The fools lose....

I have left JC. If my deletions disrupt continuity, please accept my apology, but JC is no longer the place to be, as far as I am concerned.

[jesus marion joseph]

You should change the thread title to "The Fools Prevailed". I understand that the political tit-for-tat goes back to the Clinton days (there, Chris-I mentioned Clinton!!), but blocking judicial nominations that should and would clearly pass on the floor is not a day I would crow about, were I a Democrat. "You blocked us, so we're gonna block you"-brilliant.

[Monte Smith]

Hurrah! Minority rule in the Senate! Take that, you idjit fools!

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally posted by Chris A
The bottom line is that this was a victory for the American people.

As someone who constantly complains that the present administration is destroying the Constitution, that's a curious statement. As I said on another thread, the Senate is taking giant leaps down the road of using the acid litmus test as their measure of the ability of a given nominee to be a federal judge. Makes for good theater, but it's an impending disaster in the long term. Eventually, the judgeships will become even more of a depository of political hacks than they might already be. If you think the current federal judges are bad, just wait until this new doctrine bears fruit.

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by Chris A
The bottom line is that this was a victory for the American people.

True. Why should the Senate be allowed to have an up or down vote on judicial nominees? Plainly nine liberal Senators know what is best for us. Stoopid fools!

[jesus marion joseph]

By refusing to allow nominations to the floor for a vote, the Senate is, in effect, chipping away at the seperation of powers. If they had genuine concerns based upon the legal abilities of the nominees, fine. But that's not what this is about.

[clinthopson]

What goes around, comes around.

Fucking hypocrites!

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by Chris A
How do people like ever get elected?

By votes, like should happen in the Senate.

But I get your point, Chris A. No need to belabor it. These jurists are dangerously to the right of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and so are beyond the pale of American democracy. Thanks for not bringing your plantation metaphors to the discussion.

Mindless fools!

[bluenoter]

During the long debate, Senator Miller of Georgia, a conservative who often sides with Republicans, drew anger from some civil rights groups by saying that another Bush nominee to whom Democrats have expressed opposition, Justice Brown of the California Supreme Court, was being faulted because her opponents would not tolerate a black conservative. The message to her, Mr. Miller said, is if she takes conservative stands, "gal, you will be lynched."

Charming, just charming. What a scumbag. Why doesn't Miller switch parties and be done with it? We don't want him!

Why doesn't anyone ever mention the litmus test that conservative Republican presidents apply when nominating federal judges--that they have a set of credentials as doctrinaire right-wingers?

[Monte Smith]

Al Sharpton has also come out and said the nominees deserve a vote. Do you want to purge the Democrat party of everyone who thinks that? Because if a vote is allowed, these jurists will all earn Democrat votes.

[bluenoter]

Originally posted by Monte Smith
Because if a vote is allowed, these jurists will all earn Democrat votes.

But not enough.

[jesus marion joseph]

Your rationale is flimsy, Chris (IMHO). The truth is, the Democrats are attemting to engage in "reverse court packing" by attempting to focus on alleged political views of the nominees, while completely ignoring whether they are qualified for the job. How does that uphold the traditional interpretation of "advice and consent"?

There was another thread a while back where I posted some factoids from the ABA's web site about their ratings system for judges, and if you recall, out of something like 30 judges whom they've ever rated "not qualified", 27 or so were Democrat nominees and 3 were Republican nominees. That was the same thread where Julian Bond (IIRC) said Judge Brown is outside the mainstream of politics, then was confronted with the fact that she was elected (or re-elected, I can't remember which) to her judicial seat in California with 75% of the votes cast. Kinda puts the focus on just who is outside the mainstream, wouldn't you say? I never even heard of the woman before she was nominated, but it certainly sounds as though her *professional* qualifications are in order, and so far as I know she hasn't been accused of misconduct or malfeasance.

This filibuster is a joke, and so is the rationale that the Senate Democrats are floating to support it. I'm a little surprised that you've glommed onto it so wholeheartedly.

