Posted on 11/29/2013 1:39:29 PM PST by steelhead_trout
Republicans and Democrats can debate which party has most abused the option, and which has been more hypocritical in changing its mind about the filibuster once it went from the majority to the minority or the reverse. Neither side has acted with selfless regard for the will of the people or the proper functioning of government.
The change adopted by the Senate has been dubbed the "nuclear option," as though it were unimaginably destructive. But all it destroys is the capacity of the minority party to frustrate the operation of the legislative branch. And it applies only to executive and non-Supreme Court judicial nominations. The old rules still apply to other matters.
Conservatives sometimes act as though democratic processes are something to dread. Uncontrolled, they can be scary. But under our Constitution, they are carefully regulated to prevent rash action.
The framers, however, did not intend to let the minority prevail as a general rule. They did require a super-majority vote to approve treaties, override presidential vetoes and pass constitutional amendments. Had they wanted to require 60 votes to confirm judges, they knew how to do it.
In most things, though, they chose to let the majority rule. It's not a perfect system, but there are worse ones.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
They also never intended judges to have so much power.
It may be salient, but still, the current situation smacks of opportunism. Consider the left stymies Conservative judges when they can’t appoint (Shumer being one of the worst offenders) and push thru communists when they can. It’s the marxist ratchet effect. They invented the concept of Borking.
Idiot completely overlooks the real problem, a simple majority of one can now change the Senate Rules any time they want. That simply means there are no rules.
“They invented the concept of Borking.”
Yes. The Constitution only provides for the Supreme Court and not for any of the lower Federal government courts. Marbury versus Madison, the case that asserted that the judicial branch decides whether confressionally-passed legislation is constitutional, was decided decades after the adoption of the Constitution. The Senate was elected by the state legislatures, thereby giving the states a role to play in the national government, until nearly 120 years later. And Congress didn’t start to delegate its legislative power to executive-branch administrative agencies in any meaningful way until the 1930s.
Yet the filibuster had been in place since the 18th century and lasted until this month in 2013.
Congressionally, not confressionally.
LOL. It will be changed soon to include supremes. Hopefully it will happen after we have a real president and senate.
He or she can undo some of 0bama's damage using 51 [see dc circuit], change the rule to include supremes, get one or two of those, then change it to 60 AND make rule changes need 60.
Marbury v. Madison was in effect an extra-constitutional coup. Nowhere in the US constitution is the SC, or any federal court, given the power to invalidate legislation (i.e.”judicial review”). Yet the framers, many of whom were still alive when this case was decided, meekly rolled over for it. As for the filibuster, it was first used in 1837. And as for the 17th Amendment allowing for the popular election of senators, much criticism of it is in vogue in conservative circles, yet it must have has some merit, or 3/4 of the 48 states would not have voted to ratify it!
The Democrat party has just about shot its wad, with the presumptuousness of Obamacare, and this is a desperation move, unlikely to change a lot. A slim GOP majority should it be gained in 2014 should use it to clean house.
I kind of liked “confressionally”, I thought it sounded fresh and celebratory.
:p
Not on its own, it wasn't. In Marbury, SCOTUS found that the constitution did not give SCOTUS original jurisdiction to hear the type of case brought to it. The constitution specifies SCOTUS jurisdiction, and SCOTUS, in that case, followed the limited grant of jurisdiction that the constitution gives it.
Today, "debate" is a formality. It is nothing more than speech-making and preening for the cameras as they march towards predetermined party-line votes in support of national special interest agendas.
-PJ
The true filabuster is probably still available. That is where a person actually stands up for hours and hours and talks about the issue (and lots of other stuff), but in recent years all they did was threaten a filabuster and then the other side would fold.
Well, I don't know.
The founders designed the Senate as a bulwark against the appropriation of too much federal power. The Senators were to be appointed by their respective state legislatures and, thus, owe their allegiance to the states.
That was changed by the constitutional amendment of 1917 which was the Progressives' attempt at "democratizing" it. Though sometimes annoying, the filibuster, at least, did prove to be somewhat of a moderating force in that march towards democratization.
Spot on. You are especially wise today. Is it the after-effects of a heavy American meal?
We could use a confreshional Congress.
Confreshional: (American slang) Conservative, Fresh (as in all new) Congress
If the GOP gains the majority next year would you advocate returning the filibuster to the way it was?
I guess when I’m lazy I have more time to think
so I dunno about the other 2% of the time
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.