Mothers Dylexia Against?
Is this still going on?
Just tell the Senate that if they haven’t learnt to play nicely together in the next week, we’re sending George Galloway over to kick their arses again 
You must have some harsh opinions on nuclear families too. 
Well lets get serious here. Of course it’s politics but it is not politics as usual.
From the beginning the Senate has been a different breed of cat. Its membership has little or nothing to do with proportional representation. Each state gets two Senators without regard population or wealth. A Senator’s term is longer that the President’s. In the beginning its members were appointed by the state legislatures, not by popular vote. It has the power to ratify treaties and to act on designated Presidential nominations. It has had filibuster rules from the beginning that require a super majority for the senate to act. It can be reasonably argued that the founders set up the Senate as a restraint on the popular will as embodied in the House of Representatives and the popularly elected President (even though the President’s election is funneled through the somewhat anti-democratic Electoral College).
What has happened over the last few years is that President Bush campaigned to no small extent on the proposition to stuff the federal courts with conservative judges. Some may think that means judges who are predisposed on the social conservatives’ wish list, stuff like restricting abortion and homosexual marriage and criminalizing homosexual behavior. I’m inclined to think that while appointing judges who are inclined to go along with conservative social agenda is an objective for this administration, but I’m also inclined to think that a more important objective is to make the federal courts more friendly to big business and big finance by restricting land use zoning, business regulation, environmental regulation and accountability for injuries.
I have trouble thinking that Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfedt and the boys really care whether poor folks’s daughters get and abortions or not, or who sodomizes who, or whether there are worship services going on in public schools or some poor soul in Florida is kept on life support forever or any number of other social conservative hot button issues. What these people are interested in is the acquisition of power to advance the interests of big business and big finance. If they can get judges inclined to favor the interest of business and finance under the cover of appointing judges who support the social conservative agenda, so much the better.
Right now the only thing standing in the way of appointing judges favorable to business and finance is the filibuster rules in the Senate. So far, the power of a Senator to put hold on the appointment to a court in their state as a matter of personal privilege has been abolished. Principle and good faith has been no impediment to this administration and its allies so far, see John Kerry and the Swift Boat Guys for an obvious example. I can’t imagine that the rules and practices of the Senate are going to slow them down much. The whole thing may be disguised as a great moral crusade but money and the power to make more money lies at the heart of this thing. Texas Justice Owens was an oil and gas lawyer, for Pete sake, and her record on the Texas court is one of overt favoritism for the interests of big business.
Now the President and the boys can’t stand up in public and tell the country that his policy is to make rich guys even richer. He can, however, say his policy is to restore family and Christian values to their rightful place with a wink at the rich guys as marginal upper level tax rates are cut, as the federal estate tax disappears , as new oil lands are opened, as environmental regulations are relaxed, as bankruptcy laws are changed to protect big finance, as torts are reformed to protect big insurance, as big pharmaceutical’s profits are protected, as social security is phased out and as the big defense contractors rake in the profits of foreign adventures and imaginary stare wars systems.
When J.P. Morgan and Billy Sunday get in bed together you can be pretty sure that J.P. is looking for something beside a quick roll in the hay.
Spavined Gelding
This is the part that I don’t get. Are you saying that without the filibuster that any judge would get appointed no matter how the vote goes against him/her? I was under the impression that the filibuster was to keep it (the nomination) from going to a vote in the full Senate.
When the party in power changes the rules because it unfairly empowers them then I will agree with you. Until that time, the only time I see rules changed is when it hurts the minority, or when the minority is able to assert power. This was true with the Democrats and the Republicans.
Thus, I concur, rule changing is ok, however, only when I cannot see the partisan self serving bullshit in it.
Whatever happened to the idea that those in power were elected to represent the people not their party? Fuck the parties and fuck them all.
Right now, in this Congress, considering the level of discipline or intimidation among the Republicans in the Senate, if the President chose to nominate his horse to the circuit court bench the Senate would confirm Old Dobbin, but for the filibuster. The only thing that keeps the President from having his way NOW is the filibuster simply because he probably has a simple majority but he certainly doesn’t have 60 votes.
The next question is why the President just has to have these particular seven people on the circuit bench. Why are these people so special and no one else will do? I suspect that anybody the President is willing to put up for the job would be equally objectionable to the Senate Democrats and that the President would never nominate anyone who might be acceptable to the Senate Democrats, even thought those alternate candidates might well get the 60 votes necessary to avoid or over ride a filibuster.
We are having this fight now because the President doesn’t want to have it over the vacancies on the Supreme Court that will come up when the Chief Justice and Justice O’Connor step down. Lots of people don’t pay much attention to the Circuit Courts, but damn near everybody understands the significance of a Supreme Court appointment.
Also, the President sees this as a fight he can win. A win will go a long way toward keeping the social conservatives interested and persuaded that they are being rewarded and their interests advanced. When J.P. Morgan climbs in the bed Billy Sunday, Billy may think old J.P. will respect him in the morning.
