Kerry calls for Alito filibuster

[mlyonsd]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/26/alito/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. John Kerry has decided to support a filibuster to block the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, CNN's Congressional Correspondent Ed Henry reported Thursday.

Kerry, in Davos, Switzerland, to attend the World Economic Forum, was marshaling support in phone calls during the day, Henry said.

He announced his decision Wednesday to a group of Democratic senators, urging they join him, Henry said. Kerry also has the support of his fellow Massachusetts senator, Democrat Edward Kennedy.

Some senior Democrats said they are worried that the move could backfire.

Republicans need 60 votes to overturn a filibuster.

Senior White House officials said the move makes the Democrats look bad, and Republicans already have enough votes to overcome any filibuster attempt.

[mlyonsd]

At the same time two more democrats say they'll vote "yea" for Alito.

Byrd and Johnson came out today backing Alito. Dean better hurry up and get all these guys on the same page.

[Cochise]

I don't believe there will be a fillibuster.

The democrats have privately accepted that Alito is an eventuality on the bench. Too many of the moderate among them are defecting to Alito's side. So the Kerrys and Kennedys of the world are making the best show of it for their base that they can. Crying for filibuster because they know there won't be one.

I don't believe for a second that if the extreme left thought they could block him they wouldn't do it. I don't think they will have the votes to sustain a filibuster - unless there's some secret weapon they are sitting on for the Senate debate, a la the one they've always got saved for the week before a Presidential election.

I think it's just posturing. Alito will be confirmed.

[Donger]

Man, they would have gotten out the pitchforks and torches if Bush hadn't have withdrawn the Helen Thomas lookalike.

[Radar Chief]

Man, they would have gotten out the pitchforks and torches if Bush hadn't have withdrawn the Helen Thomas lookalike.

ROFL

[Mr. Kotter]

I'd prefer the Dems DO filibuster Alito, and get this whole "is it right to filibuster a SC nominee?" question out of the way....because this won't be the last time it comes up. Nominees deserve an up or down vote. Period. If the Republicans need to change Senate rules to ensure that process becomes the standard, then so be it.

[oldandslow]

...and why is anything John Kerry says relevent.

I see he made this striking statement from Switzerland...I guess he is going to filibuster from Geneva...

I don't like Alito for several reasons. Having said that, I want the next dem pres to be able to appoint the qualified person he or she desires when the time arises - without the threat filibuster.

I applaud Johnson, Nelson, and Byrd for their courage and forethought.

[Bootlegged]

I love it. Keep talking morons...

[Logical]

I really do not care one way or another. I do think that any Senator who feels Alito is not qualified should give the filibuster a try, to me that would be the correct thing for them to do. I am not saying the filibuster should work, just that they are obliged to try if their conscience says he is not right for the job.

[mlyonsd]

I really do not care one way or another. I do think that any Senator who feels Alito is not qualified should give the filibuster a try, to me that would be the correct thing for them to do. I am not saying the filibuster should work, just that they are obliged to try if their conscience says he is not right for the job.

Would've made great tv.

[Logical]

Would've made great tv.Have I missed something, has the vote already occured?

[mlyonsd]

Have I missed something, has the vote already occured?
No, the vote is next week but it doesn't look like the dynamic duo has support for a filibuster.

Course that could change if they can dig up some more dirt like he actively supports cock fighthing or something similiar.

[Cochise]

The Senate should adopt the same rule as in the House, where the time limits for debate of issues are clearly defined.

There won't be a filibuster this time, because the Democrats don't have 41 votes against Alito - the number required to keep a filibuster going.

[Chiefs Express]

...and why is anything John Kerry says relevent.

I see he made this striking statement from Switzerland...I guess he is going to filibuster from Geneva...

I don't like Alito for several reasons. Having said that, I want the next dem pres to be able to appoint the qualified person he or she desires when the time arises - without the threat filibuster.

I applaud Johnson, Nelson, and Byrd for their courage and forethought.

Do you think he will interrupt his vacation to fly home to filibuster?

