Judicial Filibuster

I believe at least one of those was listed in the compromise suggested by the democrats and rejected by the GOP. I could be wrong though on the specifics.

But here is one letter detailing some of their previous rulings. Some of them don't seem so bad, even though I disagree with them, while one involving logging from McKeague, and striking workers from Allen, do seem out of place. I'm glad their decisions were overturned.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=16407

 

If you're talking about changing Senate rules to prevent judicial filibusters I would agree there is nothing unconstitutional about that but I would say its would be foolish on the part of Republican Senators to go along with that.

They would be diminishing the power of the Senate in order for short term political gain.

 

How is that short term gain? They would be appointing judges for life terms. Probably at least two, maybe three Supreme Court judges. That would change America for decades.

 

Is this thread making anyone else hungry?

 

You heard wrong. Clinton had a higher percentage of his nominees blocked by the GOP congress of the mid-90s. You need to stop lying, everyone knows the truth.

The Democrats are using a "procedural rule" of the Senate just as the GOP used other "procedural rules" to block 60 appointments, as opposed to the seven being held up by the Democrats today.

Yeah, yeah, libs are evil, blah blah, blah.

Sure, sure, libs are socialist communists who want to steal everything from you, yadda da yadda.

 

Its short term gain because a change of just 3 Senators will put the Republicans into the minority while a shift of less than 3% of the nationwide electorate will give Democrats the Presidency. The last time the filibuster rules were changed it was WW1 and its not likely a Dem. majority Senate would be willing to change the rules back to accomodate a Repub. minority. At the same time by weakenign the filibuster weakens the overall power of the Senate to the benefit of the Executive branch shifting the balance of the separation of powers.

 

Totally agree. Republicans won't always be the majority and that filibuster will look just as nice to the Repubs. as it does now to the Dems. Getting rid of it will hurt in the long run.

 

I just wanted to note that you should not be surprised by this. The good voters of Vermont love Bernie Sanders and he has served them well in the House for over 14 years. And he'll win the Senate race.

 

Cool. I hope he wins. Nothing wrong with socialists.

 

Really, Luther? I guess you can't remember back to 1968, when Republicans used the filibuster to defeat LBJs nomination of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

http://hnn.us/articles/11753.html

 

Saying the 1968 Fortas filibuster was bi-partisan is pure revisionist history. I suggest you read the article I linked to.

 

filibuster is bi-partisian bickering.

Rather than blaming Dems or Repubs, why don't you insist that all Sentators work together? Lets play by the rules and work together.

 

Yesterday you said the Fortas filibuster never even happened. Glad to know you've dropped that charade, at least.

 

That was an interesting article. I had previously bought the bi-partison filibuster argument as sound. I must say my mind has changed after reading that.

Thanks.

 

You're welcome. I love that website. Truly bi-partisan.

 

Oh good, a neutral source! From their "who are we" page, a list of their agenda:

 

Since the Fortas filibuster was bi-partisan further reinforces the point why it would be shortsighted on a whole for the Senate to remove the filibuster for judicial appointments.

The filibuster isn't a specific power for one party its a power available to all Senators. Any weakening of that power diminishes the Senate.