Conservative Columnists: Lay off the Judiciary

Abe Fortas, LBJ's nominee for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, was filibustered by Republicans in 1968, but I imagine that you knew that, basso. Republicans rarely used the filibuster because they didn't need to. I suspect you knew that as well. Perhaps this will shed some light on the subject for those who don't know much of the background about what is happening now, why doing away with the filibuster would be a disaster for the Senate, and why many Republicans are against doing away with it, although they hesitate to take on the current extreme, right-wing leadership, and their leader, the extremist, George W. Bush. In my opinion.

Here is a couple of excerpts from a long article in the New Yorker (which I suggest be read in it's entirety by those interested in the subject... both parties are not blameless, which is, ironically, an example of why compromise, the filibuster, and the tradition and comity of the Senate are so important) that, hopefully, will turn that light bulb on in your head about why this is a big deal... not only to Democrats, but to your own party:

(from the New Yorker)

Republicans claimed that the use of the filibuster against judicial nominees who had majority support on the floor was unprecedented—a charge that had some elements of truth. Before 2000, there had been a handful of filibusters on judicial nominees, but only in extraordinary circumstances. In 1968, Republicans used one to head off Lyndon Johnson’s nomination of Abe Fortas as Chief Justice, although Fortas might not have been confirmed anyway. Other kinds of obstruction, however, have become increasingly common. Republicans controlled the Senate for six of President Clinton’s eight years in office, and during that time the Judiciary Committee blocked more than sixty of his judicial nominees from reaching the floor, where many of them would have been confirmed. A substantial number of these nominees never made it out of committee. “The Republicans did plenty of obstruction of Clinton’s judicial nominees in the nineteen-nineties, but they did it in a different way,” Sarah Binder, a professor at George Washington University and the co-author of a book on filibustering, said. “The Republicans just didn’t need filibusters.”

Democrats assert that, by confirming more than two hundred of Bush’s nominees, they have produced for this President a better per-term average of confirmations than those for Presidents Clinton, Reagan, or George H. W. Bush. Hatch called Democratic complaints “total bullcorn,” and went on, “Ronald Reagan was the all-time confirmation champion, with three hundred and eighty-two federal judges. He had six years of a Republican Senate to help him. Guess how many Bill Clinton had with only two years of a Democratic Senate? Three hundred and seventy-seven. Not bad at all. I always gave their nominees a fair shake.”

Both parties, in any case, have continued to ratchet up the partisanship. “Let me tell you how we did it in the Reagan Administration,” Biden, who chaired the Judiciary Committee for several of those years, said. “They came to me and told me whom they were going to nominate, and I’d say, ‘You’re going to have a problem with this one or that one’—maybe a dozen out of the hundreds of judges that Reagan appointed. And I’d say, ‘If you want to push that guy, all the others will wait in line behind him.’ And the problems generally were removed. We did business that way for years, and it worked. Now this crowd wants to shove everything down our throats. They don’t pull back on anybody. So we escalated with the filibusters. And they escalate with the nuclear option.”

.......................

Frist’s enthusiasm may not be enough to get the fifty Republican votes he needs to change the rules. On February 10th, Frist told the Washington Times that he had fifty-one votes, but a few days later, to me, he said, “I’m not going to talk about vote counts.” Senator John McCain, of Arizona, seems likely to oppose the idea. “We Republicans are not blameless here,” McCain told me. “For all intents and purposes, we filibustered Clinton’s judges, by not letting them out of committee. Making this change would put us on a slippery slope to getting rid of the filibuster altogether. It’s not called ‘nuclear’ for nothing.” Several other Republican senators also expressed reservations about the idea, often using similar language. Chuck Hagel, from Nebraska, said that he was undecided, and added, “I think the judges deserve up-or-down votes, but the filibuster is an important tool for the minority in the Senate.” Susan Collins, a moderate from Maine, who is also undecided, said, “It’s wrong for the Democrats to filibuster judges, but I’m concerned about the effect on the work of the Senate if the constitutional, a.k.a. nuclear, option is pursued.” John Sununu, a first-termer from New Hampshire, and Lamar Alexander, Frist’s junior colleague from Tennessee, have not made up their minds, either. Even Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina who supports the rules change, seemed to speak for many when he said, “Nobody wants to blow the place up.”