But as said many times before, Kerry is a loser that hasn't realized that he is a loser.

With his comments the democratic party just took a kick right square in the balls. (Hillarys too.)

[Chiefs Express]

I really do not care one way or another. I do think that any Senator who feels Alito is not qualified should give the filibuster a try, to me that would be the correct thing for them to do. I am not saying the filibuster should work, just that they are obliged to try if their conscience says he is not right for the job.

It is not the correct thing to do. Any nominee deserves a yea or nay vote from the full senate. Filibustering is a delaying tactic to avoid voting. If they don't want him on the SC they need to get all of the nay votes they need to stop the confirmation. Easy simple.

If they don't feel he is right for the job in this case it doesn't have anything to do with his qualificatons only his party affiliation.

[mlyonsd]

Do you think he will interrupt his vacation to fly home to filibuster?



He already has. I wonder if it's because of the criticism he got from the WH and others?

The White House was so confident, in fact, that Bush spokesman Scott McClellan openly mocked Kerry's actions.

"I think it was a historic day yesterday. It was the first ever call for a filibuster from the slopes of Davos, Switzerland," McClellan said. "Maybe Senator Kerry needs to be spending more time in the United States Senate so he can refresh his memory on Senate rules. Senate rules say you have to have the votes in order to filibuster."

The issue also sparked sharp words on the Senate floor Friday.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama, said those "masters of the universe" attending the Davos forum "ought to spend more time trying to get the oil prices and gasoline prices down than worrying about conjuring up a filibuster of a judge as able as Judge Alito."


http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/27/alito/index.html

[Cochise]

Kerry's out of the country spending his old lady's money, there's a surprise.

[Lurch]

Would've made great tv.

A nationally televised charade of Kennedy and Kerry, and other LWNJs, filibustering Alito would have set the Democrats back another 2 or 3 years in their rebuilding plan. Hell, they must be fans of Carl Peterson.

[Logical]

...

There won't be a filibuster this time, because the Democrats don't have 41 votes against Alito - the number required to keep a filibuster going.
I think you meant to say there will not be a successful filibuster. Just because they do not have the votes to prevent the filibuster from being shut down does not mean one won't be started.

[Nightwish]

Any nominee deserves a yea or nay vote from the full senate.
That's not for you to decide, partner. Have you ever noticed that the only people who say it is wrong to filibuster are those who views are aligned with the party being filibustered? When the Republicans filibuster, it is the Dems who cry foul. Filibustering isn't always effective, but it's not a question of whether it is right or wrong to do so. As someone else mentioned, if they really don't think he's good for the job, and they don't have the votes to keep him out on an up-or-down vote, then a filibuster is the right thing to do. It's only the wrong thing to do if their only reason for opposing him is partisan politics, and at best you can only guess if that is their total reasoning.

For my part, I don't think Alito is a bad choice, and if I had the ability, I'd probably vote for him. Could be worse.

[Logical]

It is not the correct thing to do. Any nominee deserves a yea or nay vote from the full senate. Filibustering is a delaying tactic to avoid voting. If they don't want him on the SC they need to get all of the nay votes they need to stop the confirmation. Easy simple.

If they don't feel he is right for the job in this case it doesn't have anything to do with his qualificatons only his party affiliation.

I disagree, first it is about Judicial philosophy (liberal views vs conservative views) not about party affiliation (at least that is what it should be about). I also disagree that a straight up and down vote is a right, when you are trying to win a battle you use any means legally available, a filibuster according to Senate rules is legal. Although a filibuster can be simply a delaying tactic it is also commonly used to stop legislation from ever being passed (in essence defeat it by forcing a change).

[patteeu]

I agree with Vlad to the extent that I think Senators should feel free to vote for or against judicial nominees on any criteria they deem important including ideological criteria. I'm not sure what I think about whether or not filibusters should be allowed in confirmation votes.