Just so that we're clear: my own personal preference is that women should have access to legal and safe abortion procedures if they desire them. At the same time, I don't believe that the legislative branch of the federal government should be allowed to thwart the judicial branch by applying political litmus tests to judicial nominees, the refusing to allow them to be voted on, especially when it is clear that they would be confirmed if the vote were to proceed.

To suggest that today was a victory for the American people is the same kind of twisted rhetoric you constantly rail against when the current administration uses it.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally posted by Chris A

• BTW, Kerry did not vote.

Ha! Maybe he's afraid Howard Dean would use his vote against him!

Originally posted by bluenoter
But not enough.

What an interesting thought. This was from May of this year, but just as timely now as it was then.




Zell Miller, United States Senator from Georgia

Jump to Senator Miller's Home Page. Jump to Senator Miller's Press Page.

Testimony of U.S. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA)
Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Hearing
“Judicial Nominations, Filibusters and the Constitution:
When A Majority Is Denied Its Right to Consent”


May 6, 2003


The United States Senate is the only place on the planet where 59 votes out of 100 cannot pass anything because 41 votes out of 100 can defeat it.

Try explaining that at your local Rotary Club or someone in the Wal-Mart parking lot or, for that matter, to the college freshman in Poly Sci 101. You can’t because this silly senate math stands democracy on its head.

Winston Churchill once said, “Democracy is based on reason and fair play.” Well, there’s nothing reasonable or fair about what’s been happening in the Senate in recent years, especially in recent weeks. It’s not just that it’s an expensive waste of time and taxpayer money, but it’s also a flagrant abuse of majority rule, the principle that Democracy operates on everywhere. Everywhere, that is, except in the U.S. Senate.

The word “filibuster” comes from a Spanish word for “pirate,” and that is exactly what the filibuster does: it hijacks the democratic process. The way it is being used in the Senate gives the minority an absolute veto on everything.

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, feared some future political leaders would pervert the legislative process in just this way. And he warned in Federalist Paper Number 58 that when it happened, “The Fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule. The power would be transformed to the minority.” So what’s happening today, I’m sure, has the man who wrote the Constitution spinning in his grave.
And Alexander Hamilton as well, because he agreed with Madison on this. He pointed out in his Federalist Paper #68 that the vice president was given a tie-breaking vote “to securing at all times the possibility of a definite resolution of that body.” A “definite resolution, how well put. That’s what we need around here: “a definite resolution.”

For many years, I taught political science and history at four different colleges and universities, I don’t think I ever taught a class without telling the old story about the origin of the Senate.
Thomas Jefferson was in France when the Constitutional Convention was being held and later, the story goes, he asked his friend George Washington, who presided over the convention, about the purpose of this upper chamber, the Senate.

Washington, according to the anecdote, then asked Jefferson “why do you pour coffee into your saucer?” “To cool it,” Jefferson replied. And Washington responded, “Even so, we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.”

But there is nothing said in the Constitution at all about extended debate. Washington, I believe, thought the smaller size, longer and staggered terms, as well as chosen by state legislation, would provide more wisdom, hopefully.

Some constitutional lawyers have argued that any kind of super majority vote is unconstitutional, other than for those five areas specified in the Constitution itself: treaty ratification, impeachment, override of a presidential vote, constitutional amendments and expelling a member of Congress. Nowhere does it say it now should be a super majority on judicial nominations. But that is what we have going on today.

Perhaps it is time for someone to test its constitutionality. That’s one possible remedy. Or, we could abolish Rule XXII that protects this travesty and let the U. S. Senate operate under rules like every other democratic legislative body in the world. I don’t think that’s very likely.

Or, we could modify what I call the Two-Track-Trick put in a few years ago where a “filibuster-lite” goes on without any heavy lifting while another piece of legislation is being considered at the same time.

With this devious device, you avoid the inconvenience and pain of a real filibuster, but it still can go on ad nauseam. It’s just that the public doesn’t notice it as much. And that’s the point - public debate is turned down real low. I’d much rather have the old all night filibuster – a bunch of them – than this charade.

Over the years, many respected veterans of the Senate, not a newcomer like myself, have expressed dismay with this process. Henry Clay, selected as one of the greatest senators in the history of the body, condemned the first organized filibuster when it occurred in 1837. Even back then he thought there needed to be some workable limitation for endless debate. If only that “Great Compromiser” could have foreseen what it would become late in the 20th Century. In the 19th Century, there were 23 filibusters. In the last 30 years of the 20th Century there were over 200.

Both parties have used it time and time again. One is just as guilty as the other.

In 1995 – eight years ago – Democratic Senators Tom Harkin and Joe Lieberman introduced a rule change that I believe is the best that’s been proposed. My resolution is modeled after theirs.
Two years before he introduced his rule change, Senator Harkin let a committee have it with both barrels, “There comes a time when tradition has to meet the realities of the modern age. The minority’s rights must be protected. The majority should not be able to run roughshod over them, but neither should a vexatious minority be able to thwart the will of the majority and not even permit legislation to come up for a meaningful vote.”

The Harkin-Lieberman plan was a four-step process that still kept 60 votes on the initial cloture vote, but decreased it by three votes with each of the next three cloture attempts until it got down to a majority of 51. There would be two-day intervals between each cloture vote, so the whole process would last less than two weeks. (Compare that to the ten weeks we’ve been filibustering the Miguel Estrada nomination.) Harkin and Lieberman argued, logically I believe, that this would preserve the Senate tradition while still giving the minority plenty of time to plead its case without blocking the majority forever.

That is what my proposal, Senate Resolution 85, would do. In 1995, the Harkin-Lieberman bill won only 19 votes. I’m enough of a realist to know things haven’t changed that much in eight years and my proposal probably wouldn’t fare much better today. But at the very least, Mr. Chairman, I would hope we would consider applying my proposal to judicial nominations.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[RBS]

Gimme a friggin' break. Republicans stopped around 60 Clinton nominations. Please.
So they're getting only 98% of what they want. Boo friggin' hoo.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally posted by RBS
Gimme a friggin' break. Republicans stopped around 60 Clinton nominations. Please.
So they're getting only 98% of what they want. Boo friggin' hoo.

I don't mean this as an attack, but that's a piss poor rationale, when you think through the consequences. I didn't agree with it when the Republicans were doing it, either, BTW, but this kind of response is just the type of thing that will lead to further degradation of the process, IMHO. One side needs to step up to the plate and end this crap once and for all.

[bluenoter]

Originally posted by jesus marion joseph
I never even heard of the woman before she was nominated, but it certainly sounds as though her *professional* qualifications are in order . . .

. . . especially when it is clear that they would be confirmed if the vote were to proceed.

1. Then why did the ABA rate her so low? It's obviously not biased, if it's found so many Democratic nominees "not qualified."

2. That's far from clear to me. Why is it clear to you? If proceeding was voted down (as it has been in six cases now), why wouldn't the actual nominations be voted down?

One side needs to step up to the plate and end this crap once and for all.

Wrong. Both sides need to step up to the plate!

[RBS]

Originally posted by jesus marion joseph
I don't mean this as an attack, but that's a piss poor rationale, when you think through the consequences. I didn't agree with it when the Republicans were doing it, either, BTW, but this kind of response is just the type of thing that will lead to further degradation of the process, IMHO. One side needs to step up to the plate and end this crap once and for all.

I don't consider that an attack. I'm glad to hear that you didn't like it when the Republicans did it. What pisses me off is I feel the Republicans are acting so "high and mighty," when they've done exactly the same thing. I feel like the filibuster in principle is a very good thing. It ensures that the minority has some say in what is going on and therefore the majority will not cram a bunch of garbage down the minority's throats. The Founding Fathers were brilliant in their creation of the Constitution. I would feel that way even if the shoe were on the other foot, believe it or not.

[Uli]

As jmj sez, my memories are short, but I sure don't remember him whining when the Repubs did it.

[Clay Fink]

Joe Conason's Journal...

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Nov. 14, 2003 | Mr. Ailes! They're ready for their close-up!
The judicial sleepover debate staged by the Republican leadership may not have had the most exciting production values. But it wasn't for lack of effort or good advice from the best in the business over at Fox News, as the Hill revealed Thursday.

