Mr. Smith Goes Under the Gavel

NY Times ^ | November 28, 2004 | MEATHEAD EDITORIAL

[neverdem]

What a whine! Few far-right judicial nominees, give me a break. I believe a number of citations of supposed history are BS.

[freebilly]

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.

Here's how to work with Democrats-- put your metaphoric boots on their metaphoric necks and stomp hard (metaphorically speaking)....

[AmishDude]

The Constitution expressly authorizes the Senate to "determine the rules of its proceedings." That is precisely what it has done.

And that's what it would do under the "nuclear option".

[Tuscaloosa Goldfinch]

Republicans should look for ways to work with Democrats, who still represent nearly half the country.

Ha! Finally admitting that Republicans represent MORE than half the country!!!

[Boundless]

> 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.

[LexBaird]

... 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,...

[speedy]

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.

[MNJohnnie]

"Rather than rewrite the rules of government for a power grab"


Among the many absurdly stupid things the New York Lies has written, this takes the cake.

Dear SLIME,

Funny how when Democratic Senators RE WROTE the US Constitution to require a 60 vote Super Majority on Judaical nominations, a completely illegal twisting of the rules to appease the nazi like fanaticism of their extremist political base, the New York Times stayed COMPLETE silent about the clear abuse of power by the Democrat Senators. NOW, for the New York Lies to DEMAND the Republicans SURRENDER Their majority to the extremist emotional WHIMSY of a few radical hate mongers, like the editors of the NY Lies, is too stupid for any intelligent person to bother considering.

Learn to live with it NY Times. YOU ARE IRRELEVENT. You are the minority and you will stay in the minority for the REST of your lives due to your fanatic inability to realize the VAST MAJOIRTY of Americans do NOT subscribe to your fiscally socialist, Socially Libertine, rabidly anti American, Europphilic, baseless assumption of intellectual superiority. Since the NY Lies has repeatedly demonstrated a complete inability to be balanced and intellectually objective, we will consign this, and any future advice, from the NY lies, to where it RIGHTFULL belongs, the Ash Heap of History.

[AmishDude]

Time to factcheck the New York Times:

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".

[RWR8189]

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

Maybe back in the last Congress, but IIRC I have heard Frist say that he believes he has the votes to pull this off in the 109th Congress if he so chooses.

[CurlyDave]

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.

Exactly where in the constitution is the filibuster established as one of these checks and balances?

[Jeff Chandler]

The Constitution expressly authorizes the Senate to "determine the rules of its proceedings." That is precisely what it has done.

And that's what it would do under the "nuclear option".

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.

[AmishDude]

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.

The NYT should have at least named him -- abortionist Henry Foster.

[AmishDude]

Bill Frist, now the Senate majority leader, supported a filibuster of a Clinton appeals court nomination.

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.

[neverdem]

Excellent find!

[AmishDude]

Here is the bottom line: The Democrats have abused the use of the filibuster for judicial nominees. They have filibustered 4 major nominees -- Estrada, Owen, Pryor, Pickering -- partially in hopes of keeping those seats open to be filled by a Democrat president. The examples the NYT cites of Republican filibusters are discrete and specific. They have to do with specific flaws of specific nominees. That is not the case with the Democrats and Bush's nominees.

As usual, the Democrats play politics with the serious issues of state and, the Republicans are left with having to do something about it.

[Boundless]

>> ... 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.

[Joe Bonforte]

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.

[LexBaird]

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.

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.

[Congressman Billybob]

More bullsh*t from the Times. They fail to mention that the storied history of the filibuster is in LEGISLATION, not JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS. They fail to mention that the Advise and Consent Clause of the Constitution has been held for more than two centuries to mean a "majority" vote in the Senate, no more, no less.

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