A how to guide on saving the fillibuster.......

[BPSCG]

*nudge, nudge*

Hey, mac, watch who the hell you're nudging.

Just in case this is a little too subtle for some, I'll make it a little more specific:

Nudge, nudge, David James:

Then I assume when Republican's blocked Clinton's appointments, you disapproved. Good for you.

Kodiak:
When did the GOP use a filibuster against Clinton?!?!?

I believe the Repub's blocked more of Clinton's appointments then Bush has seen blocked by the Dem's.

BPSCG:
How many did they filibuster?

Nudge, nudge, DavidJames...

 

[punchdrunk]

When did the GOP use a filibuster against Clinton?!?!?

As already mentioned, there are, through inaction, several ways to keep appointments from getting to a vote (committee pidgeonholing is just one). I have no problem with those.

Again, if it makes it to the floor, it should be voted on.

Isn't inaction through committee pidgeonholing neglecting the duties of advising and consent? Shouldn't all nominees receive action from beginning to end?

 

[BPSCG]

Isn't inaction through committee pidgeonholing neglecting the duties of advising and consent? Shouldn't all nominees receive action from beginning to end?

A committee can vote to send the nomination to the floor with a recommendation to disapprove a nominee, which I believe is virtually a death sentence. And I think it can vote to not send the nomination to the floor at all, which is a death sentence.

But in both cases, there's a vote taken to either continue to the next step in the process, or kill the nomination then and there. A filibuster is neither; it's an attempt to force the majority to accede to the minority's will by stalling the process until the majority gives up in frustration.

 

[punchdrunk]

But in both cases, there's a vote taken to either continue to the next step in the process, or kill the nomination then and there. A filibuster is neither; it's an attempt to force the majority to accede to the minority's will by stalling the process until the majority gives up in frustration.

From a Salt Lake Tribune opinion piece:

Utah's Sen. Orrin Hatch ended the "blue slip" practice. Sen. Hatch also began the practice of "filibustering by committee chairperson" nominees proposed by President Clinton. He simply refused to hold hearings on nominations even where senators from the nominee's home state approved of the nomination.
More than 60 Clinton judicial nominees were not even accorded the courtesy of a hearing during the Hatch chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Unlike the guy who wrote this, I wouldn't argue that all judicial appointees should receive a full senate vote, but I do think they should at least receive a hearing.

 

[Oregon_Skeptic]

According to a few web sites, Repubs threatened to filibuster and voted to filibuster some Clinton nominees—but they failed to execute each time.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0305-29.htm

http://mediamatters.org/items/200503160004

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/25/opinion/main683182.shtml

Still, I would bet they killed more in committee and by simply refusing to hold hearings than filibustering ever could.

 

[DavidJames]

Hey, mac, watch who the hell you're nudging.

Just in case this is a little too subtle for some, I'll make it a little more specific:

Nudge, nudge, David James:

This is just another example of Republican hypocrisy and disingenuous debating techniques. Play semantic word games. The same people who criticized (correctly) Clinton's famous "is" semantics game. Unabashed, unashamed hypocrites. Skeptics? HA, shills is more like it.

 

[BPSCG]

This is just another example of Republican hypocrisy and disingenuous debating techniques. Play semantic word games. The same people who criticized (correctly) Clinton's famous "is" semantics game. Unabashed, unashamed hypocrites. Skeptics? HA, shills is more like it.

When the facts are against you, argue the law.
When the law is against you, argue the facts.
When the facts and the law are both against you, attack your opponent.

-- Abraham Lincoln (attributed)

 

[SezMe]

This strikes me as a transparent attempt, having lost every other branch of the government, to control that one part that they haven't lost.

I don't have a link for this 'cause I read it in the local fishwrapper a few days ago but I think most of the federal judiciary was appointed by a Republican. Or are Republicans. Can remember which but, in either, case it would be hard to argue that the Dems "control" the federal judiciary.

