Skip to comments.
Lessons of the Estrada Defeat
Legal Theory Blog ^
| September 4, 2003
| Prof. Lawrence Solum
Posted on 09/04/2003 3:47:38 PM PDT by pogo101
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-98 next last
To: Paulus Invictus
Given what the author of this fine piece has written, what would you have suggested the leadership have done?Read post # 33. The Senate makes it's own rules and procedures, and the courts can't interfere because the Constitution gives the Senate that right. Nothing is stopping the pub leadership from having their way on this issue, nothing that is except a lack of guts. Frist is no better than that big wuss Lott.
41
posted on
09/04/2003 7:46:59 PM PDT
by
epow
To: jrushing
"How can the Dems suddenly turn around 200 years of history & change Advice & Consent into filibuster???" Because they were allowed to, by a cowed majority.
42
posted on
09/04/2003 7:49:19 PM PDT
by
okie01
(I support Billybob. www.ArmorforCongress.com)
To: jrushing
Up until the Schumer hijacking of the Constitution, all confirmations of judicial appointments were conducted by majority vote. The one exception was the mini-filbuster against Abe Fortas for the Supreme Court, and the Administration immediately dropped that ethically defective nomination, rather than fight it out.
So, getting rid of the filibuster on judicial nominations ONLY both obeys the Constitution (where Advise and Consent requires only a majority) and preserves Senate traditions, going back two centuries. Four months ago I laid this whole porcess out in writing on FreeRepublic.
The only reason it has not been done is that Bill Frist doesn't want to upset the Democrats too much. Does that remind you of anyone? Trent (Vacant) Lott, perhaps?
John / Billybob
43
posted on
09/04/2003 7:59:53 PM PDT
by
Congressman Billybob
(Everyone talks about Congress; time to act on it. www.ArmorforCongress.com)
To: Congressman Billybob
The only reason it has not been done is that Bill Frist doesn't want to upset the Democrats too much. Does that remind you of anyone? Trent (Vacant) Lott, perhaps?
Yes, it reminds me & concerns me that the Constitution will not be upheld by those who have sworn to uphold it.
Thank you C.Billybob for fighting to uphold our Constitution. We need more like you to fight for us in Washington!
It is very confusing to me that we have the Majority but cannot seem to use it.
44
posted on
09/04/2003 8:09:20 PM PDT
by
jrushing
To: Paulus Invictus
>>Given what the author of this fine piece has written, what would you have suggested the leadership have done?
I would suggest that they should make the Demonrats fillibuster 24-7 - see if any of them have it in them to break the late Strom Thurmond's record for a fillibuster. And the sheeple might then get a chance to see the Demonrats for the weapons of mass obstruction that they are. But Frist and his merry band of political eunuchs won't go there, because it might make them look too partisan.
45
posted on
09/04/2003 8:13:16 PM PDT
by
Keith in Iowa
(Tag line produced using 100% post-consumer recycled ethernet packets,)
To: pogo101
It seems to me that Frist has allowed the Democrats to keep a low profile on this issue. The majority of Americans don't even know there IS a judicial filibuster. The news media are aiding and abetting, as usual, by failing to report it, but it would be harder for them to help the Dems cover up their obstructionsim if Frist didn't make it so easy for them.
46
posted on
09/04/2003 8:35:15 PM PDT
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: pogo101
Bump for later reading
47
posted on
09/04/2003 8:37:00 PM PDT
by
SuziQ
To: jrushing
Thanks for your comments.
Please help. The three ways are: Volunteer if you're in the 11th Disttrict. If not, recommend friends, relatives & colleagues who are in the 11th. Donate to the campaign (from FReepers I seek only the price of dinner and a movie for two, or about $35).
I need all the help I can find. Can you be part of that? Click below for a whole bunch of additional information.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, "We Are Running for Congress -- Maybe," discussion thread on FR.
48
posted on
09/04/2003 8:49:48 PM PDT
by
Congressman Billybob
(Everyone talks about Congress; time to act on it. www.ArmorforCongress.com)
To: unspun
Thanks for the heads up!
To: unspun
Thanks for the ping.
Lets hope we can get a total 60 Republicans in the senate in '04.
