END THE FILIBUSTER ONCE AND FOR ALL..........

vanity | 5/2/05 | GeorgeW23225

[GeorgeW23225]

End the filibuster once and for all. Make it unconstitutional!!

[GeorgeW23225]

Let's face it. The demoRats have bastardized the filibuster. They have turned it into a joke, and a tool for the minority to rule, even though they are the MINORITY. This isn't "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington". Although a Frank Capra classic, the movie isn't relevant today. What a shame, thanks to the demoRats!!

The Republicans are the MAJORITY party because the American people voted for them. Whether you consider the White House, the Senate, or the House of Representatives, the Republicans are the party in power.

The demoRats are using the filibuster, not to inform or debate, they are using the filibuster to block, stall, delay, or put an end to anything they don't like.

This is contrary to the will of the American people, and I believe it should be unconstitutional. The American people have spoken, loud and clear at the ballot box, and they have said "NO" to the demoRats.

A debate is not only desireable, it is a necessity. But, to use the filibuster to "obstruct" the Senate from doing its' duty to "Advise and Consent" is not only immoral, it is treasonous.

Presidential nominees, proposed legislation, etc, not only deserve an up or down vote, it should be DEMANDED by the American people.

This so called "deal" proposed by Senator McCrazy of Arizona will come back to bite him in the butt. Does anyone REALLY believe you can trust the demoRats?? And what is the definition of "extraordinary circumstances"??

If a U.S. Senator doesn't like a nominee, he/she can vote NO. That is their job.

Senator Orin Hatch is right when he calls this so called deal a "truce, not a treaty". It is also NOT a solution to the problem. And Senator Frist is right when he says he reserves the right to use the constitutional option in the future.

In my opinion, not giving ALL nominees an up or down vote is unAmerican, and unconstitutional.

But, I have a better idea. End the filibuster once and for all. Make the filibuster unconstitutional. It is irrelevent, thanks to the demoRats. Place the blame on them!!

[Borges]

You'd need 2/3rds of both Houses to get an Amendment to the Constitution of the ground. Much less the simple majority that the Republicans are struggling with getting to override the filibuster.

[Cboldt]

The failure of the Senate to vote on a nomination is a confusing issue when expressed clearly, nevermind when the underlying dysfunction and remedy are obfuscated with indefinite terms like "filibuster" and "nuclear trigger."

• The dysfunction is a DEM refusal to vote on a nominee, even after ample opportunity to debate. This refusal interferes with the President's Constitutional power to seat officers of his preference.
• The DEMs, by creating and controlling the dysfunction, have control over the need for a remedy. They have the trigger on the nuclear option. The issue evaporates if and when they agree to vote on a nomination.

It is logically false to equate a failure to obtain unanimous consent to vote (or in the alternative, cloture) with a simple minority vote to reject the nominee. Under the first, the President is denied the appointment of officers of his choosing, and the denial is implemented by less than a simple majority of Senators. Under a rule of "to reject the nominee, you must vote on the nominee," a simple majority of Senators would consent to the officers the President has nominated. The difference to the President is between having, and not having the officer of his preference.

Senate procedure has no method to dispose of a treaty by not voting on it. Postponing a treaty vote indefinitely (effectively the same as passing it back to the President) takes 2/3rds, and does not dispose of it. It is easier to reject a treaty, with 1/3rd of the votes, than it is to postpone the vote indefinitely, which takes 2/3rds of the votes. And in the case of rejection, the dispostion flows from a vote on the treaty, not a procedural step that determines whether or not they vote on the treaty. A Senator can't hide behind unanimous consent or cloture to kill a treaty.

Riddick's - Appendix - Forms - and Index - see pp1554-
http://www.gpo.gov/congress/senate/riddick/1441-1608.pdf

The presence of a protocol for postponing voting on a Treaty, other than unanimous consent or cloture, raises a question about whether a cloture motion is proper in the context of Nominations. Cloture abuse gives a 2/5th minority the power to "terminate the nomination." What a contrast with the 2/3rds supermajority required to scuttle voting on a treaty.

How does handling of a nomination tie in with handling of a treaty? Both involve powers granted to the President. The president has the power to negotiate treaties and submit them to the Senate for their advice and consent. The President also has the power to appoint judicial and executive officers of *his* choosing, with the advice and consent of the Senate.

By invoking the tool of cloture (to withhold voting) in the context of a nomination, the Senate has erected a supermajority hurdle of ITS OWN CHOOSING, using a Rule that did not exist until 1917. The hurdle in that rule has been amended on three occasions. If the Senate is free to erect and change the hurdle for nominees, what's to prevent the Senate from setting it at 2/3rds, or 3/4th, or 9/10ths? Or to prevent a SINGLE Senator from withholding the vote - exactly the way the Senate worked before the cloture rule? According to some Senators, the Constitution gives the Senate the power to make its own rules. They are right, but they over-reach when they apply their rulemaking power to nominations.