 

[SezMe]

I am not a conservative but I think that the fillibuster argument is smoke. If the judicial nominees are that rancid surely the Democrats can make a clear case and make it publicly. Not allowing a vote sounds petulant in the absence of facts.

I hear them moaning about the fillibuster but no cogent argument why they want to fillibuster. If there is no groundswell of support for their position from either the citizens or their collegues then they are playing politics pure and simple.

Would you make the same comment about Orrin Hatch who bottled up Clinton nominations in committee and wouldn't even let the COMMITTEE vote them up or down?

 

[varwoche]

Isn't inaction through committee pidgeonholing neglecting the duties of advising and consent? Shouldn't all nominees receive action from beginning to end?

Indeed. To object to blocking tactic A, but not B and C, is akin to shooting an arrow and drawing a bullseye around the spot it lands.

 

[shanek]

Why don't they ever hold up things like the Real ID act in committee or filibuster? Then I wouldn't mind so much...

Both the Democrats and the Republicans are a bunch of thugs, Ron Paul excepted. This isn't really about party; this is about power.

 

[BPSCG]

Indeed. To object to blocking tactic A, but not B and C, is akin to shooting an arrow and drawing a bullseye around the spot it lands.

I'm forced to agree - if the president nominates someone, you have to hold hearings; it's your job. I believe the Dems did the same thing at some point or other, but tu quoque is no excuse.

BTW, you never did answer my earlier question:

So do you believe these nominees are in fact in the mainstream?

 

[Kodiak]

Isn't inaction through committee pidgeonholing neglecting the duties of advising and consent? Shouldn't all nominees receive action from beginning to end?

To answer your first question: I honestly don't know, but I'm sure some constitutional lawyer could make an argument...

To answer your second question: Some would say they should, but it doesn't both me if they don't. As I've already stated though, if it makes it to the floor, it should be voted upon. IMO, of course...

 

[Kodiak]

This is just another example of Republican hypocrisy and disingenuous debating techniques. Play semantic word games. The same people who criticized (correctly) Clinton's famous "is" semantics game. Unabashed, unashamed hypocrites. Skeptics? HA, shills is more like it.

Avoidance acknowledged.

Thank you.

 

[BPSCG]

Identify the speaker (all United States senators):

"We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our ... colleagues don't like them, vote against them. But give them a vote."

"The basic issue of holding up judgeships is the issue before us, not the qualifications of judges, which we can always debate. The problem is it takes so long for us to debate those qualifications. It is an example of Government not fulfilling its constitutional mandate because the President nominates, and we are charged with voting on the nominees. … I also plead with my colleagues to move judges with alacrity – vote them up or down. But this delay makes a mockery of the Constitution, makes a mockery of the fact that we are here working, and makes a mockery of the lives of very sincere people who have put themselves forward to be judges and then they hang out there in limbo."

"I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would . . . object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported. …"

"...I would like to see that the Senate shall also be held to the responsibility of acting in a timely fashion. If, after 150 days languishing in a committee there is no report on an individual, the name should come to the floor. If, after 150 days languishing on the Executive Calendar that name has not been called for a vote, it should be. Vote the person up or down. They are qualified or they are not. But to impose all of the burden on the executive branch and to step away from our responsibility I don't think is fair."

"But I also respectfully suggest that everyone who is nominated is entitled to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor."

"All [the judicial nominee] has ever asked for was this opportunity: an up or down vote on his confirmation. Yet for years, the Senate has denied him that simple courtesy." –

"For too long, we have accepted the premise that the filibuster rule is immune. Yet, Mr. President, there is no constitutional basis for it. We impose it on ourselves. And if I may say so respectfully, it is, in its way, inconsistent with the Constitution, one might almost say an amendment of the Constitution by the rules of the U.S. Senate."

