It’s function is to “advise and consent”. If the majority doesn’t “consent”, then of course it’s fulfilling it’s function by witholding said consent. If you think it’s not, then give us your argument in support of that position.
Bricker? You there? Any clarification you can offer us yet?
The Senate’s function to “advise and consent” is fulfilled by a vote in the full Senate on a nominee. The minority Democrats are currently preventing the Senate from fulfilling its function using filibusters. During the Clinton era the majority Republicans were preventing the Senate from fulfilling its function by never releasing the nominee names from the Judiciary subcommittee. In both cases an up or down vote on the nominee by the full Senate was prevented.
I’m not giving a value judgment on this, I am asking for one. Shodan is implying that what the Democrats are doing is wrong; if true, was it wrong for the Republicans to do essentially the same thing (using a different tactic) during Clinton’s administration?
Aside: I am so sick of these partisan politics. I seem to remember several people on this board telling the liberals to quit whining about the tactics of the Republican controlled Senate Judiciary committee during the Clinton years. Yet it seems to me that these are potentially the same people that are whining about the Democrat’s tactics today (thus my questioning of Shodan). I personally see very little difference between the two tactics (and maybe more restraint on the part of the Democrats today).
Regarding the filibusters: I think that there should be a vote by the full senate. If the vote confirms the judge, fine. That said, I am also disappointed in the Republican party unity behind the Christian fundamentalist leadership. What happened to fiscally conservative, small government republicans? I could have trusted that several of these people would have voted against the more radical of Bush’s nominees. Alas, they Republican Senators seem to be marching in lockstep. This forces someone like me (pretty much a Libertarian at heart) to not vote for any Republican candidates because they will just further the fundamentalist agenda (read as abortion ban, prayer in school, equal time for creationism/intelligent design, stem cell research ban, gay marriage/civil union ban, etc…) while ignoring the fiscal conservatism that attracts me to the Republican party anyway.
anyway.
They shut up for the good of the party. Just ask John McCain.
OTOH, McCain does have the backbone to speak up about the Army’s new torture-guidelines manual. His words: “So, we didn’t do anything wrong but we won’t do it again.” (From NPR news broadcast.)
In that case, though, weren’t they just cutting the nominee off at the pass, rather than putting something up for a vote that wouldn’t have passed? As the majority party, they could muster the votes in the full Senate for denial.
I agree that the Dems are perfectly within their rights to act as they are. I’m just not sure you’re comparing apples and apples.
I know what you mean…
Again, it’s not really a comparable situation, but I understand where you’re coming from about the hypocracy that exists. Still, I don’t really see the use of standard parliamentary procedures as being “bad”. That includes the filibuster as well as the “death by committee” tactic.
And that’s pretty much why I, also a libertarian at heart, did not vote for Bush this last time.
Debatable. They had a very slim majority at that point. Regardless, if they had enough votes for denial, wouldn’t it have been better to vote and deny instead of killing them by committee?
Maybe not, but the tactics do have this in common: they prevent the Senate from fulfilling its duty to “advise and consent”. Thus under Shodan’s implied argument it should be wrong in both cases.
Agreed. Though I do wish it wasn’t necessary.
What the hell happened to him anyway. I understand the need to be loyal to the party, especially when the chips are down. But geez, it would be nice to see a little backbone and the courage to dissent every now and again. The ability to do this is one of the reasons Bush 41 won the presidency (IMHO)…
Here is one thing that puzzles me.
The Republicans want to do away with the filibuster for judicial nominations only – not for other voting situations. But the judicial appointments are for life, aren’t they? Shouldn’t those situations be the times when the standards are the highest for a vote rather than the lowest?
That’s exactly why it matters so much to the Religious Right that’s pulling the GOP strings now - a judge with the orientation they want **will ** be there for life, and in their expectation will be ruling the way they want the whole time. That’s worth going to the mat for, winning being more important than anything else, since the damage it would do would be only on matters that are less important to them.
It’s also why it matters so much to the Roves and Frists of the world, who measure success only by their ability to neutralize and, when possible, humiliate a party they habitually see as the enemy, not as fellow citizens. The more opposition they are confronted with, the more important it is, to them, to destroy it by any means available.
The thought is that the Constitution’s “advice and consent” requirement clearly calls for a majority, not a supermajority.
