Americans don't want the "nuclear option"

[Allison]

According to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll:
But by a 2 to 1 ratio, the public rejected easing Senate rules in a way that would make it harder for Democratic senators to prevent final action on Bush's nominees. Even many Republicans were reluctant to abandon current Senate confirmation procedures: Nearly half opposed any rule changes, joining eight in 10 Democrats and seven in 10 political independents, the poll found.
Article. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2004/10/26/AR2005032201677.html)

Poll results and trends. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polls/post-abcpoll_042505.pdf)

You know what I don't understand about this whole thing? If people truly believe that The Constitution's "advice and consent" clause should guarantee an up or down vote on the Senate floor on judicial nominations, then why are these people limiting their discussion of rule changes to the filibuster? Judicial nominations are commonly blocked in the Senate Judiciary Committee. And even worse, some nominations are blocked simply by being denied a hearing in the Judiciary Committee. (I think that happened to some 50 or 60 of Clinton's nominations; they never even got a hearing. And some were held up by "blue slips," defacto vetos by homestate senators -- a process that Republicans enjoyed when they were in the minority but have since diluted.)

So then, are these proponents of the "nuclear option" going to also change the rules so that judicial nominations go straight to the floor of the Senate, bypassing the Judiciary Committee altogether? If not, then what does that do to their "Every nomination deserves an up or down vote" argument? It seems to me that they don't believe so much in the principles of that argument, unless they're willing to follow through on it.

[Post]

"Judicial nominations are commonly blocked in the Senate Judiciary Committee. And even worse, some nominations are blocked simply by being denied a hearing in the Judiciary Committee."

I read something about that. Basically, one guy (Senate majority leader?), can make a decision to stop the "up or down" vote of a judge (to which was done to Clinton's nominations many times), and nothing was said from the same people who support stopping the ability that 41 people can stop the "up or down" vote of a judge on the basis that it's not fair.

[Swifty_Johnson]

(I think that happened to some 50 or 60 of Clinton's nominations; they never even got a hearing. And some were held up by "blue slips," defacto vetos by homestate senators -- a process that Republicans enjoyed when they were in the minority but have since done away with.)

Incorrect. The change was made from needing two blue slips to one. In states where they are two democratic senators, they are withholding the slips and blocking the nominations.

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/confirmation_watch/quiz_answers.htm

There wasn't a set Blue slip policy until 1989, and that was set by Biden when he was chair. It was changed in 1997 and in 2005.

Judge Brown is an intresting case for the Democrats. She was elected with 97% of the votes in CA to keep her in her position there, yet the Democrats are blocking her. 97% of the voters who casted ballots in CA, supported her. For some reason that's not good enough.

Swifty

[Rooster]

According to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll: But by a 2 to 1 ratio, the public rejected easing Senate rules in a way that would make it harder for Democratic senators to prevent final action on Bush's nominees. Even many Republicans were reluctant to abandon current Senate confirmation procedures: Nearly half opposed any rule changes, joining eight in 10 Democrats and seven in 10 political independents, the poll found.Article. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2004/10/26/AR2005032201677.html)

Poll results and trends. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polls/post-abcpoll_042505.pdf)

You know what I don't understand about this whole thing? If people truly believe that The Constitution's "advice and consent" clause should guarantee an up or down vote on the Senate floor on judicial nominations, then why are these people limiting their discussion of rule changes to the filibuster? Judicial nominations are commonly blocked in the Senate Judiciary Committee. And even worse, some nominations are blocked simply by being denied a hearing in the Judiciary Committee. (I think that happened to some 50 or 60 of Clinton's nominations; they never even got a hearing. And some were held up by "blue slips," defacto vetos by homestate senators -- a process that Republicans enjoyed when they were in the minority but have since done away with.)

So then, are these proponents of the "nuclear option" going to also change the rules so that judicial nominations go straight to the floor of the Senate, bypassing the Judiciary Committee altogether? If not, then what does that do to their "Every nomination deserves an up or down vote" argument? It seems to me that they don't believe so much in the principles of that argument, unless they're willing to follow through on it.Uninformed pollees is not a good way to reflect on the Constitution. (regardless of whom they support)

[Allison]

Uninformed pollees is not a good way to reflect on the Constitution. (regardless of whome they support)

That may be. But, wouldn't that also dismiss your own opinion that this is even a constitutional issue? :D

[Figtoria]

Ailia - you are my hero.