"Mr. President, I am very glad that we are moving forward with judges today. We all hear, as we are growing up, that, 'Justice delayed is justice denied,' and we have, in many of our courts, vacancies that have gone on for a year, 2 years, and in many cases it is getting to the crisis level. So I am pleased that we will be voting. I think, whether the delays are on the Republican side or the Democratic side, let these names come up, let us have debate, let us vote."

"I don't think we should have litmus tests for members of the sub-Cabinet, the Cabinet or the judges. … And I think we should have up-or-down votes in the committee and on the floor."

"The Senate is bottling up people who deserve to be voted on — up or down."

"It is our job to confirm these judges. If we don't like them, we can vote against them. That is the honest thing to do. If there are things in their background, in their abilities that don't pass muster, vote no. I think every one of us on this side is prepared for that. The problem is, we have a few people who prevent them from having a vote, and this goes on month after month, year after year."

Here are the answers.

 

[varwoche]

So do you believe these nominees are in fact in the mainstream?

Don't know. I'll do some reading over the next couple of days and then chime in.

 

[SezMe]

But such contradictions are SOP in DC, Beeps, and you probably have better "at hand" experience with that than most of us. Presidents (the present one included), Senators, Reps, etc., etc., all say things to support their current position. These weighty pronouncements, over time tend to become contradictory. That there are such statements regarding the current brouhaha is just, well, *yawn*, not particularly interesting.

Here's an example from the other side. Remember when Clinton was under siege. There was incessant yakking about how "character counts" and there was constant reference to his past, being a "druggie" and all. Now we have President who ducked military service and was a drunk - when was the last time you heard the phrase "character counts?"

Its a disease that seems to afflict politicians. Maybe it's catching. Be careful, Beeps, your breathing the same air as they do.

 

[BPSCG]

But such contradictions are SOP in DC, Beeps, and you probably have better "at hand" experience with that than most of us.

Huh? I'm a minor computer jockey in a very large government agency and the biggest shot I've ever had any personal interaction with was our CIO a few weeks ago when our office did a demo of some reporting tools we're developing. Mrs. BPSCG, her mother, and I did see Virginia's (Democratic) governor Mark Warner having dinner with Virginia's (Republican) Senator John Warner (no relation) together at the same little Italian restaurant we were at one night last year, but they didn't wave to us or invite us over or send us a bottle of wine.

That there are such statements regarding the current brouhaha is just, well, *yawn*, not particularly interesting.

They why should we not discount the Dems' current stance on filibusters entirely? If their diehard defense of the filibuster tradition is born of political expediency rather than genuine conviction, why should we accord their arguments any serious weight? Don't go defending the filibuster as a great weapon against the tyranny of the majority when not so long ago and the tables were reversed, you hated the thing. A Democratic senator once wrote a best-selling book about senators and congressmen who stuck firm to their principles even when it was unpopular, even at the cost of their political careers. I doubt any of the above batch would qualify for inclusion in that book, judging by their inability to resist the slightest change in the political breeze.

 

[SezMe]

They why should we not discount the Dems' current stance on filibusters entirely? If their diehard defense of the filibuster tradition is born of political expediency rather than genuine conviction, why should we accord their arguments any serious weight? Don't go defending the filibuster as a great weapon against the tyranny of the majority when not so long ago and the tables were reversed, you hated the thing.

I would not characterize a politically expedient statement as a "diehard defense." Remember, as I pointed out above, all these Republicans insisting that every nominee deserves an up or down vote fully supported Hatch when he bottled up Clinton's nominees in committee. There is rhetoric on both sides of the aisle.

I would not have a problem with ending the filibuster...just not as it is being done, namely in the middle of the game. These nominees came into play under the current rules and should be handled by those same rules. If the Elephants want to change Senate rules, fine. But don't do it in the middle of the game.

I presume your use of "you" is a generic one since I personally did not "hate" the thing.

 

[TeaBag420]

1. The senate is designed to protect the rights of the minority.

2. Many things don't come to an up/down vote for a wide variety of procedural reasons.

Shouldn't you be riding the bus with your sister?