Republicans Plan To End Cherished Political Tradition Of The Filibuster

The Telegraph (UK) ^ | 4-10-2005 | Philip Sherwell

[Lurker]

You're incorrect.

There has never been a filibuster of an appointment of a Federal Judge. Noone is talking about altering the Constitution, only a minor rules change.

Relax, take a deep breath.

L

[1066AD]

I thought this "nuclear option" was to prevent the use of the filibuster in a relevant committee to block all progress - in other words being used to prevent a straight up/down vote of the whole senate. No ?

Didn't I also read somewhere that the Dems changed the rules several times while they were in the majority ? Even Sen Byrd doing it in fact >

[Lancey Howard]

They might try, but ill health or a natural death can force the issue.

Well, I got my fingers crossed....

[1066AD]

Yes, and it's usually better than this, the guy's picked up some talking-points at happy hour I think.

[Mobile Vulgus]

This Telegraph writer is an idiot.

>>"Republican Senate leaders are planning to curb the cherished American political tradition of the filibuster"

That VERY first sentence proves this moron has no idea what he is talking about. The Republicans are NOT trying to "curb the cherished filibuster." They are stopping the Dems from MISUSING it!!!

[stands2reason]

Chill. No one's talking about ending the filibuster.

[dfwgator]

Chill. No one's talking about ending the filibuster.

You wouldn't know that from the ads the Rats are running. How they can do that with a straight face is astonishing.

[Straight Vermonter]

So the Republicans have defeated the Democrat filibuster of judges?

[Smoote]

A majority of the electorate voted for Republican Senatorial candidates. Yet despite the will of the people having been expressed at the ballot box the electorate is being spat upon by the likes of Sen. Leahy and Sen. Kennedy et al through the use of this totalitarian tactic.

Dump the filibuster - there are enough checks and balances already.

No Senate or House rules should ever trump the priciple of vote man - one vote.

[Smoote]

That should read "one man - one vote".

[ThirstyMan]

>>"Republican Senate leaders are planning to curb the cherished American political tradition of the filibuster"
That VERY first sentence proves this moron has no idea what he is talking about. The Republicans are NOT trying to "curb the cherished filibuster."

YES!!!
This needs to be shouted!
This is just about preventing the minority on the nominating committee from filibustering nominees they don't like, thus denying them a simple up or down vote on the floor of the senate.

The circulation of misinformation on this has astounded me. I mean this comes after the media's misinformation that Terri Schiavo was on life support and in a persistent vegetative state.

[gakrak]

I believe they are proposing changing the rules for Judicial nominations not legislative. Amen.

[gakrak]

Agree to a point, but health and death are not in their control. Amen.

[gakrak]

"Furthermore, what will happen if Democrats take back control of the Senate either next year or in '08?"

Strongly disagree, do you think for a moment that the Dumb's wouldn't change the rule to suit them if the tables were reversed? Amen.

[gakrak]

"Could you imagine how drawn and ugly ol' Teddy Kennedy would look after a couple of days without sleep, having to remain in his seat while they filibustered?"

And don't forget about his withdrawal - His flask would surely run dry in the first hour or so, LOL. Amen.

[anniegetyourgun]

Amen.

[CDHart]

I'll believe it when I see it.

Carolyn

[Liz]

I pray that the wrath of God Himself be executed upon the workers of iniquity in high places, these rulers who rule with deceitful hearts, these who revel in evil devices, in Jesus' Name--may their evil reigns end prematurely by impeachment by the hand of the sovereign PEOPLE, One Nation, Under God!!!

Amen.

[Zero Sum]

I find it odd that a British paper is lamenting the passing of a "cherished American political tradition". Especially one that's only a few years old...

[Fishrrman]

I say get rid of the filibuster, once and for all - just end it.

The Constitution specifies when, in the course of governance, supermajorities will be required. For a branch of government to establish its own supermajorites goes against the grain of what the founders intended when they wrote the Constitution.

I know, I know - the Senate has been going against that grain for two centuries. But just because they've been doing so for so 200 years doesn't make their actions right, any moreso than slavery was "right", even though it was written into the Constitution and laws of the land until that practice, too, was abolished.

Time to end filibustering in the Senate. End it for judicial nominations. End it for everything. From now on, majority votes only on all matters, except those where the Constitution mandates that a supermajority be required.

I can live with that. I can live with it while the Republicans are in power. And I'll live with it when - someday - the Democrats come back into power, as they certainly will.

Having said all that, I'm still skeptical that the Republicans are truly going to "go nuclear". I don't think they have the smarts or the gumption. The Democrats sense this as well, and they _do_ have the political will to resist as best they can. They may even win. In high-stakes politics, the Republicans like to talk the talk. It's walking the walk that they shy away from.

And unless the Pubbies decided to walk the walk on the filibuster, it's possible that G.W. Bush may end his second term with nearly no new judicial confirmations, an eventuality that no poster here is considering yet (just remember that you read about it from _this_ poster first!). In that case, I would advocate that we let the Supreme Court literally "shrink" in membership, rather than fill that bench (or the other federal benches) with a gaggle of David Souters!

Cheers!
- John