The Senate is free to make rules that affect only it. It cannot make rules that diminish the power of another branch. The Senate has a DUTY to advice and consent, confirm or reject, each nominee. It cannot consider and then refuse to vote on a treaty. It cannot consider a nominee, and then refuse to vote on the nominee. Even though the Constitution does not say the Senate has the duty, it could not conduct an impeachment trial and then refuse to render judgement. To do so would neutralize the impeachment power of the House.

In contrast, the power of each House to make its own rules clearly applies to matters PURELY internal to its workings. The limitation is in the language of the Constitution, "shall be the Judge of Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own members ... may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member."

[sirthomasthemore]

What we should do is contact the Minutemen ans see if we can get a ground swell for a term limits amendment- that would put an end to All these shenanigans

[soccer_linux_mozilla]

Why take such drastic measures when you can "compromise" /sarc

[Congressman Billybob]

I agree with Borges. The problem is not with your conclusion or enthusiasm, but with how you intend to bell the cat. Only a simple majority is necessary in the Senate to dump the filibuster as applied to judicial nominations.

BTW, the US Supreme Court long ago ruled that the filibuster IS constitutional when it is used with respect to legislation. So to knock it out in this separate area will remain constitutional unless barred by a constitutional amendment.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "The Gunfight at Not-OK Corral"

[GeorgeW23225]

We already do have a term limit in place. It's called VOTING........

[SunnyD1182]

Wouldn't it be easier just to make the filibuster, you know, a REAL filibuster?

If we were to eliminate this half ass "procedural" filibuster that we've had for the last few decades, people would actually have to use some EFFORT to filibuster, and they'd have to deal with the ramifications of stalling Senate business to execute that filibuster.

The filibuster makes sense and is useful for extreme circumstances- but the only way you can assure that it'll be used ONLY during such circumstances is to make it a REAL filibuster, thus forcing those who want to use one to actually THINK before using it (unlike what the Democrats do today).

[sirthomasthemore]

We already do have a term limit in place. It's called VOTING

---

That seems to be working!

Byrd, Dodd, Specter, Lieberman, Kennedy, McCain, virtually every House member, ad infinitum.

[GeorgeW23225]

Did you forget Tom Daschle????

[GeorgeW23225]

I agree, but that doesn't appear likely.

Personally, I'd like to see Byrd, Reid, and Kennedy filibuster until they collapsed from heart attacks....what a terrible loss

[sirthomasthemore]

Did you forget Tom Daschle????

No, George, I didn't- know matter how I try. But, how many terms did he serve before they wasted him- notwithstanding the corruption that dogged him for years?

Did you forget Tip O'Neill, George Mitchell, Sam Rayburn, FDR? The power of the incumbency is too formidable to overcome in the majority of circumstances. It leads to just what we're seeing now. Ethics scandals covered up, deals that are extra-constitutional, power grabs- all because the "professional politicians" work together to protect themselves and conceal their corruption.

Do you want to argue that Washington is not corrupt? I hope not. And the way to end the corruption is to limit the time politicians have in office, so they can't network with lobbyists, interest groups and the Washington elite at the expense of the people who elected them.

[supercat]

I agree with this post. IMHO, if the Senate created rules that stated that approval of a nominee required a 3/5 majority, and that a vote in which less than 3/5 of members cast their vote in the affirmative would constitute rejection, that might be Constitutional. But I see no legitimate basis for allowing the Senate to refuse to make a decision on a nominee, which is what a filibuster basically amounts to.

[GeorgeW23225]

Using your logic, it sure would be a shame to lose people like George Allen, Bill Frist, Rick Santorum, Orrin Hatch, Barry Goldwater, etc, etc, etc, to term limits. If the people of South Dakota could throw out a bum like Daschle, there is hope.

[sirthomasthemore]

it sure would be a shame to lose people like George Allen, Bill Frist, Rick Santorum, Orrin Hatch, Barry Goldwater, etc, etc, etc,

---

George-

After 2 terms, they're all part of the good old boys network, fleecing the American people. All bought and paid for.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1409880/posts

[TomasUSMC]

ALL you need is 51 votes to change the rules and get rid of filibuster in the senate. I don't think it ever has been a good idea to not let people vote, not in Alabama in 1960 and not in the U.S. Senate today.

Nuke the filibuster and we just need 51 votes to seat a ProLife Judge on the SUPREME COURT.

[GeorgeW23225]

I agree. But thanks to Senator McCrazy of Arizona and his 13 coherts, it won't happen. What a shame........