinton had all three majorities when he was in power...”

“He did the first 2 years, and the Senate (which is what we are talking about here) for another 2 years. And my opinion hasn't changed. Checks and balances doesn't mean the minority gets to have their way just cause the don't like something the president does or proposes. Checks and balances go all the way back to the voting booth.

By the way, just as a reminder, GWB won the election, and his party won the majority of the seats in both houses.”

“Thanks, no prob. Where would I be without you stating the obvious? Feel better now that you got a little condescension in there?

Then tell me why this has become a burning issue after it has been used since 1872?

I should say, revived since 1872...
last edited: 5/20/05 2:47:10 PM”

“It has only been used against judges for the last 4 years. Before that if the the judge was reported out of committee, they got a vote from the entire senate.

Condescending? Wasn't meant to be that way. Stating the obvious? probably, but you seem to be missing the obvious.”

“Don't be so presumptuous. My point is not without validity, whether you agree with it or not. If you don't think Frist is vying for power grab, then you are in denial...

if it were so cut and dried, then it would have been a done deal by now. There are some rebubs who see it that way too in the senate...
last edited: 5/20/05 2:54:48 PM”

“I don't disagree. Frist doing a power grab. So what. Lots of people in the senate are doing power grabs. I don't see that that is necessarily a bad thing.

Yes, there are some republicans that see it your way. They are wrong.”

“I think I am going to leve it at that. Let's agree to disagree. Agreed? :)”

““It has only been used against judges for the last 4 years.”

NoProb


Wellllllll, that’s not exactly accurate, NoProb. Check this site:


Judicial Fillibusters


“Since both have used it why does the Republican party want to do away with it now.”

Ewker


Probably for the same reason that the Democrats wanted to do away with gerrymandering of districts once Republican majorities started to do it. In politics, what’s good for the goose is an unfair action for the gander.




Is the fillibuster good? That’s an interesting question and I haven’t made up my mind. But I do like this argument:

Fillibusters


The one salient characteristic of the Senate is that it, among the elected bodies or positions at the national level, is definitively the least majoritarian. The U.S. Supreme Court has been emphatic that the representation of people on a reasonably equal basis is a fundamental constitutional principle that must be observed by all other elected bodies in the United States. 6 Thus, the Senate cannot serve as a model for U.S. constitutional, democratic majoritarianism. Its two senators for each state regardless of population was, as Chief Justice Warren has said, simply a political compromise and has no inherent democratic validity.

Perhaps because the Senate had already significantly departed from majoritarian principles in its representation scheme, the Framers were careful to specify every instance when something other than a simple majority is required to pass legislation in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. By carefully specifying the instances, they were forbidding the requirement of extraordinary majorities in other instances. Their constitutional reasoning was clearly stated by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison8 when he observed that "affirmative words [in the Constitution] are often, in their operation, negative of other objects than those affirmed. . . ." Applying this reasoning to the issue discussed here, it would be appropriate to conclude that affirmative constitutional checks on majority rule should be interpreted as forbidding additional legal checks that are not mentioned in the Constitution.

There is no question, of course, that the Constitution erects barriers to simple majority rule. But in every instance those are specifically provided for in the document. As Senator Walter Mondale and several of his fellow senators argued in 1975 in their efforts to modify the cloture requirement, where simple majority rule is to be checked, it seems clear that the Framers intended that those checks be constitutionally specified. These senators noted that the instances when extraordinary majorities are required in the Constitution are few in number and specifically delineated.

The president's veto can only be overruled by two-thirds majorities in each House. Similarly, a constitutional amendment requires two-thirds vote in each house, and neither house can expel a member without the concurrence of two-thirds of that house's members. Within the Senate, the Constitution also specifies those instances in which an extraordinary majority is required: two-thirds votes for treaties and for conviction of an impeached president. Thus, in the absence of express constitutional exceptions, the right of a simple majority of senators to vote for and pass a proposed bill is clearly implied by the Constitution. In 1892, the Supreme Court stated this principle clearly in United States v. Ballin. Speaking for the majority, Justice David Brewer held it to be "the general rule of all parliamentary bodies" that "when a majority is present, the act of a majority of the quorum is the act of the body. This has been the rule for all time, except so far as in any given case, the terms of the organic act under which the body is assembled have prescribed specific limitations" (emphasis added).

The filibuster is often defended as providing protection for minority rights. But the protection of minority rights by formal limits on the power of congressional majorities is the preserve of those who make and amend constitutions, not of those who devise the operating procedures of Congress. Placing formal limits on the majorities in Congress is a constitutional prerogative possessed solely by the drafters of the Constitution and the drafters of amendments to the Constitution. Congressional majorities are properly limited by the constitutional checks designed in large part to protect minorities. Placing additional limits on congressional majorities through operating rules and procedures of one or both houses of Congress is not constitutionally legitimate. Once legislative proposals favored by majorities have successfully run the gauntlet of checks described by the Constitution, those proposals are entitled to become law. That can be regarded as the basic constitutional right of majorities, a right based on the textual specifications of the Constitution itself and on the Supreme Court's insistence on the primacy of the one-person, one-vote principle.
last edited: 5/20/05 4:08:00 PM”

“Sorry folks. Here's the judicial filibuster site:

http://dpc.senate.gov/history.html”

“arclite - I think you'd be the king of filibusters.”

“Stove - You're missing something essential. Both parties like the fillibuster when they need to use it and hate it when it is used against them, but the Senate Democrats have never tried to eliminate the fillibuster on a simple majority procedural vote.
The fillinuster is an essential tool to prevent the tyranny of the majority, yes it can be misused - but so can a lot of other essential tools. Judge appointments are for life and there out to be something else in there to prevent a simple majority from ramming through every appointment they want. Clinton got far more appointments blocked than Bush has.

If the Democrats were using the fillibuster in some hugely expansive way, it might justify this sudden rule change - but Bush is getting more of his appointees through than Clinton did.
last edited: 5/20/05 5:40:30 PM”

“Clinton got far more appointments blocked than Bush has.

Although the left doesn't like it, for obvious reasons, that is because there are more elected representatives of the right than the left.

They were voted on to represent them and their views. By that very nature, the party with the minority will have less benefits. That's how it's designed to work. We aren't supposed to "make it an even playing field" just b/c somebody gets the raw end of the deal.”

“they are right, this is crap.”

“But Sarge.... the Republicans also used non-majoritarian methods to block and attempt to block Clinton appointments. They fillibustered twice in 2000.”

“Republicans blocked votes on 60 Clinton nominees - they didn't vote them down, they prevented a vote. They didn't even get a committee vote:

see the Christian Science Montior:
Moreover, some 60 Clinton nominees never had a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee - as effective a block to confirmation as a filibuster, they add.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0512/p02s01-uspo.html”

““The fillinuster is an essential tool to prevent the tyranny of the majority”

pedxing


I don’t know, ped. What did you think of the above argument? Here’s the last part.

The filibuster is often defended as providing protection for minority rights. But the protection of minority rights by formal limits on the power of congressional majorities is the preserve of those who make and amend constitutions, not of those who devise the operating procedures of Congress. Placing formal limits on the majorities in Congress is a constitutional prerogative possessed solely by the drafters of the Constitution and the drafters of amendments to the Constitution. Congressional majorities are properly limited by the constitutional checks designed in large part to protect minorities. Placing additional limits on congressional majorities through operating rules and procedures of one or both houses of Congress is not constitutionally legitimate. Once legislative proposals favored by majorities have successfully run the gauntlet of checks described by the Constitution, those proposals are entitled to become law. That can be regarded as the basic constitutional right of majorities, a right based on the textual specifications of the Constitution itself and on the Supreme Court's insistence on the primacy of the one-person, one-vote principle.




I would have probably made a fair trial lawyer, sarge. But I would have had to shoot myself in the head. A politician? I would have had to abort myself.


"It is a horrible demoralizing thing to be a lawyer. You look for such low motives in everyone and everything."

Katherine T. Hinkson”

“Well ... I'm not a Republican. I'm not defending them.

(for pedxing)
last edited: 5/20/05 5:50:39 PM”

“they are right, this is crap.”
birch
5:43:00 PM
5/20/05

Birch, care to give a little more details. Remember both parties have filibustered before. They both use it for their advantage. Are you saying it is wrong for the Dems to do it but right for the Reps or is it crap all around for both parties.

The Senate reminds me of Burger King they Both want it their way. Sounds like TT doesn't it”

“Arc: I'm not sure about the constitutionality and have no rebuttal on that. In fact, I assume the constitution doesn't protect the right to fillibuster. But, not everything that is allowed constitutionally is ethical or healthy. The fillibuster has a strong tradition as a tool used (and, yes, abused) in divisive times for a minority to block that which is most odious to it. Given the lifetime appointment of the
judges, I think a fillibuster rate of less than 5% is not unreasonable, and a cloture vore of only 60 is all that is required.”

“Check out what Bush's new attorney general (at the time he was White House Counsel) said in 2001:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/08/14/bush.judges/

Note also that things went far better than he feared, given the behavior of Republicans in the Clinton years.
last edited: 5/20/05 6:10:44 PM”

“IMO, to talk about this responsibly, people must drop the "you guys did that" and the "Dem vs. Repub" methodolgy as well.

This is a principle that should be discussed as how we want our country to be run.

That being said, I agree that they're unconstitutional from the (very) little research I've done on it, and confirming that, would be opposed.

It's important to stand by the Constitution's intended meanings. Once we decide it should be overturned, we have nothing ... no country ... just people bickering.

It will be our fall.”

“not arguing sarge but would you have felt the same way if the Republicans were the ones going to do the filibustering.

My feel is that it has been going on for a long, long time. Does it need to stop..maybe but do it for the right reasons and not just to get what your party wants.

problem is most of the time they don't do anything for the right reasons.”

“Ewker - like I said, I'm not a Republican. So yes, I would feel the same way that we shouldn't turn this into a "us vs. them". I think we should return to the constitution for answers, not our desires for power.”

“I see nothing unconstitutional about the Fillibuster. However, I see no constitutional protection either.

I am no constitutional expert, however - so I very well could be wrong. If the Republican party feels it is unconstitutional, the appropriate thing to do is to consult the Supreme Court. No one has been talking about taking it to the Supreme Court. Republican appointees have a huge majority in the Supreme Court, so they would hardly be considered to be biased against Republicans.

Anyone who seriously believes that the Fillibuster is unconstitutional and justifies the overthrowing of the fillibuster on that ground, should be appealing for the Supreme Court to decide this.”

“everybody have a good weekend I am outta here”

“later”

“ewker, I meant that the right of a minority party to fillibuster is important. Trying to thwart that since you have power is crap.”

“later sarge

birch gotcha and I agree with you

ok I gotta go”

“definition from wikipedia:

A filibuster is a process, typically an extremely long speech, that is used primarily to stall the legislative process and thus derail a particular piece of legislation or a Presidential nominee, rather than to make a particular point in the content of the diversion per se.

I don't see how this possibly could be a good thing. The only thing it's good for is stopping legislation if you're the minority (because you were (not) elected into that position by the people) that you don't want passed.

How is not voting on or discussing how the country should be run a good thing?

Why is it that we talk of "democracy", but not in this case? We're a Republic because we elect people to represent our ideals. The filibuster makes us not a republic, nor a democracy.

Serious question - how does this benefit America?”