• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Democrats think judicial filibuster is unconstitutional

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
This being politics, this does not surprise me. However these folks should be called on for their two faced behavior.

Senator Joe Lieberman on January 4, 1995: "The filibuster rule . . . there is no constitutional basis for it. . . . it is, in its way, inconsistent with the Constitution, one might almost say an amendment of the Constitution by rule of the U.S. Senate." And on January 5: "The Constitution states only five specific cases in which there is a requirement for more than a majority to work the will of this body: Ratification of a treaty, override of a Presidential veto, impeachment, adoption of a constitutional amendment, and expulsion of a Member of Congress. In fact, the Framers of the Constitution considered other cases in which a supermajority might have been required and rejected them. And we by our rules have effectively amended the Constitution--which I believe, respectfully, is not right-- and added the opportunity of any Member or a minority of Members to require 60 votes." Congressional Record.

Senator Tom Daschle on January 30, 1995: "The Constitution is straightforward about the few instances in which more than a majority of the Congress must vote: A veto override, a treaty, and a finding of guilt in an impeachment proceeding. Every other action by the Congress is taken by majority vote. The Founders debated the idea of requiring more than a majority . . . . They concluded that putting such immense power into the hands of a minority ran squarely against the democratic principle. Democracy means majority rule, not minority gridlock." Congressional Record.

Senator Tom Harkin on March 1, 1994: "I really believe that the filibuster rules are unconstitutional. I believe the Constitution sets out five times when you need majority or supermajority votes in the Senate for treaties, impeachment." Congressional Record.

Lloyd Cutler, Carter and Clinton White House Counsel, on September 29, 1968: "Nothing would more poorly serve our constitutional system than for the nominations to have earned the approval of the Senate majority, but to be thwarted because the majority is denied a chance to vote. Senators have never before employed a filibuster against a Supreme Court nomination. Indeed, prior Supreme Court nominations have seldom been debated more than 8 days. Whatever the merits of the filibuster as a device to defeat disliked legislation, its use to frustrate a judicial appointment creates a dangerous precedent with important implications for the very structure of our Government." Congressional Record.

And again on April 19, 1993: "Requirements of 60 votes to cut off debate and a two-thirds vote to amend the rules are both unconstitutional." And again on May 3, 1993: "The Senate rule requiring a super-majority vote to cut off debate is unconstitutional." Washington Post.

 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
I think we need to get away from the concept that hypocracy is party specific. Both sides I believe have used the filibuster. Correct me if I am wrong. Republicans and Democrats are equally vindictive and petty. Call them on it, sure. Be consistent and do the same for the other party too when they transgress.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
I think we need to get away from the concept that hypocracy is party specific. Both sides I believe have used the filibuster. Correct me if I am wrong. Republicans and Democrats are equally vindictive and petty. Call them on it, sure. Be consistent and do the same for the other party too when they transgress.
The democrats are the first to use filibuster on judicial appointments. The use of a filibuster here seems to be questionable.

And yes I do agree, hypocracy does not just belong to one party.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
I think we need to get away from the concept that hypocracy is party specific. Both sides I believe have used the filibuster. Correct me if I am wrong. Republicans and Democrats are equally vindictive and petty. Call them on it, sure. Be consistent and do the same for the other party too when they transgress.


republican use

Both sides seem to use it...
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: HJD1
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
I think we need to get away from the concept that hypocracy is party specific. Both sides I believe have used the filibuster. Correct me if I am wrong. Republicans and Democrats are equally vindictive and petty. Call them on it, sure. Be consistent and do the same for the other party too when they transgress.


republican use

Both sides seem to use it...
Yes both sides used it on occasion, but only one has used it for judical nominees.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Yes both sides used it on occasion, but only one has used it for judical nominees.[/quote]





I'll take your word for that... but, what would be the differnce? Or is it that legislation filibusters are not the same as confirmation filibusters in terms of their parlimentary use? Is this your point?
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
"The democrats are the first to use filibuster on judicial appointments."

That is not true. The Republicans used the filibuster to block a judicial nominee for chief justice of Pres. Johnson's.


Additionally the Republicans refused to let 60 of pres. Clinton's nominees leave the judicial commitee, which is the same kind of tactic of preventing a majority of senators the right to vote on a nominee.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: HJD1
Yes both sides used it on occasion, but only one has used it for judical nominees.




I'll take your word for that... but, what would be the differnce? Or is it that legislation filibusters are not the same as confirmation filibusters in terms of their parlimentary use? Is this your point?[/quote]

My main point was the democrats were againt the filibustering of judges when the republicans talked about doing it a few years back. Now the democrats are filibustering judges.

One could argue that president's power to appoint judges with the "advice and consent of congress" does not mean it requires a super majority. My guess is after this date, filibustering of judges is going to become a common thing to do.


 

KenGr

Senior member
Aug 22, 2002
725
0
0
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"The democrats are the first to use filibuster on judicial appointments."

That is not true. The Republicans used the filibuster to block a judicial nominee for chief justice of Pres. Johnson's.


Additionally the Republicans refused to let 60 of pres. Clinton's nominees leave the judicial commitee, which is the same kind of tactic of preventing a majority of senators the right to vote on a nominee.

No, I don't think it's the same kind of tactic. The senate rules require certain things to be considered first by subcommittee and if the subcommittee doesn't send them to the floor they die. The filibuster which prevents a vote after it has come to the floor is very different. You may disagree with both but it would have to be on different grounds. The filibuster prevents the senate from acting on something which is ligitimately in front of the entire body. Doing away with the subcommittee process would probably stop the work of the senate dead due to the need to fully debate and amend each action by the entire body.


 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"The democrats are the first to use filibuster on judicial appointments."

That is not true. The Republicans used the filibuster to block a judicial nominee for chief justice of Pres. Johnson's.


Additionally the Republicans refused to let 60 of pres. Clinton's nominees leave the judicial commitee, which is the same kind of tactic of preventing a majority of senators the right to vote on a nominee.
Got a link to a judicial filibuster for that cheif justice?
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"The democrats are the first to use filibuster on judicial appointments."

That is not true. The Republicans used the filibuster to block a judicial nominee for chief justice of Pres. Johnson's.


Additionally the Republicans refused to let 60 of pres. Clinton's nominees leave the judicial commitee, which is the same kind of tactic of preventing a majority of senators the right to vote on a nominee.
Got a link to a judicial filibuster for that cheif justice?
Nevertheless, bipartisan opposition to Fortas's elevation was substantial, and a filibuster ensued. The filibuster itself was controversial, as some Republicans such as Nixon himself believed that Fortas should receive an up-or-down vote as a matter of principle. Senators persisted, and an October 1 cloture vote failed by a margin of 45-43. Twenty-four Republicans and nineteen Democrats voted against the cloture motion - with ten Republicans and thirty-five Democrats in favor of cutting off debate. President Johnson then withdrew the nomination
Looks like I stand corrected on this being the first filibuster. Looks like the was a bipartisan filibuster as well...

linkage
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: KenGr
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"The democrats are the first to use filibuster on judicial appointments."

That is not true. The Republicans used the filibuster to block a judicial nominee for chief justice of Pres. Johnson's.


Additionally the Republicans refused to let 60 of pres. Clinton's nominees leave the judicial commitee, which is the same kind of tactic of preventing a majority of senators the right to vote on a nominee.

No, I don't think it's the same kind of tactic. The senate rules require certain things to be considered first by subcommittee and if the subcommittee doesn't send them to the floor they die. The filibuster which prevents a vote after it has come to the floor is very different. You may disagree with both but it would have to be on different grounds. The filibuster prevents the senate from acting on something which is ligitimately in front of the entire body. Doing away with the subcommittee process would probably stop the work of the senate dead due to the need to fully debate and amend each action by the entire body.
I am in two minds on this issue in that I don't like the judicial to be so right leaning or so left leaning in the application of precident or making "new law" against the right of the majority... When I agree with the law, appointment etc. I am against filibuster and when conversly I am for it... hipocritical I know... and not appropriate... but, it is how I feel at the moment. I wish I could state differn'tly... but, I can't.

 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: HJD1
Yes both sides used it on occasion, but only one has used it for judical nominees.




I'll take your word for that... but, what would be the differnce? Or is it that legislation filibusters are not the same as confirmation filibusters in terms of their parlimentary use? Is this your point?
My main point was the democrats were againt the filibustering of judges when the republicans talked about doing it a few years back. Now the democrats are filibustering judges.

I somehow posted my response to you to Kengr.. sorry.

One could argue that president's power to appoint judges with the "advice and consent of congress" does not mean it requires a super majority. My guess is after this date, filibustering of judges is going to become a common thing to do.[/quote]

 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
"Doing away with the subcommittee process would probably stop the work of the senate dead due to the need to fully debate and amend each action by the entire body."

I'm not suggesting doing away with it, just saying it's a similar tactic. I'm not in favor of doing away with the filibuster tactic either.

 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
Both parties are in the long established habit of labeling the other party's obstructionist tactics unwise, unfair, contrary to the public good, or illegal. It seems to be perfectly normal to support an action when your party initiates it and to villify it when the other party does. Politicions never seem to see this as incongruous. The only difference I see is the Republicans seem to be more vicious about it.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Both parties are in the long established habit of labeling the other party's obstructionist tactics unwise, unfair, contrary to the public good, or illegal. It seems to be perfectly normal to support an action when your party initiates it and to villify it when the other party does. Politicions never seem to see this as incongruous. The only difference I see is the Republicans seem to be more vicious about it.
I agree with you almost 100%, except I see both sides acting equally without regard for the people the are supposed to be representing.
 

NightTrain

Platinum Member
Apr 1, 2001
2,150
0
76
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"The democrats are the first to use filibuster on judicial appointments."

That is not true. The Republicans used the filibuster to block a judicial nominee for chief justice of Pres. Johnson's.
"Twenty-four Republicans and nineteen Democrats voted against the cloture motion"

?

 

DZip

Senior member
Apr 11, 2000
375
0
0
"Bush's fault", he should not appoint these two judges because the democrats don't like them. He should take a poll of only democrats to find out whom they want. If he does that, they will end the filibuster. At least they didn't all run to Canada to avoid a quorum.
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
It is Bush's fault! No president should make judicial appointments that are so transparently very far to the right OR left. It would be hard to justify that it is in the best interest of the whole country.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: DZip
"Bush's fault", he should not appoint these two judges because the democrats don't like them. He should take a poll of only democrats to find out whom they want. If he does that, they will end the filibuster. At least they didn't all run to Canada to avoid a quorum.
Well... I'll reluctantly agree to your proposal... but, I want the Darmem Duck test run and the Moonbeam test as well... have to ferret out the fowl notion ya know.

 

NightTrain

Platinum Member
Apr 1, 2001
2,150
0
76
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
It is Bush's fault! No president should make judicial appointments that are so transparently very far to the right OR left. It would be hard to justify that it is in the best interest of the whole country.
What appointment is?

 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
Originally posted by: NightTrain
That you're disingenious?

Yah that must be it.
In what respect ? 24 Republicans, which was a majority of the Republicans, voted to use the filibuster to block a judicial nomination. That is all I said happened, which contradicts the earlier claim that the Democrats use of the filibuster is without precedent.

The fact that some Democrats also voted to support the filibuster doesn't contradict what I said. Without the Republican votes there would have been closure.





 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS