I'm going to point out that the Democrats did try to filibuster the GW Bush's USSC nominees. That's when we got the converse of what we are seeing now in regard to what a lot of people thought about the filibuster. In regard to how the Senate is making the US ungovernable again this was the intention of the Framers that the Senate would be their to slow down legislation. Also consider California which is the state that has most pushed the idea of direct democracy to bypass the legislature. If you think the US as awhole is ungovernable consider how much the referendum and recall process has the ability of California's government to actually govern.
Good post. Repped. This is a really relevant question, especially in light of the rapidly changing political environment that we are now in. It may be that the Democrats find themselves back in minority status a good bit sooner than they thought possible just one year ago. When that occurs, and sooner or later it very certainly will, then these stupid Senate rules will be hailed by the Democrats as the bedrock foundation of our Democracy. Go figure.
Name one USSC nominee that was filibustered. The answer is none. zero. And don't even try to compare Bush's judicial nominee treatment with Obama's nominee treatment because it's not even close as to who has had an easier time in the Senate. It's an argument that is not going to end well. The term "unprecedented" is thrown around alot. I'll let you guess why I'm mentioning it now. Please please stop trying with your ridiculous alternate history about "The Framers" (with their super brains and 12-inch dongs...so their opinion matters more...) somehow endorsing the filibuster.....the first semi-filibuster did not occur until 1837, and guess what, most of "The Framers" were freaking dead by then...even then it wasn't really used much until the 20th century until formal cloture vote procedure was adopted. I found out all this hard-to-come-by info from wikipedia. Seriously stop trying to extrapolate some bullsh-t endorsement of filibusters by dead men - you are just making things up when you do that.
not necessarily on just bush nominees, but i do seem to remember republicans always whining about how they just wanted an "up or down" vote and imploring the democrat(ic) party to stop playing politics. now they are doing the same thing they complained about. and on the radio yesterday i heard limbaugh or bortz actually say that obama better not do a recess appointment if his nominee gets stalled. f***ing hypocrites.
I didn't say was I said "try". You do recall the whole debate over the nuclear option? If there wasn't a threat at filibuster why would Frist have even brought up the idea of doing away with it? I agree with that the amount of filibuster threats has been unprecedented that doesn't mean it hasn't been used before. Also there hasn't been an actual filibuster that has taken place this Congress only the threat of one. Honestly I can't remember the last time a real filibuster has taken place. What alternate history? If you don't believe that the purpose of the Senate wasn't meant to be there as the more deliberative body to slow down legislation you tell me what was the intent of the Senate? How am I making things up? The intentions of the framers is clear in the Federalist Papers that the Senate be the more deliberative body. Also as I have pointed out in Article I of the Constitution it clearly gives the Senate the right to decide the rules by which they conduct business. Filibusters are completely constitutional and match with the intent of the Framers to slow down legislation.
This is a question posed to those upset about the Republicans use of Senate rules. Would you prefer that the filibuster and senatorial holds be done away with? This would mean apply to any party regardless of which one is in the majority or minority.
Done away with? No. Modified? yes. It has been done before. The framers of our constitution spelled out what needed a super-majority to pass. They didn't ever intend for every single issue before the legislation to require a super majority.
A followup Looking at Wikipedia while you are correct that the first thing like a filibuster in the US Congress didn't happen until 1837 when the founders were dead but the idea of continuous debate to block legislation began in ancient Rome and was known to the Framers, was available as a tactic along with being debated on at the very first US Senate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster [rquoter]In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing the Senate "to move the previous question," ending debate and proceeding to a vote. Aaron Burr argued that the motion regarding the previous question was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated.[19] In 1806, the Senate agreed, recodifying its rules, and thus the potential for a filibuster sprang into being.[19] Because the Senate created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, the filibuster became an option for delay and blocking of floor votes.[/rquoter]
Actually the framers didn't spell it out as cloture was something that only came about in 1917. From the quote I posted above it does appear that at least Aaron Burr felt so it looks like it had been considered but wasn't taken up by any of the Framers.
The framers did spell out things that would need a super majority. They specifically said impeachment, removing a member of congress, amending the constitution etc. They specifically made those very important issues stand out from what else the put in the constitution. It was clear they wanted super majorities to be required only for very important things. That is why they spelled it out. It's been in the constitution since the beginning.
I do recall it - you're still obviously wrong as that had nothing to do with the Supreme Court. What do leeches, witchcraft, and the filibuster have in common? Spoiler Answer: All were around during the 18th century and none are in the constitution
You're changing the subject now. We were talking about filibusters in general. The nuclear option had to do with a subcategory of filibusters regarding USSC appointments but that isn't directly related to the USSC but with how the Senate exercises its advise and consent power. And the very wikipedia entry that you mentions shows that the concept predates the Constitution and was considered by the framers.
That is true and I think as a principle that is traced to the founders, just as the concept of filibusters was known at the time, although the cloture rule didn't come until 1917.
I think his point was that the nuclear option was a response to filibuster of some random judicial nominees, but not any Supreme Court nominees.
Yeah, I was just pointing out the Republicans are acting contrary to the will of the founding fathers by abusing the rule.
I'm not changing the subject - for the third time - NO IT ****ING DIDN'T. Neither ROberts nor ALito was filibustered or even under a real threat of doing so - the motion to end debate on ALito passed 75-25. The whole nuclear option thing was completely different and had to do with appellate court judges in 2005. So were leeches and witchcraft trials. So what?
Fine but that doesn't change the overall point regarding filibusters and other Congressional rules that the Democrats had threatened to use when the Republicans were the majority. It is a fact that Democrats threatend to use the filibuster and that Frist had threatened to change the Senate rules to prevent that. This is a meaningless point that you brought up so you should ask yourself that question. In regard to the main point of this debate the concept of filibusters were known by the Framers and considered very early on in the history of the Senate and the fact that the Constitution specifically allows for the Senate to enact its own rules. The very wikipedia entry that you cite shows this. Anyway I haven't noticed you answer my question. If you think things like the filibuster are so bad and unconstitutional would you support permanently doing away with them?
I'm not so sure about that. The Founders put in many checks and most were suspsicious while some were outright hostile to the idea of legislation being easy to pass. Leaving aside the founders I agree that the Republicans are abusing that power when we look at Congressional history but that is a somewhat different argument than what the Founders intended.
IF the founders wanted everything to require a super-majority to pass they wouldn't have listed only very specific times when it would be required by the constitution. Just because it doesn't have to have 60 votes or 2/3 of present senators doesn't make it easy to pass. Of course it depends on a lot of factors. Had they wanted EVERYTHING to require 2/3 to pass, they would have said so. But they didn't. They only said so for very specific procedures, and said nothing about all the rest of the duties before the Senate.
And it doesn't change the fact that you're using this example of a very limited narrow use of filibusters (which has since been surpassed, many fold, in many different areas) and attempting to blow it up into something else - in order to sustain your compulsionto somehow appear impartial on the BBS by creating an illusion of balance where there really isn't one - This is not the matter of a tiny fraction of extremist judicial appointees being sidetracked. There is a difference in kind no matter how much you try to whitewash to the contrary. Actually what's meaningless is your chronic attempt to read it into the constitution - shut up already. It's not there explicitly. It's not there implicitly. Game over. Sure. Or at least limited in some further way.
