A Fair Up Or Down Vote?

[zendari]

Originally posted by: miketheidiotlast time i checked, states don't vote, people do.

People vote for state legislatures. California liberals can still have their abortions, it should be a state issue.

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From charrison-

"That is exactly that. There is nothing that requires it be there or not. There are many things that cannot be filibustered in the senate as they have been excluded from that rule."

Quite true. The important part to remember about those exceptions is that they were codified by following the rules of the Senate, not by breaking them... The Constitution specifically allows the Senate to make its own rules, even though it doesn't provide for their enforcement in any realistic way. The Framers apparently never considered the idea that some would be so power hungry and myopic that they'd attempt to break the rules to change the rules, an oxymoron if ever there was one...

The framers never considered liberal courts utterly abusing the future 14th amendment for ridiculous causes, nor Harry Reids idea of "co-nomination".
Text



How do we know the Framers of the Constitution would oppose judicial filibusters?



First, the Founding Father?s were true believers in the concept of majority governance. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, ?the law of the majority is the natural law of every society of men.? To allow a small minority in the Senate to bind up the judicial confirmation process is repugnant to this fundamental constitutional principle.
Secondly, the Founding Fathers were very specific as to when supermajorities are permissible. There are six such exceptions: ratification of the Constitution itself, overriding a presidential veto, Senate consent to a treaty, Senate conviction of an impeached official, the presence of a quorum in the House for the election of the President and amending the Constitution. Judicial confirmations are not among them.
Third, the power to appoint judges to the federal courts is enumerated in Article II of the Constitution, which describes the powers of the president, and not in Article I, which defines the powers of Congress.
Finally, there is senatorial precedent. This is the first time in history that the filibuster rule is being abused in this manner. Senators from both parties have abided by constitutional mandate to ?advise and consent? through a simple majority up-or-down vote on judicial nominees for more than 200 years.

 

[Jhhnn]

More disinformation from Zendari, and Judicial watch. This is just the first time that a filibuster has successfully delayed confirmation, not the first time it's been threatened or tried...

I've already pointed out the whole Fortas nomination situation, and the fact that Frist tried the technique himself, if unsuccessfully. Of course, Bushfans simply pretend that they can't read, and that it never happened...

They also choose to pointedly ignore the fact that blue-slipping is now a thing of the past, a tactic often used against Clinton nominees. No blue-slipping just means greater confrontation at a later time... and greater chances of filibuster.

And then offer up their own interpretation of what they believe the framers thought, as if they can communicate withe the dead, read the minds of the deceased...

The fact remains that the Constitution grants the Senate the right to make their own rules, which every Senator swears to uphold in his oath of instatement. One such rule is that the Senator accepts that the rules are ongoing, another states that it takes a 2/3 majority to change the rules.

Slice it, dice it, run it up the flagpole, fly it to the moon on a pogostick of hyperbole- it doesn't matter, because those are the facts, plain and simple.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
if you remember, it was BUSH'S appeal to the us supreme court that stopped the florida count and overturned florida law.

It was not Florida law that was overtruned.

It was the fact the the Flordia Supreme court ordered a recount procedure that was flawed and not fair to all Florida voters.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: randym431
I'm so sick of hearing this bs from the republicans and their president.
They control the votes, with their majority. And naturally, they most ALWAYS stick together. So asking for a "fair up or down vote" really means "we want to win, screw you". Now they are running ad's on the fair up or down vote krapola. I'm starting to think this Supreme Court pick is a bad egg. If not, why would they already be pushing it.

I just hope the Democrats have the balls to do whats right, if they need to.

The Republicans have never made an issue of any presidential nominee by a Democrat President. True, that for the most part the Democrats were in control of the Senate for about 60 years, however in the 90's President Clinton added a radical leftist judge. The Republicans grit their teeth and voted for them because that has been the standard.

ONLY when a Republican President has made a choice has there been an issue. You can see the results of appointing liberal to moderate judges. Teo examples: We have lost a major right to free speech and we no longer have the right to own property.