[Rooster]

That may be. But, wouldn't that also dismiss your own opinion that this is even a constitutional issue? :DSenate rules are not written in the Constitution. They are changed ALL the time.

When the minority will not let the body of representatives even VOTE (who cares if the vote is Yes or No) - that is an abuse of power. When the Constitution was framed, people weren't asshats like that.

[Allison]

Senate rules are not written in the Constitution. They are changed ALL the time.

Agreed. The Constitution gives the Senate the authority to write its own rules. And I don't have a problem with that, as long as those rules aren't written with a short-sightedness that will solve immediate problems for the majority while creating even greater problems down the road.


When the minority will not let the body of representatives even VOTE (who cares if the vote is Yes or No) - that is an abuse of power. When the Constitution was framed, people weren't asshats like that.

Well, I'd argue that some of them were quite asshattish in that regard, but that's neither here nor there.

Part of my point is that if you take the position that the filibuster is an abuse of power because it doesn't allow an up or down vote, then you must also take the position that every other mechanism that would prevent an up or down vote is also an abuse of power. (i.e. the Senate Judiciary Committee) The Republican leadership isn't doing that.

They're retaining their power to block nominations in committee (because hey, there might be a Democratic president in a few years making Democratic nominations), only attacking the single mechanism currently available to Democrats, the filibuster.

Ten years ago, when Clinton was president and Republicans didn't have the majority they have now, they didn't seem to think that the ability for a minority party, or even a single Senator, to block a judicial nomination was an abuse. In fact, they even lessened the requirements necessary to block a nomination via the senatorial courtesy known as the "blue slip." At the time, if both senators from the home state of the nominee wanted to, they could keep that nominee in committee indefinitely. But Republicans changed the rules so that only one Senator was necessary to "blue slip" a nominee. And they effectively prevented 60 (I believe it was 60) of Clinton's nominees from ever reaching a floor vote. (BTW, the tradition of the "blue slip" has been around for at least 50 years, and the "senatorial courtesy" it's based on goes back to the days of George Washington.)

So why is it that the Republican leadership has changed its position on this? It was okay for them to prevent an up or down vote when Clinton was in office, but it's not okay for Democrats to do it now?

I'm all for reforming the nomination process. The way it is now is a joke. Well, it wouldn't be, if our elected officials would work together and stop acting like children. But they aren't. And the result is our benches aren't filled. But this isn't the way to do it. The only thing that will be accomplished by removing completely any need for compromise on the nominations (which is what the nuclear option would do) is that our judiciary will be stacked will ultra-conservative activists when Republicans are in power and ultra-liberal activists when Democrats are in power. That's just bad for the country, no matter how you slice it.

What we need to do is to either reform the Judiciary Committee or replace it with a bi-partisan commission who can work with the White House on nominations, thoroughly review the nominees, and then make recommendations to the full Senate. As it is now it's not a body giving "advice and consent," it's just giving consent.

[Allison]

Oh, and to append my earlier, smartypants remark: Yes, I would agree that the majority views of the public aren't necessarily right, in any case. But, when talking about actions to be taken by elected representatives of the people, public opinion certainly should be considered and weighed.

[Swifty_Johnson]

Ten years ago, when Clinton was president and Republicans didn't have the majority they have now, they didn't seem to think that the ability for a minority party, or even a single Senator, to block a judicial nomination was an abuse. In fact, they even lessened the requirements necessary to block a nomination via the senatorial courtesy known as the "blue slip." At the time, if both senators from the home state of the nominee wanted to, they could keep that nominee in committee indefinitely. But Republicans changed the rules so that only one Senator was necessary to "blue slip" a nominee. And they effectively prevented 60 (I believe it was 60) of Clinton's nominees from ever reaching a floor vote. (BTW, the tradition of the "blue slip" has been around for at least 50 years, and the "senatorial courtesy" it's based on goes back to the days of George Washington.)

Ali, you need to look at the history of the Blue Slips.

http://www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/judges/ch2.html

It was Ted Kennedy in 1979 who first proposed changed to the Blue Slip tradition.

Senator Kennedy announced that the process would be reformed. At a Judiciary Committee hearing, he announced that although he would not ignore the 25-year old blue slip tradition, the withholding of a blue slip by a Senator would not preclude action on a nominee. Instead, in the absence of a returned blue slip, the Judiciary Committee would vote to determine whether or not the nomination should go forward.

10 years ago, the Republicans became the Majority party in the Senate, and therefore they could block the nominations just because they had the Majority vote in the Senate.

Swifty

[Murrie]

bomb them!

[Hammer]

How many times has a filibuster been used in the last 50 years to block a judical nomination? How many times in the last 4 years? That's the root of the problem. If the judges being nominated are not capable of handling the job then democratic senators shouldn't have a problem convincing a few republicans of that fact. It's not like the repulicans have a over whelming majority. By the way, that pole is a classic example of framing the question to get the desired outcome. A republican sponsered pole that simply asked if a judge should get an up or down vote netted 81% in favor. I suspect just a slight modification of the washington post question would have gotten dramatically different results as well.

[Allison]

Regarding the history of the "blue slip:" Yes, it's true that Senator Kennedy said in 1979 that blue slips would no longer be a death knell for nominees. Whether or not he actually followed through on that threat is something I haven't been able to confirm because until recently, the status of these blue slips has not been made public. But, I wouldn't be surprised if over the last 50 or a 100 years this senatorial courtesy has not always been honored in the same way. It is a courtesy, and not a senate rule -- and therefore the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee can, if he so desires, basically do whatever he likes.

But, everything I said in my last post is true. During the Clinton administration, blue slips were honored. And not only that, but Republicans strengthened the power of the blue slip by allowing a single home-state Senator to hold up a nomination, instead of the traditional two that had been required in previous years. They used holds, blue slips, scheduled fewer meetings of the Juiciary Committee -- anything tool they could to prevent Clinton's nominees from ever reaching a floor vote.

From Swifty's source. (http://www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/judges/ch2.html):After 1994, for example, when Republicans regained control of the House and the Senate, senators used the power of the committee chairman and the "hold" to kill nominations for cabinet positions, department heads, ambassadorships, and judgeships on what seemed to be an unprecedented scale.




[W]when the Senate was under Republican control, 45.3 percent of President Clinton's appellate court nominees were returned to the White House—a rate 72 percent higher than the 26.3 percent return rate for Presidents Reagan and Bush when Democrats controlled the Senate.16 And because the Republicans refused to confirm so many Clinton nominees, at the end of the Clinton administration, there were 81 judicial vacancies —26 on the courts of appeal — and 63 Clinton nominees never had a hearing or a vote in the Judiciary Committee.



Senate Republicans and their allies recognized that if they slowed the process, they could undermine it and preserve judicial vacancies for the nominees of a hoped—for conservative President. Indeed, former Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., was quite clear in 1998 when he said, "[s]hould we take our time on these federal judges?" Lott asked rhetorically. "Yes. Do I have any apologies? Only one: I probably moved too many already."
Back to my original point: If it's true that nominees should receive an up or down vote, then what caused the Republican leadership to suddenly take this position? They certainly didn't believe that to be the case when Clinton was in office. During that time, they allowed a single Senator to prevent a floor-vote. They prevented 63 nominees from even getting a hearing or a vote before the Judiciary Committee. And now, because ten nominees have been filibustered by Democrats, Republicans suddenly start waving The Constitution around and demanding a floor-vote on every single nominee? It's hypocricy at its finest.

Honestly, I just can't believe the level of nasty partisanship that's going on here. Democrats have offered something of a compromise on the eight previously filibustered nominees who have been re-nominated. (Two of them declined to be re-nominated.) They said, "Okay, we'll give you two of them if you withdraw the other six." Maybe not the best compromise, but it was something. And the response was a flat-out no. What's up with that? The Republican leadership is saying basically, "Sorry, Minority Party, you get zero voice on this issue. We have to have our way on everything" Good grief. A little cooperation please? After what Republicans did to the Clinton nominees, they can't stand to have six of their nominees turned away?

Do Repbulicans really want to see the day when there is a Democratic president and Congress pushing through any nominee they desire? I can't believe they'd be so short-sighted. If they do this, then when that day comes, the ill-will Republicans are generating now will come back to haunt them. They won't be seeing the moderate judges Clinton nominated; they'll be seeing the most liberal, most activist judges of their nightmares. Our Congress has proven they can't play nice, and Democrats will be out for payback.

As I said, I'm all for reforming the nomination process. It's obviously broken due to partisan politics. But, creating a rubber-stamp approval process is not the answer. That will only further politicize the judiciary. You want to see activist judges? Remove all the obstacles available to the minority party and we'll see a polarized judiciary chock-full of them.


And Hammer, you're right, how the question is phrased is everything. If the poll had asked, "Republicans prevented an up-or-down vote on an unprecedented scale of Clinton's judicial nominees using tactics that prevented a floor vote. Now that they control both the White House and the Congress, do you think they should be allowed to change the rules to give them absolute power to have a floor vote vote on 100% of their own nominees?", I'm guessing we'd see a poll result with even higher numbers in opposition than the Post poll. :p

But honestly, I think the Post question was worded in a fairly neutral way: Would you support or oppose changing Senate rules to make it easier for the Republicans to confirm Bush's judicial nominees? It doesn't contain any of the emotionally-charged buzzwords (like "up-or-down vote," "filibuster," "constitution," etc.) that would influence a response one way or the other.

[Hammer]

hehe, the loaded words are "Bush" and "Republicans" ;) The rule change would affect democrats as well as republicans. And it is the use of the fillibuster that has brought this to a head. You have to ask why now are these "horrible" judges acceptable to the democrats? Did they suddenly become better justices? Or did the democrats really over play their hands on these lower court appointments and stand to lose a tool that they want to maintain when supreme seats open up? They really need stronger leadership. Seriously, I have seen a review of the ten judges in question, only one to me seemed to be questionable. He apparently has a high overturn rate which to me raises questions about his ability as a judge.

[Swifty_Johnson]

But, everything I said in my last post is true. During the Clinton administration, blue slips were honored. And not only that, but Republicans strengthened the power of the blue slip by allowing a single home-state Senator to hold up a nomination, instead of the traditional two that had been required in previous years.

Incorrect. The policy of one Senator holding up a nominion was the Biden policy. This was not changed until 2005.

Senator Joseph Biden, D-Del., took over the Chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee in 1987, but did not articulate a blue slip policy until 1989. In a letter to President George H.W. Bush, Senator Biden explained:
The return of a negative blue slip will be a significant factor to be weighed by the committee in its evaluation of a judicial nominee unless the Administration has not consulted with both home state Senators prior to submitting the nomination to the Senate. If such good faith consultation has not taken place, the Judiciary Committee will treat the return of a negative blue slip by a home state Senator as dispositive and the nominee will not be considered.

And the response was a flat-out no. What's up with that? The Republican leadership is saying basically, "Sorry, Minority Party, you get zero voice on this issue. We have to have our way on everything" Good grief. A little cooperation please?

Really? Maybe if the democrats weren't being spoil-sports they might get more voice. This wasn't an issue with the frist two years of Clinton because he had majority control of the Senate, and the only places he had to deal with were states where they were Republican Seators as they could use the blue slip to stop his nominees. That changed in 94 when the Republicans had to be consulted, as majority party they could block any nomination becasue it requires majority vote. Note that at no time did the Republicans filibuster the first two years of the Clinton Presidancy.

Do Repbulicans really want to see the day when there is a Democratic president and Congress pushing through any nominee they desire?

This is what was happening before, so what is the differance?

Our Congress has proven they can't play nice, and Democrats will be out for payback.

They already are.

Remove all the obstacles available to the minority party and we'll see a polarized judiciary chock-full of them.

The democrats haven't learned one lesson yet. There is one obstacle that will never be removed, the voter. The democrats didn't learn and they are the minority party, now that they are throwing their little temper tantrums, they are looking even worse. If the voters don't like what is going on, they'll vote Republicans out of office. Right now, they voted Republicans into office, and all the democrats can do is block progress.

During that time, they allowed a single Senator to prevent a floor-vote. They prevented 63 nominees from even getting a hearing or a vote before the Judiciary Committee. And now, because ten nominees have been filibustered by Democrats, Republicans suddenly start waving The Constitution around and demanding a floor-vote on every single nominee? It's hypocricy at its finest.

Not even close. The Republicans HAVE THE MAJORITY. Guess what, even if those 63 made it to the floor, they would NOT have been confirmed. You need a majority to get out of the committie and then to get confirmed. With the Republicans holding the majority, slim chance of that happening.

When Regan was in office, he had to cut a lot of deals on Judges with democrats, that's why he didn't have a high rejection rate. With the Senate in Republican hands, the question isn't why so many were blocked, but why Clinton failed to reach out more to the Republicans.

The democrats have also drawn the line. They are blocking 100% of Bush's nominations to the Circuit courts. While they may object to other judges, they have made it their choosen mission to stop any conseratives from getting onto the Circuit courts.

Seriously, I have seen a review of the ten judges in question, only one to me seemed to be questionable. He apparently has a high overturn rate which to me raises questions about his ability as a judge.

I doubt the one with the high turnover rate will be confirmed. On the other hand Judge Brown got re-elected with a 97% yes vote from CA voters, and CA isn't a conserative playground. She deserves to be nominated and voted on.

Swifty

[Post]

"If the judges being nominated are not capable of handling the job then democratic senators shouldn't have a problem convincing a few republicans of that fact."

The goal isn't satisfactory, is excellence. It should be the opposite - if the judges being nominated are more than capable of handling the job, then Republican senators shouldn't have a problem convincing a few Democrats of that fact. Wasn't it something like 7 out of 10 of the nominees past nominees that the Democrats refused?

[Allison]

You have to ask why now are these "horrible" judges acceptable to the democrats? Did they suddenly become better justices? Or did the democrats really over play their hands on these lower court appointments and stand to lose a tool that they want to maintain when supreme seats open up? They really need stronger leadership. Seriously, I have seen a review of the ten judges in question, only one to me seemed to be questionable. He apparently has a high overturn rate which to me raises questions about his ability as a judge.

Well, these judges obviously didn't change overnight, goober. And the Democrats may or may not have overplayed their hand. But perhaps they're just offering a compromise because they're afraid the Republican leadership will follow through on its threat to nuke the filibuster. If their options are either (1) Not having a say in any nomination at all and having all eight of the nominees they most oppose being appointed, or (2) Maintaining their right to filibuster by allowing only two of the eight to be appointed -- I think it would be wise for them to choose the latter. Nothing wrong with that.

I've briefly looked at the ten judges, too. As I recall, there were two or three that I had serious concerns about. But, I'm not knowlegeable enough to say with any authority whether or not they should have been appointed. I think I've said before that my position is this: If a few qualified judges don't get appointed, I think that's a small price to pay to prevent the potential abuses that could occur if the nuclear option were implemented. I just think it's too dangerous for one party to have that much power.

Here's an interesting article (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=17708) from an admittedly liberal site. (So read it with that in mind.) It says that the filibuster has been used on judicial nominations in the past, and includes a chart (http://media.pfaw.org/filibusters.pdf) that lists both judicial and executive branch nominees that were filibustered prior to the current administration. Not a lot, but certainly, it looks like it's happened before.

Also mentioned and linked (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oId=18339) in that article is something I'd heard before, but really haven't been able to pin down: It says that Senate rules require a 2/3 majority to end debate on a change in Senate rules. So, in essence, in order to change the rules, Republicans would first have to break the rules. Has anyone heard a Republican take on this?

[Swifty_Johnson]

If a few qualified judges don't get appointed, I think that's a small price to pay to prevent the potential abuses that could occur if the nuclear option were implemented.

So you support the democrats abusing the system to prevent qualified judges from being nominated, while hammering the Republicans for persuring the constitutional option so they can get their vote?

The goal isn't satisfactory, is excellence. It should be the opposite - if the judges being nominated are more than capable of handling the job, then Republican senators shouldn't have a problem convincing a few Democrats of that fact.

Unfortuantly the democrats have drawn the line in the courts and are not willing to listen. If they really weren't able to do the job, it really won't be hard for the democrats to get Republicans to vote them down. The issue isn't the ability to do the job, the issue is Democrats want to keep conseratives off the circuit courts, by any means.

Swifty

[Hammer]

Woot, alli called me a goober;) I guess what I don't get is how filibuster = voice. Voting "No" to a candidate doesn't count? Super majority isn't required to be the President of the United States, or a legislator, but it is to become a judge? Your vote is your voice in the senate.

