Posted on 05/13/2005 4:25:55 PM PDT by Tall_Texan
Everyone except liberal Democrats are sick of the obstructionism practiced by Senate leftists on everything from the U.N. Ambassador to judgeships to other presidential appointees. They seem to be taking the startegy that the longer they stall, the closer they come to 2009 when there will be a new President (hopefully, in their minds, a Democrat president).
Nobody envisioned the filibuster would turn into a de facto supermajority needed to confirm practically everybody the president sends up.
The Republicans have talked about (as did Democrats back when they were the party in power) a "nuclear option" that would either scale back the number of Senators required to close debate and proceed to a vote or make cloture an issue simply of strict majority (51 votes).
Democrats have, of course, wailed and gnashed their teeth about the prospect of this procedure and even some Republicans balk at the idea, thinking of how it might affect them should they return to the minority. There have been talk of compromises that would allow filibusters to continue but allow certain Democrat-approved nominees to get through to a vote.
My personal solution would be to change the Senate rules where cloture can be invoked by a simple majority *only* in the case of presidential nominees, leaving the filibuster intact for legislation and other Senate functions.
But there is another idea I would like to float that stops short of ending the filibuster but would make the strategy of obstructionism behind the filibusters tougher to accomplish.
My idea would be to change the Senate rules where a filibuster can only be invoked on every *fifth* presidential nominee. That way, if there is a nominee that the minority feels they need to block, they can do so just as the Democrats are doing now. Unless the majority can reach 60 votes to close debate, the filibuster can continue as it does today. But they would be prohibited from exercising that option on the next four nominees for any post that the president sends up.
This would then limit the procedure *only* to those which the minority feels they need to go to the mat over because they know if they use it they will be giving the next four nominees a free pass to a floor vote before they can use another filibuster. This would prevent mass-scale filibusters like the Democrats are doing now and yet keep the concept of the filibuster alive for future generations.
It really begs the question. Is stopping Janice Rogers Brown, Miguel Estrada or Priscilla Owens worth the cost of not being able to filibuster the next John Bolton or Supreme Court nominee? Surely, a president would learn the trick of using the next four nominees after a filibuster to get people through that he thinks the minority party is likely to object to. The minority would have to think really hard about filibustering a nominee knowing there might be somebody they hate more just around the corner if they use it.
So the filibuster remains for when the minority party thinks it is really necessary but it is not overly used as it is today to block every person the ACLU or PFAW has a bug up their butt about.
And we can all move on to the businees that *ought* to be brought up in the Senate rather than this constant obstructionism and stalemate while our court system withers on the vine.
It's still unconstitutional, because it artificially pushes the amount of votes required up by nine.
The constitutional option only ends filibusters on presidential appointment nominees. It doesn't end filibusters on, say, spending bills.
And here's the neat thing about rule changes: if the Democrats ever get in charge again, they can revert the rules back!
Tom Daschle.
So you're saying filibusters are simply unconstitutional? That they should NEVER be used, even on Supreme Court nominees or Cabinet appointees?
I'd like your opinion please. Many thanks.
No, it doesn't.
If the Senate is voting on a motion to consent to a Presidential nominee, how many votes are required to achieve consent?
Would "unused" filabusters of every 5th nominee, roll over, or accrue, like vacation days..?
Write to all the Senators, with a simple form letter. In the body of your letter, ask the Senator 2 questions:
1. Do you have any advice for the President regarding the nomination of Judge [Pryor, Owen, Brown, etc].
2. Do you consent to the President's nomination of Judge [insert name].
Thank you very much,
Sincerely, Joe Freeper
OK, now, collect as many of those letters as you can. When you get to 51 that answer question no. 2 in the affirmative, take them directly to the White House, and inform it that the Senate has given its advice and consent, and that its nominee has been confirmed. They will thank you for your efforts.
No, they wouldn't accrue like sick days. Once a filibuster is invoked, no filibuster can be invoked on the next four nominees. There is no bonus for *not* filibustering since the whole point is to limit how many nominees can be filibustered.
Doesn't the Constitution of The U.S. already state that all presidential judical nominees MUST receive and up or down vote by THE FULL SENATE? Can it get any planer that that? Apparently not for demo-gogues.
Nice idea but you are assuming senators will be good for their word. They won't be. They will say they need to study this more or that new information has been disclosed since they sent you the letter or blame it on a clerical mistake.
Having 51 letters in favor of a nominee won't get you very far I'm afraid.
jeez..nobody appreciates an attempt at levity these days..(G)
Technically, it doesn't call for an up or down vote. It calls for the Senate to "advise and consent". You could extrapolate that "consent" would be roughly equal to voting yea or nay but there is nothing that *requires* it.
I'm saying filibustering nominees is unconstitutional in that it artificially creates a higher vote count requirement.
Nominees need a simple majority to be confirmed. Every single filibustered judge should be on the bench right now, because Frist easily has 51 votes for all of them. However, they aren't sitting on the bench, because the filibuster requires Frist to find another 9 votes.
I didn't think you were joking but you did ask a question I anticipate somebody would have eventually posed in hopes of closing any loopholes.
OK..I'll try a serious question, then, for $200...It seems to me that the supposed "benefit" to the minority is worthless, because the president would just "time" or stage" his nominees..
See Post 13. The Senate is required to "advise and consent". There's nothing that says they *have* to have a vote. Yes, it seems unfair but it is not against the rules. You could argue that filibustering violates the *spirit* of the rules but it doesn't violate the letter of the rules.
The question is not, "how many votes are required by Senate rules to stop debate?"
The question is, "how many votes are required by Senate rules to pass a motion on the floor that a nominee be confirmed?"
He could if he could anticipate when the minority would actually use the filibuster. What if they don't? How long does he wait to bring out his controversial nominees?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.