The Capitol Hill weekly published a memo sent around by Manuel Miranda -- a staffer who works for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist -- concerning the need for punctuality as the great 30-hour debate commenced. Inspired by the cinematic vision of the Fox producers, Miranda explained the precise relationship between the public's business and show business:

"It is important to double efforts to get your boss to S-230 on time ... Fox News Channel is really excited about this marathon and Brit Hume at 6 would love to open with all our 51 senators walking onto the floor -- the producer wants to know will we walk in exactly at 6:02 when the show starts so they get it live to open Brit Hume's show? Or if not, can we give them an exact time for the walk-in start?"

That sounds just like the old days, when Roger Ailes made commercials for Nixon and Bush 41 -- except that now, as Fox boss, he doesn't have to buy airtime. On TNR Michael Crowley provides a funny first-night review of the GOP show, including the "truly revolting" performance by South Carolina freshman Lindsey Graham.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally posted by Uli
As jmj sez, my memories are short, but I sure don't remember him whining when the Repubs did it.

I bet of you dug around the archives long enough, you'll find some *gentle rebukes* from me.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally posted by RBS
I don't consider that an attack. I'm glad to hear that you didn't like it when the Republicans did it. What pisses me off is I feel the Republicans are acting so "high and mighty," when they've done exactly the same thing. I feel like the filibuster in principle is a very good thing. It ensures that the minority has some say in what is going on. I would feel that way even if the shoe were on the other foot, believe it or not.

Yeah, I agree that the "holier than thou" attitude is pathetic, and although I didn't see Santorum, I heard his blurb on the radio (it was as pathetic as Chris A. describes), but that's the "theater" side of filibustering. I also agree that filibustering gives the minority an opportunity to be heard. What I disagree with is that the minority refuses to acknowledge that they are, in fact, the minority, and that the vote should be allowed, not blocked to fit their political purposes and, in the process, erode the boundaries of the bailiwick of the judicial branch. they say it's about protecting rights, but in the end analysis it's anything but.

[jesus marion joseph]

We need three dancing bananas in a row.

[Al in NYC]

I see nothing at all wrong with Democratic legislators following their constituents' wishes and doing everything in their power to stop the elevation of right-wing extremists to lifetime positions on the federal bench. Since the Bush administration had the overwhelming majority of their nominations confirmed, and the Democrats saw fit to block only the most doctrinaire nominees, I'm not at all sure what the big damn deal is.

It certainly doesn't even compare with the Republicans shameful actions during the Clinton administration of hobbling the entire process of governance by blocking all sorts of nominations -- not just judicial ones -- out of nothing more than partisan malice. Frankly, the Republicans have a LOT of nerve whining about this. They wanted the process to work this way... OK, now it's working this way.

The simple solution, of course, would be for the Bush administration to put up less extremist candidates.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

I think the nomination of Robert Bork started this whole cycle of appointment battles.

Zell Miller's retiring, but he did say he doesn't see himself joining the Republican Party (not that it means much).

Back in more cordial times I believe there were discussions prior to judicial nominations between the President and congressional leaders to try to avoid these messes. Unfortunately, politics have become much more polarized since the early '80s.

Saying all that, the Senate Democrats have blocked the nominations of 4 out of what, a couple of hundred appointees? How does that record compare to Clinton's? Didn't someone say 60?

[bluenoter]

Originally posted by jesus marion joseph
We need three dancing bananas in a row.

We're allowed to have only two.

[hornplayer]

Originally posted by jesus marion joseph
blocking judicial nominations that should and would clearly pass on the floor is not a day I would crow about, were I a Democrat.

I guess that's your take on it, jmj, but in my opinion, these are persons who should never have been nominated in the first place. I'd call it a victory for the American people, and I'm not ashamed to say I contacted my Senators to ask their consideration in defeating these women.

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by bluenoter
We're allowed to have only two.

Party over here!

[bluenoter]

I thought of doing that, but I don't think that I can get them in a row . . .