Skip to comments.Filibuster Myth-Busters
Posted on 04/15/2005 7:18:12 AM PDT by Choose Ye This Day
Myth No. 1:Filibuster of judges is a sacred tradition.
Fact: The filibuster is nowhere in the Constitution. It is not among the "checks and balances" our Founding Fathers created. It did not even exist until the 1830s, and the "tradition" involves legislation, not judicial appointments. The filibuster was used to defend slavery and oppose the Civil Rights Act hardly noble purposes. The current obstruction of judges is no "traditional" filibuster: it is the first time in more than 200 years that either party has filibustered to keep judges with majority support off the federal bench.
Myth No. 2: Mr. Bush's nominees are being treated no differently than other presidents' nominees.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Thanks. I bookmarked for later use
Pretty good show. I'd like to shave Beret Boy's handlebar mustache and goatee, though.
a recent Ayres McHenry nationwide survey reveals that 82 percent of registered voters believe well-qualified nominees deserve a Senate vote. That includes 85 percent of Republicans, 81 percent of Democrats, and 81 percent of Independents.
Liberals also argue that Abe Fortas was not confirmed as Chief Justice in 1968. But Mr. Fortas was opposed by a Senate majority (both Republicans and Democrats), and President Johnson withdrew the nomination. Today, a Senate majority supports the nominees, and the president is not withdrawing them.
Good find.. thanks for posting...
A liberal minority needs federal judges to advance their agenda allowing child pornography as free speech, mandating same-sex marriage, removing "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, banning school prayer and preventing the death penalty for murderers and terrorists because they can't win these issues at the ballot box.
As press reports already posted on FR demonstrate, my efforts with McCain's office were a failure. The other two Senators (both from North Carolina) are solid on this issue.
Please click below, read this speech, and consider whether further circulation of this document might assist the cause. If so, please get in touch with me personally as quickly as possible. I hope to go to press as early as Monday for thousands of copies of this.
I saw Wendy Long on Scarborough last night. Buchanan was subbing for Joe. She's great! Really represents our side well.
Also heard this report on Laura Ingraham's radio show. FReegards....
As far as the subject of this thread, I like Laura's take on it. Funny how the tactic of the filibuster has been elevated to some sort of noble cause.
There is a 1000 pound sound bite. I would add:
The filibuster was used by Democrats to defend slavery and oppose the Civil Rights Act hardly noble purposes.
Just to clarify: Wendy Long wrote the article. Laura Ingraham mentioned it and read the article on her radio show today. I may not have made that clear.
Gotcha, thanks for the tip!
The one sure way to get politics out of the confirmation process is to get the federal judiciary out of the political process. Right now the federal judiciary is the prime agent of political change in this country. Most of the major policy shifts over the last 30 years have been the direct result of court decisions, not legislation. If the Federal Bench is where the action is in terms of policy making, then it is only natural that politics is going to play a central role in the confirmation of judges to the Federal Bench.
The role of changing the law has to be returned to the Legislative Branch. There the parties can merrily duke it out quite properly in the political sphere.
These obstructionists need to be reeled in. Pass a law that fines them 10,000 a day for filibustering, or some simular penalty for obstructing the workings of government.
bump for later
The American people want senators to do the job our tax dollars pay them to do. Senators who fail to do their jobs - either by failing to show up for their committee meetings, by voting against restoring the Senate tradition of up-or-down votes for judges, or by halting the work of the federal government - might find themselves out of work when they really need the consent of the governed: at their next election.
Wouldn't that be nice? Won't happen though. There are way too many RAT-bots who vote straight RAT no matter who is running.
mega bump; the 200 years thing I wanted to know...
Then, with their scripts held tightly in their hand, the liberal spin begins flooding the "news media" 20-28 hours AFTER a story breaks with the scripted, highly effective 5 second sound bites and prejudiced labels that the media promotes. (Er, "reports objectively and in an unbiased way".)
Same thing could be applied to print releases: In print, but much less so than in TV or radio, a list is easier to focus somebody's attention on the lies the liberal will say next.
Very nice. Saved it.
WCBS just reported that the filibuster has been used to approve judges for over 200 years! Will they stop at nothing?
That's why I am leery of calling the Democrats' bluff and saying, "Fine! Go ahead and filibuster!" Their willing accomplices in the MSM will paint them as patriotic Mr. Smiths.
Also good to know--the ONLY things that REQUIRE a Super-Majority:
1. Convicting an Impeachment (2/3 majority in the Senate - Article 1, Section 3)
2. Expulsion of a member of one house of Congress (2/3 vote of the house in question - Article 1, Section 5)
3. Override a Presidential Veto (2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate - Article 1, Section 7)
4. Ratify a treaty (2/3 majority in the Senate - Article 2, Section 2)
5. Passing of a Constitutional Amendment by Congress (2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate - Article 5)
6. Calling for a Constitutional Convention (2/3 of the state legislatures - Article 5)
7. Ratifying a Constitutional Amendment (3/4 of the states - Article 5)
8. Restore the ability of certain rebels to serve in the government (2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate - 14th Amendment)
9. Approval or removal of the President from his position after the Vice President and the Cabinet approve such removal and after the President contests the removal (2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate 25th Amendment)
Confirming Judicial Appointees? Not on the list.
Technically, he wasn't actually opposed by a majority: he wasn't supported by a majority.
The cloture vote on Abe Fortas's nomination to be Chief Justice on 10/1/68 failed on a vote of 45-43. The 43 votes for the filibuster included 24 Republicans and 19 Democrats.
12 Senators were not present, and neither side had a majority (= 50+).
Ping for later