That would finally bury these clowns for a decade or so.
50
posted on
09/04/2003 9:28:34 PM PDT
by
bondserv
To: bondserv
How about the judge Moore from Alabama ... the death wish rat judge selling the wood - nails !
Obviously the withdrawl of the Estrada nomination is another nail in the rat casket !
We need a catalyst to get the conservatives in the RNC and the liberals OUT !
51
posted on
09/04/2003 9:38:43 PM PDT
by
f.Christian
(evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
To: Congressman Billybob
You're right about Fortas, but (as I know YOU know) it's worth mentioning, as further means of setting that instance apart from the current abomination, that:
1. THAT filibuster was BIPARTISAN.
2. It was based on ethics (wasn't it? not sure).
3. Fortas was already on SCOTUS as an Associate Justice. The filibuster merely blocked him from becoming Chief Justice.
52
posted on
09/04/2003 9:40:26 PM PDT
by
pogo101
To: f.Christian
I am really starting to get ticked off with all the crap we have to swallow from these drowning evil maniacs.
To bad the honorable gun duel is so politically incorrect, we might have had the chance to see some righteous retribution once in a while. However, these conniving rats have no honor and would turn on the ninth step and shoot in the back.
How can so many Americans be so blind? The enemy is potent behind these darkness loving demons.
53
posted on
09/04/2003 10:06:30 PM PDT
by
bondserv
To: bondserv
The majority ... 77 % support Judge Moore --- now the public in the next election can see the rats with their mask - gloves off --- devils !
54
posted on
09/04/2003 10:29:35 PM PDT
by
f.Christian
(evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
To: pogo101
Bump for later read....
55
posted on
09/04/2003 11:04:10 PM PDT
by
lorrainer
(Oh, was I ranting? Sorry....)
To: Keith in Iowa
Read the article to see why the 24/7 filibuster benefits the minority.
56
posted on
09/05/2003 5:53:49 AM PDT
by
MEG33
To: unspun
Thanks for the ping.This is an excellent article.I'm mulling over the choices we have vs the consequences!We can definitely use this in elections.I am really sorry Estrada was treated so unfairly.
57
posted on
09/05/2003 6:03:39 AM PDT
by
MEG33
To: pogo101
bump
58
posted on
09/05/2003 6:27:04 AM PDT
by
Phaedrus
To: pogo101
What about the parliamentary option? Senator Robert Byrd pioneered the use of parliamentary maneuver to limit the filibuster. His technique is simple. As applied to the filibuster of a judicial nominee, it might work like this. A Senator moves to close debate on a judicial nominee. A majority votes for cloture. The chair rules that the motion has passed. The minority objects to the decision of the chair. Under Senate procedure, the chair's ruling can be appealed to the Senate, but is sustained if a majority votes to uphold the chair. Viola! The filibuster is over. That's so simple. Why hasn't the Republican leadership done that? Because the Minority can retaliate. The rules of the Senate require the voluntary cooperation of the minority for the Senate to carry on its ordinary business. If the minority were determined to against a Republican first strike, they could bring the business of the Senate to a screeching stop simply by calling for a roll-call vote on every unanimous consent motion. Of course, the majority could escalate further, by changing the Senate Rules to permit the leadership to control who takes the floor. But this would fundamentally transform the nature of the Senate. It would make the Senate function like the House, which at the level of parliamentary procedure is essentially an oligarchy. This change would diminish the power of every Senator except those who were high in the Republican leadership. Translation: Republican Senators are cowards. No news here.
59
posted on
09/05/2003 7:11:32 AM PDT
by
Phaedrus
To: Keith in Iowa
Your answer is not a winner. The Pubs could have gone 24/7, but would have had to have fielded a quorum of Pubbies to be there at all times, while the RATS could have sent only one member to be present while the filibuster went on. Which party would have had to fold their tents first, the Pubs or the RATS? That's an easy answer as the RATS would have been able to hold out indefinitely. So, what else could the Pubs have done?
60
posted on
09/05/2003 9:26:57 AM PDT
by
Paulus Invictus
(Freerepublic.com is eTruth!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-98 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson