Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
I don't have strong feelings about fillibusters, but I read something I found interesting, and I thought I would share it.
During the papal conclave that gave us John Pauls I and II, to be elected Pope, you had to get a 2/3 + 1 majority. No exceptions.
JP II changed the rules. For the first 30 ballots, you had to get 2/3 +1, but then a 50% + 1 could vote to reduce the number required to 50% + 1. In other words, 50% + 1 could vote to lower the bar and make the 31st ballot the last one.
I read about this after the death of John Paul, but before the opening of the conclave, but the article was a catholic site written before it was obvious that John Paul was dying. The site predicted that, as a result of the change, a more conservative cardinal was likely to be the next Pope. This was because a 1/3 minority could block someone from being Pope.
So, the site speculated, a conservative would likely be the early frontrunner, because that's just the way Cardinals are. However, unless there was a clear, obvious frontrunner, the Cardinals would look and see that if a minority were blocking him, they could never get the 2/3 + 1 needed, and so the frontrunner would fade in favor of a compromise candidate.
In effect, the Cardinals had a fillibuster option.
However, JP II changed that. He exercised the nuclear option. Now, with the fillibuster gone, the frontrunner could be elected more easily. If he got 50% +1 early, the conservative block would know that they would just have to keep voting for two weeks or so until the necessary 30 votes had passed, and then their guy would be in. Seeing this, the minority would probably fade quickly, because they would see the inevitable.
The site predicted that the conclave would be short, and a widely known conservative would be elected.
And that is the way it worked. With no fillibuster, Ratzinger made it to the big time. Had there been a papal fillibuster, there might have been more black smoke until a compromise candidate was foudn.
And thus are judicial nominees likely to go in the future if the nucliear option is exercised. The majority can elect more extremist judges than would otherwise be possible.
Is that a good thing? I don't have a strong opinion, but it doesn't seem to me to be good. I wish that Bush would withdraw the most conservative of his appointees, and put up more compromise candidates. However, that's not his style, and the Senate might go along. The good news is that we have elections for President every four years, and the next guy can swing the pendulum back just as far.
Still, I, for one, would like a less wild pendulum.
During the papal conclave that gave us John Pauls I and II, to be elected Pope, you had to get a 2/3 + 1 majority. No exceptions.
JP II changed the rules. For the first 30 ballots, you had to get 2/3 +1, but then a 50% + 1 could vote to reduce the number required to 50% + 1. In other words, 50% + 1 could vote to lower the bar and make the 31st ballot the last one.
I read about this after the death of John Paul, but before the opening of the conclave, but the article was a catholic site written before it was obvious that John Paul was dying. The site predicted that, as a result of the change, a more conservative cardinal was likely to be the next Pope. This was because a 1/3 minority could block someone from being Pope.
So, the site speculated, a conservative would likely be the early frontrunner, because that's just the way Cardinals are. However, unless there was a clear, obvious frontrunner, the Cardinals would look and see that if a minority were blocking him, they could never get the 2/3 + 1 needed, and so the frontrunner would fade in favor of a compromise candidate.
In effect, the Cardinals had a fillibuster option.
However, JP II changed that. He exercised the nuclear option. Now, with the fillibuster gone, the frontrunner could be elected more easily. If he got 50% +1 early, the conservative block would know that they would just have to keep voting for two weeks or so until the necessary 30 votes had passed, and then their guy would be in. Seeing this, the minority would probably fade quickly, because they would see the inevitable.
The site predicted that the conclave would be short, and a widely known conservative would be elected.
And that is the way it worked. With no fillibuster, Ratzinger made it to the big time. Had there been a papal fillibuster, there might have been more black smoke until a compromise candidate was foudn.
And thus are judicial nominees likely to go in the future if the nucliear option is exercised. The majority can elect more extremist judges than would otherwise be possible.
Is that a good thing? I don't have a strong opinion, but it doesn't seem to me to be good. I wish that Bush would withdraw the most conservative of his appointees, and put up more compromise candidates. However, that's not his style, and the Senate might go along. The good news is that we have elections for President every four years, and the next guy can swing the pendulum back just as far.
Still, I, for one, would like a less wild pendulum.
