Posted on 11/27/2004 8:48:45 PM PST by neverdem
Republicans control the White House, both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court. But the greater their power, the more they have focused on one of its few limits: the Senate filibuster. They are so concerned that Democrats will use the filibuster to block a few far-right judicial nominees that they are talking about ending one of the best-known checks and balances in government. Rather than rewrite the rules of government for a power grab, Republicans should look for ways to work with Democrats, who still represent nearly half the country.
The filibuster is almost as old as America itself. In 1790, senators filibustered to prevent Philadelphia from becoming the nation's permanent capital. In the centuries since, senators have used their privilege of unlimited debate to fend off actions supported by a bare majority of the Senate, but deeply offensive to the minority. In 1917, the Senate adopted a formal resolution allowing senators to delay actions unless debate is cut off by a supermajority, which Senate rules now set at 60 votes.
The filibuster has a storied place in the nation's history, and in popular culture. During the Great Depression, Huey Long of Louisiana fought off a bill he opposed by reciting recipes for fried oysters and potlikker. In the 1939 film "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," Jimmy Stewart triumphed over crooked politicians with a 23-hour filibuster. Filibusters were used, notoriously, by Southern senators to fight civil rights legislation, notably the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But even during those dark days, the Senate considered the right to filibuster sacrosanct.
Judicial nominees have never been immune from filibusters. When Republicans opposed President Lyndon Johnson's choice for chief justice, Abe Fortas, they led a successful filibuster to stop him from getting the job. More recently, in the Clinton era, Republicans spoke out loudly in defense of their right to filibuster against the confirmation of cabinet members and judicial nominees. Republican senators, including Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Mike DeWine of Ohio, used a filibuster in 1995 to block President Bill Clinton's nominee for surgeon general. Bill Frist, now the Senate majority leader, supported a filibuster of a Clinton appeals court nomination. Senator Christopher Bond, a Missouri Republican, was quoted in The St. Louis Post-Dispatch in 1993 saying, "On important issues, I will not hesitate to join a filibuster."
Now that Republicans are doing the appointing, they see things very differently. Dr. Frist recently declared on "Fox News Sunday" that preventing votes on judicial nominees is "intolerable." Among the proposals Republicans are floating is the so-called nuclear option. According to Senate rules, changing the filibuster rule should require a two-thirds vote. But in the "nuclear option," Vice President Dick Cheney, as Senate president, would rule that filibusters of judicial nominees could be ended by a simple majority.
That would no doubt put the whole matter in the courts, an odd place for the Republicans - who are fighting this battle in the name of ending activist courts - to want it resolved. The Republicans would have a weak case. The Constitution expressly authorizes the Senate to "determine the rules of its proceedings." That is precisely what it has done.
If it came to a vote, it is not at all clear that the Republicans would be able to command even a majority for ending the filibuster. Senators appreciate their chamber's special role, and much of its uniqueness is based on traditions like the filibuster. Senator Charles Schumer, the New York Democrat who has led the opposition to extremist judicial nominees, says as many as 10 Republican senators could vote against changing the rule.
The Republicans see the filibuster as an annoying obstacle. But it is actually one of the checks and balances that the founders, who worried greatly about concentration of power, built into our system of government. It is also, right now, the main means by which the 48 percent of Americans who voted for John Kerry can influence federal policy. People who call themselves conservatives should find a way of achieving their goals without declaring war on one of the oldest traditions in American democracy.
Here's how to work with Democrats-- put your metaphoric boots on their metaphoric necks and stomp hard (metaphorically speaking)....
And that's what it would do under the "nuclear option".
Ha! Finally admitting that Republicans represent MORE than half the country!!!
> Republicans should look for ways to work with Democrats ...
If that were actually possible, we wouldn't be having this
discussion.
Anyhow, I'm encouraged if the NYT is nervous about the
fate of the filibuster.
I have no problem restoring it to its traditional scenario:
talk 'til you drop.
... or even restoring it to its Constitutionally-defined
role. Oh, it's not mentioned there? Hmmm.
Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,...
My recollection is that the Dems lowered the number of Senators required for a filibuster from 67 to 60. Can't recall the Times complaining about that honored tradition. Going "nuclear" would be taking the next logical step. I can think of other traditions the Times didn't mind seeing go by the boards, like prayer in public schools. All of a sudden they support tradition.
When Republicans opposed President Lyndon Johnson's choice for chief justice, Abe Fortas, they led a successful filibuster to stop him from getting the job.
First, Fortas was already on the court, this was just to keep him from getting the CJ job. And he'd never be called "Honest Abe":
As a sitting justice, he [Fortas] regularly attended White House staff meetings; he briefed the president on secret Court deliberations; and, on behalf of the president, he pressured senators who opposed the war in Vietnam. When the Judiciary Committee revealed that Fortas received a privately funded stipend, equivalent to 40 percent of his Court salary, to teach an American University summer course, Dirksen [Republican Senate minority leader] and others withdrew their support. Although the committee recommended confirmation, floor consideration sparked the first filibuster in Senate history on a Supreme Court nomination.The Democrat majority leader withdrew support "of administration delays in nominating the senator's candidate to a Georgia federal judgeship".
Exactly where in the constitution is the filibuster established as one of these checks and balances?
Indeed. The Constitution also clearly gives the President the power to make judicial appointments, under the advise and consent of the Senate. All the nookyalur option would do is end filibusters for judicial nominations, not for all the other uses. I suspect the Noo Yock Times fairies know this, but are counting on the ignorance of their readers when they spout the rat talking points.
The NYT should have at least named him -- abortionist Henry Foster.
Ahem, the filibuster never happened.
Senator Christopher Bond, a Missouri Republican, was quoted in The St. Louis Post-Dispatch in 1993 saying, "On important issues, I will not hesitate to join a filibuster."
Well, here's a non-sequitur if I ever saw one.
Excellent find!
As usual, the Democrats play politics with the serious issues of state and, the Republicans are left with having to do something about it.
>> ... or even restoring it to its Constitutionally-
>> defined role. Oh, it's not mentioned there? Hmmm.
> Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2: Each House may
> determine the Rules of its Proceedings,...
Indeed. If the Senate abolishes the filibuster entirely,
that's completely Constitutional.
The filibuster was not seen as a real problem until the
Dems made it clear that they'd use it routinely, and
they are only able to do that because the original
stricter rules were relaxed.
If we return to the "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"
filibuster rules, it would be OK with me. The NYT
would like us to think that it would be OK with their
party too, but we all know otherwise.
This article completely ignores the real source of the problem - when the word "filibuster" stopped meaning to hold the floor indefinitely. Until that time, a filibuster was quite difficult. One or more senators had to physically keep the floor by talking continuously. This was exhausting, and therefore had built-in limits.
Now, they just have to say they want to filibuster, and the Senate adjourns without voting. That's far too easy. And the Democrats have taken advantage of it for quite partisan purposes.
One of the main reasons the filibuster rules were relaxed was in consideration of superannuated Senators, such as Strom Thurmond. In a 50/50 divided Senate, the Republicans didn't want to risk having him die because he had to remain in session for a long period.
By the way, anyone know who the oldest Senator is now? Is it Byrd? (runs quick google) Yep, old Sheets is 86.
The reporters and editors at the Times are not stupid. So one must conclude that they are merely dishonest, and are counting on the readers of the Times to be too stupid to catch the errors. And they're probably right about that. The average Times reader has the fact-checking capacity of Dan Rather, to pick a name not entirely at random.
LOL. Billybob
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.