partial victory in senate

[WilbyDaniels]

double post

 

[WilbyDaniels]

Dear___

We've succeeded in protecting the independence of our federal courts against this latest Republican attack.

Yesterday, the Senate took the GOP's nuclear option off the table and abandoned its latest attempt to turn the Senate into a rubber stamp for this White House.

The agreement sends a strong message to the President and Senator Frist that if they want to get his judicial nominees confirmed, their selections need to have broad support from the American people.

It is clear today that the Republican leadership and their right-wing allies are not satisfied with that message. One conservative leader even called this agreement a "betrayal."

It's obvious that the right wing still insists on absolute power to push their agenda. But it's just as obvious that they no longer have the ability to get their way. Thanks to you and thousands of Americans like you, we stopped their court-packing scheme.

What we have done together in recent months is remarkable, and we have to keep the pressure on.

Over one hundred thousand people spoke out against these extreme nominees, and told thousands more friends and neighbors about them as well.

Sadly, we've had to spend far too long fighting against this Republican power grab. It's clearer than ever that Republican priorities are not the priorities of the American people, and we must continue to stand strong.

In the coming months, I will be working on issues that have an impact on all Americans, especially in critical areas like national security and key issues such as jobs, education, health care, civil rights, and the environment.

I'm committed to these issues that are so important to all Americans - and I'm confident we can prevail if we all stand together

Thank you again for all your impressive work, this latest inspiring progress would never have happened without you

Sincerely,

Senator Edward M. Kennedy

 

[wvrevy]

So, it's unconstitutional because Rokkitsci "says so", but the republicans doing what they did is just a "common practice that has been in effect forever".

It amazes me that they can't see their own hypocrisy.

Hey Rokkitsci (or anyone else supporting this absurd notion)...Please point out to me the passage in the constitution that guarantees a nominee an up or down vote on the floor of the senate. Being such sticklers for an exact interpretation of the constitution, I just know that you aren't loosely interpreting the "advise and consent" clause...lol...So, go ahead...I can't wait to see it...

 

[wvrevy]

Dup Post....Darn slow site

 

[WilbyDaniels]

Here is an excellant analysis of the memorandum of understanding by Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. (given that people are making slurs about his father, I thought that Congressman Jackson's comments were appropriate for this thread).

"But it was a victory in that all members of the group of fourteen compromisers, the so-called moderates, rejected Sen. Frist's central argument - that judicial filibusters are unconstitutional. The compromise acknowledges the right of senators to filibuster judicial nominees - at least in `extraordinary circumstances.'

"The deal is confusing if you listen to how some conservative Senators interpreted what the agreement actually says. Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) said, `if an individual senator believes in the future that a filibuster is taking place under something that's not extraordinary circumstances, we of course reserve the right to do what we could have done tomorrow, which is to cast a yes vote for the constitutional option.' But that's not what the agreement says. Section IIB says: `In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress.' Section IIA makes clear that senators maintain their commitment to the agreement as long as they only filibuster in `extraordinary circumstances,' a determination to be based on 'their own discretion and judgment.'

So Sen. DeWine can't go nuclear simply because he decides the filibuster is being used in something other than `extraordinary circumstances.' Rather, based on the language of the agreement, the deal would only dissolve if senators filibuster without making a good faith determination - based on their `own discretion and judgment,' not DeWine's discretion and judgment - that there were extraordinary circumstances," concluded Jackson.

Congressman Jackson's analysis is correct. The wording of the MOU is clear that the 7 gop signatories will not support the nuclear option for the rest of this term.

 

[donaldsgal]

But isn't it the job of our elected ( and those they elect) to promote a world that is peacefull ang glorifies the laws , that should be the same for each and every citizen of a contry ? Shouldn't they be promomoting equality , justice and equal rights for every citizens , not just for those who " glorifies God" in the same manners that he does ?

I agree 100% that the purpose of government is to promote equal rights and opportunities for all of its citizens. Dobson is not an elected official, so it's his right to support and speak out for whatever individual he believes most consistently advocates for the ideals he believes in - namely conservative Christian values.

I'm only posting this to make sure you understand I agree with you that all politicians should strive to make the world a fair, equal place for everyone's rights. The religious aspect is a separate one, and the only reason I posted this in the first place was to continue to point out that I did not think Dobson's classification as a member of the religous right should equate to being a religious zealot. That's the only point I'm trying to make. Dobson is not a politician, so he isn't responsible for making sure the laws are fair and equal. He's simply entitled to support whatever laws he believes are most consistent with his personal beliefs.

Again - my only point is that Dobson should not be categorized, IMO, as a zealot.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Dear___

We've succeeded in protecting the independence of our federal courts against this latest Republican attack.

Yesterday, the Senate took the GOP's nuclear option off the table and abandoned its latest attempt to turn the Senate into a rubber stamp for this White House.

The agreement sends a strong message to the President and Senator Frist that if they want to get his judicial nominees confirmed, their selections need to have broad support from the American people.

It is clear today that the Republican leadership and their right-wing allies are not satisfied with that message. One conservative leader even called this agreement a "betrayal."

It's obvious that the right wing still insists on absolute power to push their agenda. But it's just as obvious that they no longer have the ability to get their way. Thanks to you and thousands of Americans like you, we stopped their court-packing scheme.

What we have done together in recent months is remarkable, and we have to keep the pressure on.

Over one hundred thousand people spoke out against these extreme nominees, and told thousands more friends and neighbors about them as well.

Sadly, we've had to spend far too long fighting against this Republican power grab. It's clearer than ever that Republican priorities are not the priorities of the American people, and we must continue to stand strong.

In the coming months, I will be working on issues that have an impact on all Americans, especially in critical areas like national security and key issues such as jobs, education, health care, civil rights, and the environment.

I'm committed to these issues that are so important to all Americans - and I'm confident we can prevail if we all stand together

Thank you again for all your impressive work, this latest inspiring progress would never have happened without you

Sincerely,

Senator Edward M. Kennedy

Senator Kennedy is protecting America from "attack" and a court-packing "scheme." Oooh and the "right" has an "agenda." How about some serious, unbiased, documented reasons why each one of these nominees isn't acceptable??

"It's clearer than ever that Republican priorities are not the priorities of the American people" Really, hmmm, wonder why the Republicans keep winning elections?

 

[sodaseller]

Actually - it was a Democrat/GOP issue. The Democrats chose to use the filibuster as a routine political tool rather than what it was designed to be - a process available to individual senators to prolong debate for as long as they can physically stand and talk.
The GOP never did that - the Democrats did that. And by the way, the Democrats changed the rules on filibuster several times to suit their own purpose. And again by the way, it was Democrats who most recently argued to ELIMINATE the filibuster - even for legislative issues.
Yep - this was a fight initiated by the Democrats - and it was initiated for strictly partisan purposes - far from "national interest." This was a dishonorable fight fueled by extremist elements that now control the Democrat party.

The comparison of what happened to Clinton judges is not relevant to this current filibuster issue. The way the Republic works is that we have elections to decide who gets to make legislative decisions and execute constitutional duties. The Democrats have lost in that arena - The GOP won control of the congress under the "leadership" of Clinton. The committees therefore had more GOP than Democrats in them - which by the way is a result of prior democrat decisions made when THEY controlled the congress to prevent the GOP from having any voice in committee decisions.
By the way - most of these "bottled up" nominees of Clinton were those which occurred in his last year of office. Nominees by a lame-duck president in his last year have routinely been held up - nothing new or out of the ordinary in that.

Cheney would only come into play if the senate were "equally divided" as outlined in the constitution - don't see what is humiliating about that. What is humiliating is that the issue even exists to begin with - thanks to democrats.

I am all for country over party. My personal desires to see the democrats "get their teeth kicked in" <politically of course> takes a back seat to what I think is a resolution that is better for the country at this time. Not sure where you confusion about my statement comes from.

That is not an accurate reeprsentation of the origin and "purpose" of filibusters, such as it is, or what actually happened in the Judiciary committee during the Clinton years. You are just repeating talking points

 

[Charade]

In this case, the majority is looking to limit the rights of the minority.

Rights to what?

And doesn't that happen *every time* a bill is passed in which the minority is out voted?

 

[sodaseller]

Actually, there is a very plausible arguement that filibustering judicial nominees is unconstitutional.

First, it is not the prerogative of the Senate to refuse to vote on a judicial nominee. The executive branch nominates = the Senate either confirms or rejects = by voting.

Second, the filibuster is a Senate procedure that is intended to give individual senators a method to slow down a legislative issue. Whatever you may claim today, the filibuster has never been used to obstruct the confirmation of a judicial nominee on a strictly partisan basis.

Third, the democrats have mis-used the filibuster to change the constitutional process. There is nothing in the constitution that requires a super-majority for judicial nominees. Requirements for super-majorities are very specifically enumerated in the constitution.

Equating the Democrat filibuster to the actions of the Judiciary Committee is completely silly. The committees work by rules that were for the most part put into place when the Democrats had a strangle-hold on all congressional activity. What happened to Democrats is that they lost a bunch of elections. They lost representation in congress. They no longer control the activity like they did for forty years or more. This is what happens to any movement when they stray so far away from the mainstream of American thought.

Sure, there was no excitement to rush Clinton's appointees to the floor during his LAST year in office. That is a common process that has been in effect forever. When a president is in his last year, nobody pays much attention to his appointees - especially those for lifetime appointments.

That is politics - the cure is to win more elections.

I repeat - the Democrat use of the filibuster to obstruct judicial nominees as a matter of course is wrong and it is unconstitutional - in my opinion.

There is really no plausible argument that says a minority of senators can impose its will on the the President's constitutional duties. Try to frame such an argument, if you think it is so obvious.

It's not silly to equate the two - it's logical. I've read your posts - you really don't know know much about how it actually works. In fact, if you are talking about antimajoritarian sentiments, the blue slip process is far less so. It was Hatch and the GOP that changed te hrules over the last two years, namely the blue slip, which is what really led to where we are today, which you would recognize by the shape of the compromise if you really understood it. Again, you are just repeating talking points

 

[Bayshore Bandit]

As a constitutional matter, the argument by Frist and others for banning nominee filibusters is weak — especially when combined with the belief that legislative filibusters are fine. The Republican constitutional argument ignores the Fortas precedent. It ignores Frist's own vote in 2000 to sustain a filibuster of a Clinton judicial nominee. It ignores the Republican use of filibusters to defeat Clinton nominees Henry Foster (for surgeon general) in 1995 and Sam Brown (for a diplomatic slot) in 1994. If it is constitutional to filibuster nominees for the president's team, then the same
should be true of nominees for the judicial system.

The Republican argument that the Constitution requires up-or-down votes on all nominees is more far-fetched than any of those imagined by democrats.
Not one word in the Constitution suggests that the Senate's Article I power to "determine the rules of its proceedings" applies any less to confirmation proceedings than to legislative proceedings. And Senate rules have long been used.... not least by Senate Republicans during the Clinton years..... to stop many nominees, many of whom could have won up-or-down votes, by denying them hearings, burying them in committee, and employing other political delay tactics.

 

[frozone]

To keep one from "assuming" which words you think are "racially coded", why don't you name them?

And, FWIW, I too think you are trying to be respectful.

Here is my post where I specify the words:

Pretty strong language...and racially coded at that. I'd appreciate you being a little more careful mixing words like "poverty" and "pimp."

The person who initially used the language has decided not to respond, so I will take that to mean that he took the note. Beyond that, I don't think it needs to be debated further since that's not the focus of this thread.

 

[iTINKsew]

Originally Posted by iTINKsew:
To keep one from "assuming" which words you think are "racially coded", why don't you name them? And, FWIW, I too think you are trying to be respectful.

Originally Posted by frozone:
Here is my post where I specify the words:
Pretty strong language...and racially coded at that. I'd appreciate you being a little more careful mixing words like "poverty" and "pimp."

The person who initially used the language has decided not to respond, so I will take that to mean that he took the note. Beyond that, I don't think it needs to be debated further since that's not the focus of this thread.

I agree with you, it isn't the subject of this thread. I wish you would start a new thread as to why you think "pimp" and "poverty" are code words to a specific race. I look forward to the debate.

 

[Rokkitsci]

Again, you are just repeating talking points

And just what are you repeating?

I asked you for an argument to support your position. You responded by saying I was wrong.