Also, for the record, Senate rules currently prohibit filibustering budget resolutions, trade agreements and force authorization resolutions.
More broadly, the filibuster generally went from not existing at all (requiring only a simple majority to close debate) to being absolute (any one Senator could filibuster even if all of the others wanted to end debate) to requiring a 2/3 vote to end debate to requiring 3/5 to do so.
Pretty much correct. My argument was that the role of the Senate in “advise and consent” is better fulfilled by the will of the majority than by the will of the minority.
Whether it is better fulfilled only by the consent of a super-majority remains a question, and one that seems often to be resolved along the lines of “it’s OK if my side does it, but not your side”.
I would like to have some conservative judges on the federal bench and (especially) on the Supreme Court. An opening on the Supreme Court will be opening up shortly, I expect. I have heard some talk about how the Democrats want a moderate appointed for the “balance” of the Supreme Court, which is disingenous. Replacing a conservative with a moderate is not maintaining the balance, it is shifting it to the left. If it takes removing the filibuster to get a conservative confirmed, it might be worth it.
It would also be interesting to see who gets blamed if the Democrats really do stall all business in the Senate. No doubt the media will try to spin it against the Republicans, but one wonders if their grip on public opinion has slipped any with Memogate and so forth.
Regards,
Shodan
Which Memogate? The one starring “Hanoi Dan” Rather? Or the one centering on Ozzie, the Overzealous Staffer, about squeezing the last drop of political capital out of Terry’s feeding tube?
And, golly gee, Shodan, even a cursory glance at the latest polling data reveals either a) careful and detailed collusion amongst the Liberal Media to present a false image of American opinion or b) a Prez who’s approval rating is in the crapper. “B” being the Occam’s Laser choice, wouldn’t you have to come up with some pretty strong evidence to persuade us to “A”?
Got any?
First I’ve heard of that. Do you mean AG Alberto Gonzalez? I think even a Pub-controlled Senate would have a problem with that creep.
You think we don’t have “some” now?
Scalia, Thomas, Rhenquist…all moderates. Friend Shodan craves true conservative judges: Cotton Mather, Torquemada, Roy Bean…
Yeah, I find it damn scary that some folks think Scalia and Rhenquist aren’t conservative enough.
Should have said “some more”, both in the sense of more of them and the ones that are there are more conservative.
I assumed Reeder pulled that one out of his ass, but then I usually do.
FWIW, this list is about six months old, but no Gonzalez on it. Maybe he meant Estrada.
Regards,
Shodan
SCARY!!! :eek:
What is the percentage of judges in the appeals court and the Supreme court that were appointed by Republicans? Is this percentage the same as the percentage of judges that could be considered conservative?
(This is fun!)
How many of the judges that examined the Schiavo case were appointed by Republicans?
(Well maybe not that fun if you really think about it 
)
If the current conservative majority is unhappy with their own judges and they want to get judges further to the right, I weep for our future. I say this as someone who is fairly conservative with regards to Constitutional law. Mostly because it sounds like the Republicans want judges that interpret cases according to the Bible, not the Constitution, case law, or common law. I might be mistaken on this, but that is what it looks like to me.
Oh, good grief.
The Senate’s role is to advise and consent, which is why the Senate must approve his appointees if they are to take office. Of course the Senate must actually confirm them, and of course the Senate may withhold consent and prevent the nominee from gaining office.
The Senate may set its own rules. If the Senate creates a rule requiring a supermajority to close debate, that’s perfectly fine.
And if the Senate changes its rule to require only a simple majority, that’s fine too.
You are confusing legality with legitimacy.
The filibuster crudely supplies a check so that a simple majority cannot transform itself into a power beyond its own number. The tighty righties sling around the word “majority” as though it were some sacred intonation, a magic word to crush dissent. Carried to its inherent absurdity, your approach would permit 50.01% of the citizenry to tyrannize 49.99%, chanting “majority rules!” to the tune of “neener neener”.
A considerable number of judges, presumably of conservative inclinations by the people who nominated them, have been seated. A much smaller number are so objectionable, drastic procedures are deemed necessary. A bare majority is obliged by the principles of negotiation and consensus to respect that. Unless, of course, you wish us to believe that these seats could not be filled otherwise, that no eligible, qualified and more moderate candidates exist, that unless these specific persons don’t find their way to the appelate bench, the Republic is in peril.
I very much doubt that.