[Swifty_Johnson]

A Judge is apointed for life, so they should be looked at more carefully.

Swifty

[Allison]

Woot, alli called me a goober;) I guess what I don't get is how filibuster = voice. Voting "No" to a candidate doesn't count? Super majority isn't required to be the President of the United States, or a legislator, but it is to become a judge? Your vote is your voice in the senate.

That's because you are a goober! http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/anym/bigear.gif

And yeah, I agree that votes=voices, to a certain extent.

But here's one problem: The filibuster is typically thought of in terms of preventing a vote -- a practice which some people find objectionable. But, it's also used to extend debate. For example: An issue comes before the Senate that we all hope would be thoroughly considered and debated before a vote. But, let's say the majority party knows they have the votes to pass it and they don't feel like listening to all the blah blahs from the minority party. So, a Majority-party Senator moves to end debate before it's even begun.

As it is now, a 3/5 majority is required to end debate. What Rebpublicans propose is eliminating that requirement for judicial nominations -- which means that, if they wanted to, a simple majority could also prevent a nominee from even being debated on the floor. The minority wouldn't be allowed to even make a case against a judge who will have a lifetime appointment to the bench. And you may say that if that nominee has the support of even a simple majority in the Senate, then it doesn't matter what the other side has to say about it. And it may not matter in the end what they say -- their words may not have any influence on the final vote. But they shouldn't be prevented from the opportunity to make their case, and to at least enter into the record their reasons for their opposition. And doing away with the filibuster would accomplish exactly that.

Now, in all fairness, Bill Frist proposed a compromise today that would solve this particular concern. His proposal apparantly guarantees 100 hours of debate on Circuit Court and Supreme Court nominations, and would eliminate the mechanisms in the Judiciary Committee that prevented 60 of Clinton's nominees from getting to the floor for a vote. (That still chaps my ass -- that Republicans used all those mechanisms so extensively when Clinton was in office, but now they conveniently see the error of their ways when it suits them to do so. But, I have to admit that this is a step in the right direction.)

Oh, and I misstated earlier the compromise solution put forth by Democrats. They offered votes on four of the eight previously filibustered nominees who have been renominated. And they called for a bi-partisan task force made up of former Senators to make recommendations for reforming the confirmation process. I think those are also steps in the right direction.

So, Democrats put forth a "good-start" proposal that was rejected by Republicans, and now Republicans have put forth a "good-start" proposal that will most assuredly be rejected by Democrats.

The real problem here is that there is no perfect system. Any system that can be conceived is open for abuse when the parties don't behave themselves. And that's what's happened here. I honestly don't know what went on pre-Clinton; I didn't follow politics that closely then. But I know that Republicans went way overboard blocking Clinton nominations, and Democrats may be doing a little of the same now as payback. So what's the solution? If we remove all mechanisms available to the minority to prevent nominees from getting through (as Republicans now want to do), then that leaves the majority free and clear to abuse at will. But, if we leave those mechanisms in place, then both the majority and the minority have the authority to abuse the system. Whatever happens, any system will be, to one degree or another, dependent upon the character and the ethics of our Senators, who at present, are all acting like spoiled children.

Here's my final take on it. The filibuster has to be preserved as a failsafe to prevent abuse. But, it must be used sparingly, if at all. If it's true that Democrats have abused this power, then that's reason to vote them out of office, but not to do away with the best failsafe we have to prevent abuse. Changes need to be made, no doubt. But it's just too dangerous to do away with the filibuster without first having another failsafe in place.

I believe that Democrats have probably acted in bad-faith on some of these nominations as payback for the Clinton years. But, I also believe that they truly believe some of these nominees are too far out there to be deserving of lifetime appointments. And, had they had the courtesy of the "blue slip" that Republicans enjoyed during the Clinton years, they wouldn't have had to resort to using the filibuster. But, I think that Republicans have also acted in bad faith by supporting nominees that they knew wouldn't make it through the nomination process, effectively forcing Democrats to filibuster in an attempt to paint them as obstructionists so that they would be less sympathetic during a Supreme Court nomination.

Democrats have to compromise. Republicans have to compromise. And at this point, neither party is willing to do that in any real sense. This is bad for the country. So I think that Senator Reid's idea for a non-partisan commission to make reccomendations for reforming the confirmation process is a good one. I just don't see any other way that these two parties will be able to come together on this issue.