Hopefully, new justices will honor the Constitution of the United States rather than spitting on it.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice

Originally posted by: randym431
I'm so sick of hearing this bs from the republicans and their president.
They control the votes, with their majority. And naturally, they most ALWAYS stick together. So asking for a "fair up or down vote" really means "we want to win, screw you". Now they are running ad's on the fair up or down vote krapola. I'm starting to think this Supreme Court pick is a bad egg. If not, why would they already be pushing it.

I just hope the Democrats have the balls to do whats right, if they need to.

The Republicans have never made an issue of any presidential nominee by a Democrat President. True, that for the most part the Democrats were in control of the Senate for about 60 years, however in the 90's President Clinton added a radical leftist judge. The Republicans grit their teeth and voted for them because that has been the standard.

ONLY when a Republican President has made a choice has there been an issue. You can see the results of appointing liberal to moderate judges. Teo examples: We have lost a major right to free speech and we no longer have the right to own property.

Hopefully, new justices will honor the Constitution of the United States rather than spitting on it.

you are going to have to find some sources to back up your claim of "The Republicans have never made an issue of any presidential nominee by a Democrat President" b/c I find that to be highly unlikely...

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: wirelessenabled
We need a Constitutional amendment to make the approval of lifelong appointments like judges require a super-majority of 66%. That would stop all this BS.

The notion that confirmation of a judge to the SC who may serve 30-40 years only needs 51% vote is bad. Our system of government is based on checks and balances ie the need to move toward the middle of whatever the extremes are at the time. The so-called "fair" up or down vote means that 50.00000001% can hold sway over the other 49.999999990% Has caused problems in the past, is causing problems now, and will cause problems until the Constitution is fixed.

What did the founding fathers have to say on this matter? Rewriting the foundations of our country because the political scene isnt going your way for now is a dangerous precident to set.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: wirelessenabled
We need a Constitutional amendment to make the approval of lifelong appointments like judges require a super-majority of 66%. That would stop all this BS.

The notion that confirmation of a judge to the SC who may serve 30-40 years only needs 51% vote is bad. Our system of government is based on checks and balances ie the need to move toward the middle of whatever the extremes are at the time. The so-called "fair" up or down vote means that 50.00000001% can hold sway over the other 49.999999990% Has caused problems in the past, is causing problems now, and will cause problems until the Constitution is fixed.

What did the founding fathers have to say on this matter? Rewriting the foundations of our country because the political scene isnt going your way for now is a dangerous precident to set.

I think he makes a good point - it seems in our gov't that the most critical decisions require the 66% and SC judges are very critical. with politics this involved with the SC I think the 66% isn't a bad idea.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: randym431
I'm so sick of hearing this bs from the republicans and their president.
They control the votes, with their majority. And naturally, they most ALWAYS stick together. So asking for a "fair up or down vote" really means "we want to win, screw you". Now they are running ad's on the fair up or down vote krapola. I'm starting to think this Supreme Court pick is a bad egg. If not, why would they already be pushing it.

I just hope the Democrats have the balls to do whats right, if they need to.

And what does a filibuster mean? Sorry, 55% of America, you don't count for sh*t, so lets take over the government. :roll: Fair vote means fair vote, everyone gets a shot and is represented.

I want my two senators to filibuster. That will represent me as I am supposed to be represented. We are represented state by state.

IMHO, I think the word "filibuster" should be replaced with "vote no". That's how you're supposed to be represented. I don't beleive under current Senate rules that only 2 Senators can pull off a filibuster anyway. "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" is Hollywood fiction.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: wirelessenabled
We need a Constitutional amendment to make the approval of lifelong appointments like judges require a super-majority of 66%. That would stop all this BS.

The notion that confirmation of a judge to the SC who may serve 30-40 years only needs 51% vote is bad. Our system of government is based on checks and balances ie the need to move toward the middle of whatever the extremes are at the time. The so-called "fair" up or down vote means that 50.00000001% can hold sway over the other 49.999999990% Has caused problems in the past, is causing problems now, and will cause problems until the Constitution is fixed.

What did the founding fathers have to say on this matter? Rewriting the foundations of our country because the political scene isnt going your way for now is a dangerous precident to set.

I think he makes a good point - it seems in our gov't that the most critical decisions require the 66% and SC judges are very critical. with politics this involved with the SC I think the 66% isn't a bad idea.

That defeats the whole purpose though. The whole point behind lifetime appointments was to eliminate politics from the judiciary. The whole advice/consent thing was to keep the president from nominating unqualified people, (sticking uncle Larry on the bench or appointing people in a quid pro quo type situation) not to decide if the political leanings of a nominee jive with their own. If the person is qualified that person should be approved.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: wirelessenabled
We need a Constitutional amendment to make the approval of lifelong appointments like judges require a super-majority of 66%. That would stop all this BS.

The notion that confirmation of a judge to the SC who may serve 30-40 years only needs 51% vote is bad. Our system of government is based on checks and balances ie the need to move toward the middle of whatever the extremes are at the time. The so-called "fair" up or down vote means that 50.00000001% can hold sway over the other 49.999999990% Has caused problems in the past, is causing problems now, and will cause problems until the Constitution is fixed.

What did the founding fathers have to say on this matter? Rewriting the foundations of our country because the political scene isnt going your way for now is a dangerous precident to set.

I think he makes a good point - it seems in our gov't that the most critical decisions require the 66% and SC judges are very critical. with politics this involved with the SC I think the 66% isn't a bad idea.

I don't either. Motion to change the rules, in 2008, in a legitemate way and the Dems have my support.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
That defeats the whole purpose though. The whole point behind lifetime appointments was to eliminate politics from the judiciary. The whole advice/consent thing was to keep the president from nominating unqualified people, (sticking uncle Larry on the bench or appointing people in a quid pro quo type situation) not to decide if the political leanings of a nominee jive with their own. If the person is qualified that person should be approved.

Nowdays, the political party that nominates is be considered more relevant that the qualifications.

When the Senate has already approved a justice previously, How can they start saying that the person is no longer qualified?

 

[Jhhnn]

Like I said, apparently Bushfans are incapable of absorbing adverse information into their thought processes. Just one example, from expert novice-

"The Republicans have never made an issue of any presidential nominee by a Democrat President. "

Yes, yes they have, and Senator Frist was one of those attempting to filibuster at the time-

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=281089

Just one of about 7530 links avalable from googling "Frist filibuster Paez"...

So, please, don't tell me it never happened, mkay?

Edit- typo

 

[Jhhnn]

Oh, yeh, read this if you're interested in finding out just how much the positions of the Repub players have changed since the Clinton years-

http://democrats.senate.gov/~dpc/pubs/108-1-199.html

My oh my... flipflops all around...

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Oh, yeh, read this if you're interested in finding out just how much the positions of the Repub players have changed since the Clinton years-

http://democrats.senate.gov/~dpc/pubs/108-1-199.html

My oh my... flipflops all around...

Good grief. They aren't talking about eliminating the fillibuster altogether... just on judicial noms. None of those quotes address judicial noms. Both parties have extensively used the fillibuster for one thing or another. So which Clinton nom was actually fillibustered?

 

[Jhhnn]

Poor reading comprehension, Whoozyerdaddy, or Denial?

Several of those quotes directly address judicial nominees.

You're also attempting to split some mighty fine hairs, claiming there's a significant argumentative difference between a failed filibuster attempt and one that's successful... Repubs attempted to filibuster both Paez and Berzon, but were unsuccessful...

Try to frame a coherent argument that recognizes that fact...

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Poor reading comprehension, Whoozyerdaddy, or Denial?

Several of those quotes directly address judicial nominees.

You're also attempting to split some mighty fine hairs, claiming there's a significant argumentative difference between a failed filibuster attempt and one that's successful... Repubs attempted to filibuster both Paez and Berzon, but were unsuccessful...

Try to frame a coherent argument that recognizes that fact...

The dems never had 61 votes so it would have been up to the republicans to sustain the filibuster right? And they did not. So unlike the current batch of dems in the senate, the republicans refused to march in lock-step to the whims of their party leadership and chose to do the right thing instead by not filibustering the nominee.

And yup... read through it for the third time. Lots of references to filibusters... not ONE of them refering to judicial nominees. Maybe you have the comprehension problem? Or suffer from denial? The references to judicial noms involve statements that the senate has to thoroughly examine the nom but I still don't see where it says to filibuster one. Perhaps you could do a little copy/paste thing and show me one quote from that list where a republican says that it's ok to filibuster a judicial nominee.

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: randym431
I'm so sick of hearing this bs from the republicans and their president.
They control the votes, with their majority. And naturally, they most ALWAYS stick together. So asking for a "fair up or down vote" really means "we want to win, screw you". Now they are running ad's on the fair up or down vote krapola. I'm starting to think this Supreme Court pick is a bad egg. If not, why would they already be pushing it.

I just hope the Democrats have the balls to do whats right, if they need to.

Umm, we already did win the election last year.

Thus, we won. It isn't we want to win screw you. It is we won, you are already screwed.

If you dislike this policy by the republicans then maybe the Democrats can run a moderate like Evan Baye in 08 and maybe (oh I dunno) not have Michael Moore sitting alongside your former presidents at your convention alienating all of the independent voters who hate his fat ass.

 

[Jhhnn]

So, uhh, Frist and others didn't attempt to filibuster? Former Senator Smith's comments don't directly address judicial nominee filibuster? Hatch's comment, and I quote, doesn't extend to filibuster?

"[T]he Senate can and should do what it can to ascertain the jurisprudential views a nominee will bring to the bench in order to prevent the confirmation of those who are likely to be judicial activists."

And not specifically excluding judicial filibuster at the time allows for the former defenders of the filibuster in general to do so now?

Finer and finer... pretty quick, the only instrument capable of splitting such hairs will be ultraviolet lithography equipment...

And those same repubs who did the right thing by your estimation are now doing the right thing by threatening to break the very Senate rules they've sworn to uphold?

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
So, uhh, Frist and others didn't attempt to filibuster? Former Senator Smith's comments don't directly address judicial nominee filibuster? Hatch's comment, and I quote, doesn't extend to filibuster?

"[T]he Senate can and should do what it can to ascertain the jurisprudential views a nominee will bring to the bench in order to prevent the confirmation of those who are likely to be judicial activists."

And not specifically excluding judicial filibuster at the time allows for the former defenders of the filibuster in general to do so now?

Finer and finer... pretty quick, the only instrument capable of splitting such hairs will be ultraviolet lithography equipment...

And those same repubs who did the right thing by your estimation are now doing the right thing by threatening to break the very Senate rules they've sworn to uphold?

Well lets look at it logically.

Sandra Day O'Conner was nominated by Reagan. She has turned out to be very moderate.

Ginsberg is probably the most liberal justice. She was approved 96-3 by the Senate I believe.

Scalia is possibly the most conservative on the bench. He was approved with around the same margin as Ginsberg.

Yet for some reason, all the sudden, John Roberts is too extreme of a candidate?

Please wake up.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm not claiming Roberts is too extreme a candidate, at all. Time will tell if a sufficient number of Dems end up believing that to be true.

OTOH, I think Dems were well within the limits of reason and past precedence to filibuster less than 5% of Bush nominees, nominees who even the right fringe acknowledged as right fringe- gleefully so. I also believe it was a mistake to compromise as Dems did- I don't think Frist had the votes to carry the nuclear option. *Some* Repubs still have integrity, and respect for their own promises and the traditions of the Senate, but they're getting to be pretty rare...

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
So, uhh, Frist and others didn't attempt to filibuster? Former Senator Smith's comments don't directly address judicial nominee filibuster? Hatch's comment, and I quote, doesn't extend to filibuster?

"[T]he Senate can and should do what it can to ascertain the jurisprudential views a nominee will bring to the bench in order to prevent the confirmation of those who are likely to be judicial activists."

And not specifically excluding judicial filibuster at the time allows for the former defenders of the filibuster in general to do so now?

Finer and finer... pretty quick, the only instrument capable of splitting such hairs will be ultraviolet lithography equipment...

And those same repubs who did the right thing by your estimation are now doing the right thing by threatening to break the very Senate rules they've sworn to uphold?

So to answer your questions...

1. Yes, Frist did make the attempt BUT the rest of his party refused to go along; so no filibuster. It's one thing to throw it out as an idea, it's another to actually do it. The republicans held precident by not filibustering. The Dems broke that precident.

2.

On the floor, former Senator Smith, citing the Fortas, Rehnquist and other filibusters as precedents, said, "It is not a new path to argue and to discuss information about these judges. I do not want to hear that I am going down some trail the Senate has never gone before by talking about these judges and delaying. It is simply not true. I resent any argument to the contrary because it is simply not true." (Congressional Record, March 9, 2000)

We have a left-wing web site declaring the context of these comments. But in these comments, by themselves, I see nothing about a filibuster. Extended debate is not a filibuster.

3.

"[The filibuster is] one of the few tools that the minority has to protect itself and those the minority represents." (Congressional Record, October 4, 1994)

Explain to me how that relates to judicial noms?

"[T]he Senate can and should do what it can to ascertain the jurisprudential views a nominee will bring to the bench in order to prevent the confirmation of those who are likely to be judicial activists. Determining which will become activists is not easy since many of President Clinton's nominees tend to have limited paper trails... Determining which of President Clinton's nominees will become activists is complicated and it will require the Senate to be more diligent and extensive in its questioning of nominees' jurisprudential views." (Address of Senator Hatch before University of Utah Federalist Society chapter, February 18, 1997)

"Diligent and extensive in questioning" is hardly a call for a filibuster.

"While the debate about vacancy rates on our federal courts is not unimportant, it remains more important that the Senate perform its advice and consent function thoroughly and responsibly. Federal judges serve for life and perform an important constitutional function without direct accountability to the people. Accordingly, the Senate should never move too quickly on nominations before it." (Congressional Record, June 22, 1998)

Again... Where is the filibuster talk?

Wanting something to be true doesn't make it so. Taking words out of context and trying to divine meaning from them that never existed is dishonest.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
I'm not claiming Roberts is too extreme a candidate, at all. Time will tell if a sufficient number of Dems end up believing that to be true.

OTOH, I think Dems were well within the limits of reason and past precedence to filibuster less than 5% of Bush nominees, nominees who even the right fringe acknowledged as right fringe- gleefully so. I also believe it was a mistake to compromise as Dems did- I don't think Frist had the votes to carry the nuclear option. *Some* Repubs still have integrity, and respect for their own promises and the traditions of the Senate, but they're getting to be pretty rare...

Do you support the Ginsberg standard where she refused to answer the same questions that the Dems now are asking Roberts?

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
I'm not claiming Roberts is too extreme a candidate, at all. Time will tell if a sufficient number of Dems end up believing that to be true.

The White House seems to be doing its best to make Democrats think Judge Roberts is to extreme. Anything to direct the nations attention somewhere else other than on Mr. Rove, Mr. Libby, etal..

 

[Krk3561]

Originally posted by: randym431
I'm so sick of hearing this bs from the republicans and their president.
They control the votes, with their majority. And naturally, they most ALWAYS stick together. So asking for a "fair up or down vote" really means "we want to win, screw you". Now they are running ad's on the fair up or down vote krapola. I'm starting to think this Supreme Court pick is a bad egg. If not, why would they already be pushing it.

I just hope the Democrats have the balls to do whats right, if they need to.

It's not about the issues. Its about partisan, obstructionist tactics. I dont remember the senator but one said he was going to fillibuster no matter what.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: PELarson
The White House seems to be doing its best to make Democrats think Judge Roberts is to extreme. Anything to direct the nations attention somewhere else other than on Mr. Rove, Mr. Libby, etal..

How?