That—or something close to it—is what Democrats are threatening. “On both sides of the aisle, even among a good number of Republicans who are quite conservative, they know the nuclear option dramatically changes this place,” said Charles Schumer, the New York Democrat, who has been a leader for his party on judicial confirmations. “It makes the Senate into the House of Representatives. We are no longer the cooling saucer. The whole idea of the Senate is you need a greater degree of bipartisanship, comity, than in the House. And there are many conservative senators, particularly the ones who’ve been around a long time, who will not change that.” As Richard Durbin put it, “Several of the Republican members have been in the minority, and they know they will not be in the majority forever. They don’t want to do this to the institution.” But on every important vote of the past four years the Republicans have ultimately rallied to support the President.

The possibility of a Democratic retaliation—the Party’s own attempt at all-out war—is real. Even without the filibuster, Senate rules give a minority the chance to make life miserable for the majority. A single member can gum up the legislative machinery, as Tom Daschle, the South Dakota Democrat, who was his party’s leader for a decade in the Senate, explained. “The Senate runs on ‘unanimous consent,’ ” Daschle said. “It takes unanimous consent to stop the reading of bills, the reading of every amendment. On any given day, there are fifteen or twenty nominations and a half-dozen bills that have been signed off for unanimous consent. The vast work of the Senate is done that way. But any individual senator can insist that every bill be read, every vote be taken, and bring the whole place to a stop.” Daschle also doubted that the limitations on filibustering would in the future be applied only to judicial nominations. “Within ten years, there’d be rules that you can’t filibuster tax cuts,” he said.

Last November, Daschle became the first party leader in a half century to be defeated for reëlection. In a strongly Republican state, he lost a close race to John Thune, a telegenic former congressman, who made effective use of the fact that Daschle had once referred to himself as a District of Columbia resident. But another of Thune’s arguments was that Daschle had become the “obstructionist-in-chief.” Daschle’s defeat may make a strategy based on tying up the Senate appear less than promising for the Democrats.

(Republican Senator) Specter has done his best to try to avoid a confrontation. He plans to bring up some of Bush’s less controversial judicial nominees first, in an attempt to build momentum for compromise. But on February 14th Bush formally resubmitted to the Senate seven nominees whom the Democrats had filibustered in the previous two years. The confrontation may be delayed, but now, clearly, it can’t be avoided. Specter’s appetite for a fight may be lessened for personal reasons. On February 16th, he announced that he had Hodgkin’s disease. Last week, Specter told the Washington Post, “If we go to the nuclear option . . . the Senate will be in turmoil and the Judiciary Committee will be hell.”

One day outside the Senate chamber, I saw John Warner in an uncharacteristic pose for a politician. He had squeezed himself up against one of the old stone walls in an attempt to remain out of camera range while another senator talked to the press. In the first few years following his election in 1978, Warner was known more for being Elizabeth Taylor’s sixth husband than for any legislative achievements. (The marriage lasted from 1976 to 1982.) But Warner, who is now seventy-eight, patiently moved up through the ranks, and today chairs the Armed Services Committee and is an important source of institutional memory for the Senate. “When I came to the Senate, I studied the history of the filibuster,” he told me, “and unlimited debate has been an essential part of what we do since the inception of the body. Of course, the Democrats have pushed too hard and stopped too many judges, and I still don’t know what I’ll do if this thing comes up for a vote. I’m worried about it, and I’m worried about what’s happening to the Senate. You see, I’m a traditionalist. That’s my party.”

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/index.ssf?050307fa_fact


Republicans didn't need to filibuster when tradition and comity were the rule in the Senate. Extremists, from either party, didn't make it out of the Judiciary Committee. With a complete break from that tradition, the current far-right Republican leadership, with their extremist President, want their extremist judges on the lifetime federal bench. As Senator John McCain said, “We Republicans are not blameless here,” McCain told me. “For all intents and purposes, we filibustered Clinton’s judges, by not letting them out of committee. Making this change would put us on a slippery slope to getting rid of the filibuster altogether. It’s not called ‘nuclear’ for nothing.”

You can dismiss his concern. I do not.



Keep D&D Civil!!

 

Did you even bother to read the article? I even condensed it for you. I'm still amazed that you don't understand what this will do to the Senate, and because of what it will do to the Senate, what it will do to the country. As for your obsession with finding a filibuster by Republicans, I will merely repeat, again, what John McCain said...

Senator John McCain, of Arizona, seems likely to oppose the idea. “We Republicans are not blameless here,” McCain told me. “For all intents and purposes, we filibustered Clinton’s judges, by not letting them out of committee. Making this change would put us on a slippery slope to getting rid of the filibuster altogether. It’s not called ‘nuclear’ for nothing.”

And Arlen Spector...

“If we go to the nuclear option . . . the Senate will be in turmoil and the Judiciary Committee will be hell.”

And John Warner...

“When I came to the Senate, I studied the history of the filibuster,” he told me, “and unlimited debate has been an essential part of what we do since the inception of the body."



Come on, basso. I know you're a very intelligent guy. Putting aside your need to defend the President, and his party leaders, for just about anything they say and/or do, can't you see what this is going to do to the Senate? For the life of me, I cannot understand why John McCain can, for example, and you can't, and could care less. You just want the political victory. That's why I used the term "myopia" to describe your condition. I'm truly at a loss trying to understand your position.



Keep D&D Civil!!

 

Already posted. It is in this thread and if you ignored it, that is not my fault.

There was a list of nominees that never made it out of committee along with at least one who was filibustered.

 

I applaud the use of the filibuster in order to carry out the constitutionally appointed powers of the Senate and to safeguard the independence of the federal judiciary as well as to spare us the jurisprudence of assorted hacks and segregationists.

In fact, I wish they'd use it more - they should have done it to Thomas, simply because he was underqualified - and his performance has reflected this.

 

A new low! Even by conservative standards...

From today's Daily News...

Robertson: Judges worse than Al Qaeda

BY DEREK ROSE
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER


Federal judges are a more serious threat to America than Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 terrorists, the Rev. Pat Robertson claimed yesterday.

"Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings," Robertson said on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."

"I think we have controlled Al Qaeda," the 700 Club host said, but warned of "erosion at home" and said judges were creating a "tyranny of oligarchy."

Confronted by Stephanopoulos on his claims that an out-of-control liberal judiciary is the worst threat America has faced in 400 years - worse than Nazi Germany, Japan and the Civil War - Robertson didn't back down.

"Yes, I really believe that," he said. "I think they are destroying the fabric that holds our nation together."

Robertson's comments came with a showdown looming in the Senate over seven of President Bush's conservative judicial nominees who have been blocked by Democrat filibusters. Republicans have threatened a "nuclear option" to pass the judges by rewriting Senate rules to stop the filibusters.

Sources told the Daily News that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist lacks the 50 votes he needs, which could be a blow to his presidential hopes. "I don't think Frist has the votes," a GOP aide said. "He's now in his own corner. If he doesn't have the votes, he's really screwed."

Robertson echoed that sentiment. "I just don't see him as a future President," Robertson said.

http://www.nydailynews.com/05-02-2005/news/wn_report/story/305594p-261517c.html

 

Basso and Stupid Moniker;

Since you're so concerned about the will of the majority being thwarted by the minority I'm wondering what your opinion of the 2000 election was?

That certainly was an example of a minority disenfranchising a majority through legal means.

Why stop at filibusters and judicial appointments lets look at the biggest disenfranchisment of the electoral college that gives South Dakotans per capita more power to decide who is President than Texans and lets look at the Senate where South Dakota has as much representation as Texas?

 

Let's see, basso, I've already stated that he is accorded very little respect by the legal academy - left or right. For good reason, read his opinion in Lopez, the gun free school zone case - it's kind of a disaster - my arch conservative con law teacher who clerked for him skipped it, I guess out of embarrassment. More recently of course was his train wreck of a dissent in the Hamdi case, where he was the lone ranger on the court who apparently believes that the President is basically omnipotent in a time of war - whatever that means. Of course this all stems from his on-again, off again fascination with "originalism", which if we implemented it as consistently as he says we should would mean he would be using the colored bathrooms, that is if he wasn't in jail for marrying a white woman.

I know, you have attempted to refute this with an unscientific internet poll from "legal affars" (?) magazine - kudos. But that doesn't cut it.

 

So, the word "unprecedented" means "only in extraordinary circumstances?"

Try the actual definition of that word.

As I said earlier, I posted at least one example of a GOP filibustered judicial nominee. If you cannot read it through your GOP colored glasses, that is an issue you must deal with.

 

Keep waiting then. I gave an example that, your derision aside, happened and was a filibuster of a Clinton nominee by the GOP. In addition, McCain came out and said very clearly that "For all intents and purposes, we filibustered Clinton’s judges, by not letting them out of committee."

You are welcome to ignore the examples given, but keep in mind that YOU are the one with blinders on.

 

So you are arguing semantics. A GOP congressman says that they did the same exact thing, but it wasn't a technical filibuster. The spirit behind both actions are the same. They both used judicial rules to acheive the same goal. True the GOP folks in congress did it more frequently than the democrats, but it was the same operation with only slightly different options being utilized.

If you want to argue semantics you can, but there is no real difference in what was done.

 

A GOP Senator admits that they did exactly the same thing the Democrats are doing now, albeit with different rules, and you brush it off as a "non-example?"

Your blinders are on more tightly than I thought.