With a 55-44-1 majority in the Senate, and with a majority on the Judiciary Committee (10-8 IIRC), any judicial nomination Bush wants to send is likely to be approved unless either one Senator on the JC breaks party lines (unlikely) or five Senators break party lines when it goes to the floor (even more unlikely). Sure, it’s possible that a couple Republican Senators might every so often vote their consciences and thereby slit their own throats (oh, Senator Snow, you didn’t really want that money approprated for that pet project of yours, did you?) but given the willingness of the Senate in Republican hands to serve as a rubber stamp for administration policies and appointments, given that we’re talking about approximately 10 appointments out of over 200 and given that had the Democrats suggested ending the filibuster to get some of the many Clinton appointments (both to the judiciary and to other posts…James Hormel anyone? Bill Lann Lee?), this whole discussion reeks of unrestrained power grabbing.
I just wish the American people would wise up and stop falling for it. But given the willingness of vast numbers of Americans to buy into any Republican pabalum they’re spoon-fed by the “liberal media,” I imagine Owens, Pryor and the rest of the evil fucks will be riding their federal benches by Wednesday.
Well, shoot…let’s just make it to where you need 60 votes to pass anything, then. Sorry, but the argument that “Well, the majority of the Senate is Republican, so this is the only way the Democrats can get their way” sounds more like a simple way to get around majority rule. You know, Bush didn’t appoint those Senators…they were elected by people who apparently agreed with their views. So, basically, it looks as though the Democrats are keeping the will of the people from being carried out.
Please, enlighten me. I remember back in High School mock Congress (and Model UN, for that matter,) that rules of procedure and rules of precident were not permanent. So…after the Republicans use it and change it, what’s to stop them from changing it back? I mean, just because the precident has been set doesn’t mean that the procedure has to stay in place, right?
As a practical matter it has taken 60 votes to get anything through the Senate for a long, long time. The catcher is that the effective use of the filibuster of filibuster requires that the issue be important to a substantial minority of the Senate, that is, more than 40 Senators, and that it have national political significance. Apparently more than 40 and less than 60 Senators think it is important that President Bush not be allowed to alter the posture of the federal courts on any number if issues, some of which have been discussed here and some that have not.
The point is that the Senate functions to make sure that when these important issues come up they are not resolved without a broad consensus. The elimination of the filibuster (on the bogus grounds that something in the Constitution requires a vote) simply renders impotent the important function of the Senate to restrain the will of a numerical majority until a broad consensus is achieved.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7193614
http://fairjudiciary.campsol.com/cfj_contents/reports/041305.shtml
And what exactly is different now except that the President is a Republican? :rolleyes:
I’d ask you the same question. Why was it OK for those nominees to not get a vote on the Senate floor, yet all of a sudden a horrible crime for these to be blocked?
Giraffe said:
See? I’ve already admitted it was politics as usual. Others are acting as though it’s the end of the Republic. As I said earlier: the ones against it now were for it before, and the ones for it now were against it before. I wonder why the Democrats didn’t change things back then, when they the ones against the filibuster? Surely it’s not because it would have been unethical. Didn’t they have the votes?
So tell me, hermann, where are the references for Ms. feinstein and mr. Kennedy to move to eliminate the filibuster when they couldn’t get a straight up-or-down Senate vote for those judicial candidates, the way the Republicans are doing now?
It’s one thing to thump your chest and huff and puff about how a straight up-and-down vote is fair and honorable and whatever; it’s another kettle of (rotten stinking) fish all together to destroy the filibuster when things aren’t going your way.
hermann, it is hard for me to find your second source very credible when the president of that particular organization, Kay Daly, says on the same website in a reference to fillibustering:
I have a low tolerance for people who call a two hundred year old Senate rule “unConstitutional.”
I do not know if the quotes you have given were in reference to fillibustering or to getting the nominations out of committee. To the best of my knowledge, either one is a legal part of Senate procedure used by both sides. There is nothing new here except the very real possibility that the rules will be changed and that a simple majority will be able to appoint judges to lifetime positions. You can’t vote them out next year.
And that’s one of the things that makes this different from simply passing a law that can be changed next year.
Spavined Gelding, I was really taken with what you had to say and looked to see who the author was. I should have known.
Our system is not just about majority rule, although that is one of its greatest glories. It is also designed to protect minority rights. It doesn’t always do that, but I would hate to see the country take a giant step backward and away from that principle.
Hear! Hear!
KBO, baby! KBO!
And of course, break the powers of both parties.
Alas, I don’t think either is going to happen.
(For those who don’t know - KBO is a political principle: Kick the Bastards Out. i.e. vote against incumbency.)
Maybe so, but reading from phonebooks and doing anything but actually debate
is what ASSHOLES do.
I’d rather be a child.
Have a lollypop, dude.
It’ll make you feel better.