Is that it? Do you have more? Is it possible you can defend your assertion??

 

[Rokkitsci]

The person who initially used the language has decided not to respond, so I will take that to mean that he took the note. Beyond that, I don't think it needs to be debated further since that's not the focus of this thread.

I am the one who referred to Jesse Jackson as a poverty pimp. I stand by that assertion, but - as you point out - this is not the thread to discuss it. This is about judicial nominees.
I regret inserting a term that diverted the intent of the thread. If someone wants to start a thread on that topic, I will join in.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

From the LA Times:

Alas, a Nuclear Freeze
Even more so than usual, the halls of the Capitol were filled with self-congratulation Monday. With their compromise preserving the filibuster, Republicans and Democrats alike were able to stand before the microphones and declare victory for the republic, the Constitution, the Senate and, indeed, democracy itself.

Not necessarily in that order. Above all else, what the agreement preserves is the power of the Senate. Amid the press conferences and floor speeches, perhaps the most telling comment was that, with the deal, "the Senate is back in business."

The quote was from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), but the sentiment was near universal. In the Senate, business as usual too often amounts to delay and obstruction, and the chief enabler in this process is the filibuster. Under the terms of the deal announced Monday, Senate Democrats essentially agreed not to filibuster some of the president's judicial nominees if Senate Republicans agreed not to abolish the filibuster. We'll let you have this gun, Republicans told their colleagues, as long as you promise not to use it.

The immediate effect of this agreement is that an up-or-down floor vote will proceed on three of President Bush's most controversial nominees: Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William H. Pryor Jr. More long-term, the deal — which lacks the imprimatur of Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) — will allow filibusters to be used on future nominees and on other issues. (The filibuster allows 41 senators to block a vote by extending debate on it indefinitely.)

It hardly qualifies as commentary to note that politics trump principle in Washington. But it is worth pointing out that many of the same conservative Republicans who insisted that every judicial nominee deserves an up-or-down vote are threatening to filibuster a bill encouraging stem cell research. Many Democrats, meanwhile, came to realize that the filibuster is one of the shining jewels of American democracy only when they were in the minority.

As this page has argued, the filibuster is essentially a reactionary tool that unduly empowers obstructionist minorities. Due to its disproportional representation — California (population 36 million) and Delaware (population 830,000) each get two senators — minority rights are already well protected in the Senate. The filibuster, as an additional brake on democracy that goes beyond the constitutional framework to give individual senators even more power, should have been nuked for all purposes, not just in the context of judicial nominees.

It was always going to be a long shot given the clubby institution's instincts for self-preservation, but this debate at least held out the possibility of making the system more fair. Now that the Senate is back in business, to borrow a phrase, its privileges preserved, its members are understandably pleased. Forgive us if we decline to join them.

 

[DawnCt1]

From the LA Times:

That's how I see it. We don't know what the verbal side deals were either or who was thrown under the bus.

 

[sodaseller]

And just what are you repeating?

I asked you for an argument to support your position. You responded by saying I was wrong.

Is that it? Do you have more? Is it possible you can defend your assertion??

The argument is laid out above. You are dishonestly ignoring it

 

[jrydberg]

Rights to what?

And doesn't that happen *every time* a bill is passed in which the minority is out voted?

Well, the Republicans are clearly looking to limit the rights (under Senate rules and how they are interpreted) of those threatening to filibuster. That's limiting the rights of the minority more than in the past. Whether it's a good thing or not is open for debate.

Personally, I think that both sides have been screwing around with things they shouldn't be.

 

[sodaseller]

Unintentional irony

Due to its disproportional representation — California (population 36 million) and Delaware (population 830,000) each get two senators — minority rights are already well protected in the Senate. The filibuster, as an additional brake on democracy that goes beyond the constitutional framework to give individual senators even more power, should have been nuked for all purposes, not just in the context of judicial nominees.

Let's follow this logic in an Aristotelian fashion. The gerrymandered and antimajoritarian nature of the Senate lets a minority of votes create a majority of Senators. We then must protect that antimajoritarianly created majority perogative by prohibiting a senatorial minority that reperesents a popular majority from exercising long held minority rights.

"'Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, 'if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'"