[Post]

" Super majority isn't required to be the President of the United States, or a legislator, but it is to become a judge?"

And which one of those is a permanent position again?

[Allison]

Oh, and uh .... I know a lot of words. http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/kao/otn/douga25.gif

[Post]

"The filibuster has to be preserved as a failsafe to prevent abuse. But, it must be used sparingly, if at all."

That I agree with. I think that highlights my biggest issue as well - I realize that Democrats use it for political games just as the Republicans did. But in our society, and just about every other free, civilized society, great lengths are taken in order to make sure the minority (1% to 49%) has a voice. The "little" man is always the one that needs to be stood up for in order for a free society to work. That's why we have things like innocent until proven guilty, and freedoms are automatically granted until it's justified to take them away, and on big ramnifacation juries (murder), we require a unanimous vote instead of just a majority one.

And that's why we have the filibuster. So just because one side - any side - has power in the Senate and the Oval Office, it doesn't automatically mean free reign of judicial choices - lifetime choices - for that that relatively small time they have that majority. Yeah, the other side will be, well, politicians, and bicker and be like a little kid who takes their ball away from the playground when they don't get their way.

But, it also means that sweeping reform doesn't happen on the other side where a "get it while you can" mentality prevails. To all of you against the filibuster, just think what could happen if this almost-balanced Senate and Presidential vote went the other way. Not "would" happen, but "could" happen. It "could" be disasterous. That's what minority clauses, such as a unanimous vote on murder and the filibuster, do. They eliminate that avenue of disaster.

This isn't like a normal vote for an official, where if you're unhappy with them, they can be kicked out in 2 or 4 or whatever years. This is about lifetime appointments, and that's a big deal. Frankly, I think the super majority should be forced in anything like that, just like a "super" majority is in murder. Look at how people complain about judges and their opinions here. That should raise a huge red flag about how much and how long of a difference a judge makes in our courts.

[Boom]

Ailia, you should write for magazines or newspapers or something. You are really good.

[Swifty_Johnson]

(That still chaps my ass -- that Republicans used all those mechanisms so extensively when Clinton was in office, but now they conveniently see the error of their ways when it suits them to do so. But, I have to admit that this is a step in the right direction.)

How many judges did the Republicans Filibuster aginst Clinton? The Republicans used the power of the majority, just as the democrats did when Regan was in office. Why was it okay to use on Regan, but not Clinton?

Swifty

[Allison]

Thank you, Boom. That's really nice of you to say. :)

[Hammer]

Can you tell me why a majority of the senate is not equal to "Advise and Consent"? My position is that it is, and the constitution allows the senate to make the rules so this is completely within the letter of the law, and I believe the spirit as well.

I like reading Alli post as well. I wish I could express my opinion as well as she does;)

As for the filibuster, I believe it's purpose is to extend debate. Is it being used to extend debate, or merely to block candidates the minority find objectionable? They can't even express why they are objectionable? The only thing I've heard is that they are right wing nuts outside the mainstream. If that is truly the case it shouldn't be hard to prove. Highlight a case where a judge has gone off the deep end and been overturned by a higher court. I mean isn't that the standard that we use to judge the judges. The cases they have decided and how they stand up to peer review and higher courts review?

Perhaps a more simple solution would be to implement term limits for judges. No more life time appointments. Twelve years or so should be long enough to avoid political influence and would span three presidential terms.

[Swifty_Johnson]

The only thing I've heard is that they are right wing nuts outside the mainstream. If that is truly the case it shouldn't be hard to prove.

On most of them it would be hard to prove. They aren't Right Wing nuts, they are just conserative, which the liberals want to keep off the courts at all costs. Judge Brown was re-elected by the CA voters with a 97% yes vote. If she was a right wing nut there is no way she would ever have been re-elected in CA.

Swifty

[Post]

"Perhaps a more simple solution would be to implement term limits for judges."

I just don't know what the right answer is. The initial reason why judges were given lifetime appointments were so they wouldn't be burdened by what's popular, and instead, read the law for what they felt the law's meaning is.

[Hammer]

I agree, but I think a long term, but not permanent appointment would serve that need. I'm too lazy to research it, but I'm guessing a lifetime appointment in 1791 was considerably shorter than the same thing in 2005.