[Logical]

I agree with Vlad to the extent that I think Senators should feel free to vote for or against judicial nominees on any criteria they deem important including ideological criteria. I'm not sure what I think about whether or not filibusters should be allowed in confirmation votes.

I am willing say that if they can get the 60 votes to stop a filibuster of a rules change to eliminate the filibuster I would not be opposed to that. I don't see it happening as I am sure both parties would fear the consequences of no longer having the filibuster available as a tool.

[Nightwish]

I'm not sure what I think about whether or not filibusters should be allowed in confirmation votes.I'd say filibustering is a necessary check and balance. While it won't absolutely prevent partisan domineering by the majority party (if the majority party holds more than 60% of the seats, and are all inclined to vote along partisan lines, a filibuster would be useless), if the majority party holds more than 50% but less than 60% of the Senate seats, then a filibuster can be a necessary and effective check and balance. Without it, there would be very little to stop the majority party from doing whatever they want simply because there aren't enough of the opposing party to stop them. In a partisan Congress, a straight up-or-down majority vote system, otherwise unchecked, is a recipe for tyranny and bully politics.

[mlyonsd]

I am willing say that if they can get the 60 votes to stop a filibuster of a rules change to eliminate the filibuster I would not be opposed to that. I don't see it happening as I am sure both parties would fear the consequences of no longer having the filibuster available as a tool.

You're showing a lot of lattitude assuming both sides are that smart.

[Nightwish]

You're showing a lot of lattitude assuming both sides are that smart.
Both sides have a rich history of using the filibuster. I'm sure neither side is ignorant to how important a tool it is. The Republicans right now are tossing out a lot of hot air about how wrong it is to filibuster, with the direct purpose of putting the Dems on the defensive, but when the time has come in the past, they've been equally willing to employ it to their advantage, as they will in the future. All their bluster about how wrong it is to filibuster is nothing but hot air.

[Chiefs Express]

He already has. I wonder if it's because of the criticism he got from the WH and others?



http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/27/alito/index.html

Kerry was approached by several reporters as he was leaving where ever he was today. They asked him about the fillibuster and he waffled. One reporter got in a question about him participating in the fillibuster, he said that he would not, then he said thank you and had his driver take him away.

This was on CNN nor more than 5 minutes ago. I would guess it will be repeated every half hour for the next few hours.

Sounds like Kerry is just as we had him pegged during the election, all talk and no substance.

[Nightwish]

They asked him about the fillibuster and he waffled.
Damn you, damn you, damn you for using that term!!! Now I have a craving and must run out for Bisquick!

[Baby Lee]

Have you ever noticed that the only people who say it is wrong to filibuster are those who views are aligned with the party being filibustered?
Oh yeah? I shout my anger at the rafters when Republicans filibuster Democrat Supreme Court nom. . . oh, wait.

[Cochise]

Both sides have a rich history of using the filibuster. I'm sure neither side is ignorant to how important a tool it is. The Republicans right now are tossing out a lot of hot air about how wrong it is to filibuster, with the direct purpose of putting the Dems on the defensive, but when the time has come in the past, they've been equally willing to employ it to their advantage, as they will in the future. All their bluster about how wrong it is to filibuster is nothing but hot air.

"We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don't like them, vote against them. But give them a vote." – Senator Edward Kennedy, Congressional Record, 3 February 1998

"I also plead with my colleagues to move judges with alacrity - vote them up or down. But this delay makes a mockery of the Constitution, makes a mockery of the fact that we are here working, and makes a mockery of the lives of very sincere people who have put themselves forward to be judges and then they hang out there in limbo." - Senator Charles Schumer, Congressional Record, 7 March 2000

"I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would . . . object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported." – Senator Leahy, Congressional Record, 18 June 1998

"I think that responsibility requires us to act in a timely fashion on nominees sent before us. The reason I oppose cloture is I would like to see that the Senate shall also be held to the responsibility of acting in a timely fashion. If, after 150 days languishing in a committee there is no report on an individual, the name should come to the floor. - Senator Durbin, Congressional Record, 28 September 1998

"But I also respectfully suggest that everyone who is nominated is entitled to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor." – Senator Biden, Congressional Record, 19 March 1997

"All Judge Paez has ever asked for was this opportunity: an up or down vote on his confirmation. Yet for years, the Senate has denied him that simple courtesy." – Senator Feingold, Congressional Record, 8 March 2000

"For too long, we have accepted the premise that the filibuster rule is immune. Yet, Mr. President, there is no constitutional basis for it. We impose it on ourselves. And if I may say so respectfully, it is, in its way, inconsistent with the Constitution, one might almost say an amendment of the Constitution by the rules of the U.S. Senate." – Sen. Lieberman, Congressional Record, 4 January 1995, p. 38

"Mr. President, I am very glad that we are moving forward with judges today. We all hear, as we are growing up, that, 'Justice delayed is justice denied,' and we have, in many of our courts, vacancies that have gone on for a year, 2 years, and in many cases it is getting to the crisis level. So I am pleased that we will be voting. I think, whether the delays are on the Republican side or the Democratic side, let these names come up, let us have debate, let us vote." – Senator Boxer, Congressional Record, 28 January 1998

We're not going to do that. We're going to have hearings. We're going to have the process vetted as soon as possible. And I think we should have up-or-down votes in the committee and on the floor." – Senator Reid, CNN's "Evans Novak Hunt & Shields," 9 June 2001

"It is our job to confirm these judges. If we don't like them, we can vote against them. That is the honest thing to do. If there are things in their background, in their abilities that don't pass muster, vote no. I think every one of us on this side is prepared for that. The problem is, we have a few people who prevent them from having a vote, and this goes on month after month, year after year." – Senator Dianne Feinstein, Congressional Record, 16 September 1999

[Chiefs Express]

Damn you, damn you, damn you for using that term!!! Now I have a craving and must run out for Bisquick!


That does sound good. I have some bisquick in the pantry. I'll be back later!

[Nightwish]

"We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don't like them, vote against them. But give them a vote." – Senator Edward Kennedy, Congressional Record, 3 February 1998

"I also plead with my colleagues to move judges with alacrity - vote them up or down. But this delay makes a mockery of the Constitution, makes a mockery of the fact that we are here working, and makes a mockery of the lives of very sincere people who have put themselves forward to be judges and then they hang out there in limbo." - Senator Charles Schumer, Congressional Record, 7 March 2000

"I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would . . . object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported." – Senator Leahy, Congressional Record, 18 June 1998

"I think that responsibility requires us to act in a timely fashion on nominees sent before us. The reason I oppose cloture is I would like to see that the Senate shall also be held to the responsibility of acting in a timely fashion. If, after 150 days languishing in a committee there is no report on an individual, the name should come to the floor. - Senator Durbin, Congressional Record, 28 September 1998

"But I also respectfully suggest that everyone who is nominated is entitled to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor." – Senator Biden, Congressional Record, 19 March 1997

"All Judge Paez has ever asked for was this opportunity: an up or down vote on his confirmation. Yet for years, the Senate has denied him that simple courtesy." – Senator Feingold, Congressional Record, 8 March 2000

"For too long, we have accepted the premise that the filibuster rule is immune. Yet, Mr. President, there is no constitutional basis for it. We impose it on ourselves. And if I may say so respectfully, it is, in its way, inconsistent with the Constitution, one might almost say an amendment of the Constitution by the rules of the U.S. Senate." – Sen. Lieberman, Congressional Record, 4 January 1995, p. 38

"Mr. President, I am very glad that we are moving forward with judges today. We all hear, as we are growing up, that, 'Justice delayed is justice denied,' and we have, in many of our courts, vacancies that have gone on for a year, 2 years, and in many cases it is getting to the crisis level. So I am pleased that we will be voting. I think, whether the delays are on the Republican side or the Democratic side, let these names come up, let us have debate, let us vote." – Senator Boxer, Congressional Record, 28 January 1998

We're not going to do that. We're going to have hearings. We're going to have the process vetted as soon as possible. And I think we should have up-or-down votes in the committee and on the floor." – Senator Reid, CNN's "Evans Novak Hunt & Shields," 9 June 2001

"It is our job to confirm these judges. If we don't like them, we can vote against them. That is the honest thing to do. If there are things in their background, in their abilities that don't pass muster, vote no. I think every one of us on this side is prepared for that. The problem is, we have a few people who prevent them from having a vote, and this goes on month after month, year after year." – Senator Dianne Feinstein, Congressional Record, 16 September 1999
Obviously, the Democrats are just as inclined as the Republicans to produce the same hot air.

[patteeu]

I'd say filibustering is a necessary check and balance. While it won't absolutely prevent partisan domineering by the majority party (if the majority party holds more than 60% of the seats, and are all inclined to vote along partisan lines, a filibuster would be useless), if the majority party holds more than 50% but less than 60% of the Senate seats, then a filibuster can be a necessary and effective check and balance. Without it, there would be very little to stop the majority party from doing whatever they want simply because there aren't enough of the opposing party to stop them. In a partisan Congress, a straight up-or-down majority vote system, otherwise unchecked, is a recipe for tyranny and bully politics.

What's magical about 60%? Why is it OK to accept tyranny and bully politics from a 60% party, but not from a 55% party?

[patteeu]

Both sides have a rich history of using the filibuster. I'm sure neither side is ignorant to how important a tool it is. The Republicans right now are tossing out a lot of hot air about how wrong it is to filibuster, with the direct purpose of putting the Dems on the defensive, but when the time has come in the past, they've been equally willing to employ it to their advantage, as they will in the future. All their bluster about how wrong it is to filibuster is nothing but hot air.

As is all the bluster about how important the filibuster is to preserve our democracy.

[Nightwish]

What's magical about 60%? Why is it OK to accept tyranny and bully politics from a 60% party, but not from a 55% party?
I didn't say it was okay. I said if the majority party has control of at least 60% of the seats in the Senate, and is unanimously inclined to vote along partisan lines, then a filibuster is useless, because the Senate requires a 60% vote to overturn a filibuster. If the party doing the filibuster can't possibly get at least 41% of the vote, then there's no point in it, except just to make a statement (and we all know idealism is worth next to nothing in government).

[Nightwish]

As is all the bluster about how important the filibuster is to preserve our democracy.
Are you denying that a filibuster does provide a necessary check and balance? Were you so critical of it when it was the Republicans doing the filibustering in 2001 to prevent aid to laid-off airline workers who lost their jobs due to 9/11?

And speaking specifically of filibusters against judicial nominees, would you have been so critical of the one in 1968 when the GOP filibustered to block the nomination of Abe Fortas? The funny thing is, the GOP is claiming that this is the first time ever that a filibuster has been used to block a SCOTUS nominee. How quickly they forget their own history!

[mlyonsd]

Are you denying that a filibuster does provide a necessary check and balance? Were you so critical of it when it was the Republicans doing the filibustering in 2001 to prevent aid to laid-off airline workers who lost their jobs due to 9/11?

And speaking specifically of filibusters against judicial nominees, would you have been so critical of the one in 1968 when the GOP filibustered to block the nomination of Abe Fortas? The funny thing is, the GOP is claiming that this is the first time ever that a filibuster has been used to block a SCOTUS nominee. How quickly they forget their own history!

You failed to point out Fortas already was a SC Justice and was up for Chief Justice when the Republicans blocked cloture. And, Fortas probably didn't have enough support for a simple majority.

Also, the reason the Republicans blocked him from becoming CJ was his internal dealings with the Johnson administration and other hanky panky, not because they didn't necessarily agree with his personal views on an issue.

Your comparison with a Fortas filibuster is apples/oranges IMO since he was already on the court.

[Logical]

...And, Fortas probably didn't have enough support for a simple majority.

....This assumption is highly questionable, the vote for cloture was 45 for and 43 against, 12 Senators were absent. There is no way to know or even assume that he would not have received the extra 6 votes needed in a straight up and down vote, only that they would never have obtained the needed 67 for cloture at that time.

[mlyonsd]

This assumption is highly questionable, the vote for cloture was 45 for and 43 against, 12 Senators were absent. There is no way to know or even assume that he would not have received the extra 6 votes needed in a straight up and down vote, only that they would never have obtained the needed 67 for cloture at that time.

I retract the "probably" and will change it to "might not".

That being said, using the Fortas example when comparing it to an Alito filibuster without including specifics is silly.

[Nightwish]

I retract the "probably" and will change it to "might not".

That being said, using the Fortas example when comparing it to an Alito filibuster without including specifics is silly.
Nobody is comparing it to the Alito filibuster. It was raised in response to claims from some of you that filibustering is wrong, that it should be done away with, and to point out that the blustering from the GOP to that effect is nothing but hot air, because they are not afraid to use the filibuster themselves as a tactic to combat voting situations in which they don't have enough for a majority. You can argue that "their reasons are better" until you're blue in the face, and that argument will still ring hollow, because what constitutes a "better reason" is entirely subjective. The point is, with the GOP's historical willingness to employ the filibuster (including at least one since Dubya's been in office), they have no place decrying it as a wrong tactic now. All it amounts to is a bunch of blowing for the purpose of intimidation.

[mlyonsd]

Nobody is comparing it to the Alito filibuster. It was raised in response to claims from some of you that filibustering is wrong, that it should be done away with, and to point out that the blustering from the GOP to that effect is nothing but hot air, because they are not afraid to use the filibuster themselves as a tactic to combat voting situations in which they don't have enough for a majority. You can argue that "their reasons are better" until you're blue in the face, and that argument will still ring hollow, because what constitutes a "better reason" is entirely subjective. The point is, with the GOP's historical willingness to employ the filibuster (including at least one since Dubya's been in office), they have no place decrying it as a wrong tactic now. All it amounts to is a bunch of blowing for the purpose of intimidation.

Don't mix me up with the "they don't have a right to filibuster" crowd. You're way off base there.

I'm just pointing out your failure to present the facts in the Fortas case shows you are willing to stretch the facts to fit your opinion.

[Nightwish]

I'm just pointing out your failure to present the facts in the Fortas case shows you are willing to stretch the facts to fit your opinion.Only if you're incorrectly assuming that my opinion is that the Fortas and Alito cases are precise parallels. I only said that the GOP has been claiming that the Alito case is the first time a SCOTUS nominee has been filibustered, and it isn't. What position within SCOTUS the nominee sought appointment for is irrelevant. Was Fortas a SCOTUS nominee? Yes. Was it his nomination to a position on the high court that was being filibustered? Yes. Is Alito a SCOTUS nominee? Yes. Is it Alito's nomination to a position on the high court that is being filibustered (or threatened to be)? Yes. The particulars of the position on the court are meaningless.

[go bowe]

You failed to point out Fortas already was a SC Justice and was up for Chief Justice when the Republicans blocked cloture. And, Fortas probably didn't have enough support for a simple majority.

Also, the reason the Republicans blocked him from becoming CJ was his internal dealings with the Johnson administration and other hanky panky, not because they didn't necessarily agree with his personal views on an issue.

Your comparison with a Fortas filibuster is apples/oranges IMO since he was already on the court.are you sure you're not a closet lawyer?

aplles and organes, my ass...

a nomination to a seat on the supreme court (whether it is for a vacancy for an associate justice or for the chief justice) is a supreme court nomination and has to go through the entire confirmation process...

no matter how you try to qualify or explain away the fact, it is still a fact that the republicans filibustered a supreme court nominee...

both sides use the filibuster when it suits their purpose...

even though it is not a check and balance created in the constitution, it has become so through long standing usage...

it has served the nation well enough that both sides have embraced it for a very long time...

in the matter of judge alito, i think a filibuster is uncalled for and if attempted, will be overturned quickly...

even though sam alito is waaay right of "mainstream" legal thought, he should be confirmed...

he is brilliant, experienced in constitutional law, and all the old judges on the 5th circuit who appeared at the hearings (and who have served with him for 15 years and know him as a judge) attest to his intellectual honesty and all recommended him to the judiciary committee...

and several of those judges are old-time fairly liberal democrat appointed judges...

that's good enough for me, even if i don't agree with his judicial philosphy...

[go bowe]

What's magical about 60%? Why is it OK to accept tyranny and bully politics from a 60% party, but not from a 55% party?actually, i think the magical number is 66, a two thirds majority...

i was sad to see the senate reduce it to 60... :( :( :(

[mlyonsd]

are you sure you're not a closet lawyer?

aplles and organes, my ass...

a nomination to a seat on the supreme court (whether it is for a vacancy for an associate justice or for the chief justice) is a supreme court nomination and has to go through the entire confirmation process...

no matter how you try to qualify or explain away the fact, it is still a fact that the republicans filibustered a supreme court nominee...

both sides use the filibuster when it suits their purpose...

even though it is not a check and balance created in the constitution, it has become so through long standing usage...

it has served the nation well enough that both sides have embraced it for a very long time...

in the matter of judge alito, i think a filibuster is uncalled for and if attempted, will be overturned quickly...

even though sam alito is waaay right of "mainstream" legal thought, he should be confirmed...

he is brilliant, experienced in constitutional law, and all the old judges on the 5th circuit who appeared at the hearings (and who have served with him for 15 years and know him as a judge) attest to his intellectual honesty and all recommended him to the judiciary committee...

and several of those judges are old-time fairly liberal democrat appointed judges...

that's good enough for me, even if i don't agree with his judicial philosphy...

While I would aspire to James Spader's attorny character, alas I'd probably be viewed more like Denny Crane. If you don't watch Boston Legal you won't get that.

I've never said what the Republicans did to Fortas was not a filibuster. My apples/oranges comment was aimed more at the extreme differences between the Fortas filibuster and what a Alito one would be.

[patteeu]

I didn't say it was okay. I said if the majority party has control of at least 60% of the seats in the Senate, and is unanimously inclined to vote along partisan lines, then a filibuster is useless, because the Senate requires a 60% vote to overturn a filibuster. If the party doing the filibuster can't possibly get at least 41% of the vote, then there's no point in it, except just to make a statement (and we all know idealism is worth next to nothing in government).

You said that the filibuster is a necessary check, but for some reason you are satisfied with a weak filibuster that only requires a 60% majority to break it. If it is such a necessity and if the downside of going "otherwise unchecked" is "tyranny and bully politics," it just makes me wonder why 60% is the magic number for you. It seems kind of arbitrary to me given the fact that the filibuster isn't mentioned at all in the Constitution and the practice has evolved dramatically over time. The original filibuster wasn't subject to cloture at all. Why shouldn't the tiniest minority be capable of keeping the majority from achieving tyranny and bully politics?

The problems I have with your argument are (1) that you frame it in such overly dramatic terms and (2) that you apparently accept the 60 vote cloture rule just because that happens to be the current rule. As if our republic's very nature is at stake if we allow 51% majorities to shape legislation instead of 60% majorities. :shrug:

[patteeu]

Are you denying that a filibuster does provide a necessary check and balance? Were you so critical of it when it was the Republicans doing the filibustering in 2001 to prevent aid to laid-off airline workers who lost their jobs due to 9/11?

And speaking specifically of filibusters against judicial nominees, would you have been so critical of the one in 1968 when the GOP filibustered to block the nomination of Abe Fortas? The funny thing is, the GOP is claiming that this is the first time ever that a filibuster has been used to block a SCOTUS nominee. How quickly they forget their own history!

Yes, I deny that it is necessary.

No, I have rarely been critical of it and I don't recall being critical of it when the Republicans have used it. This shouldn't be surprising since I think I've been pretty open about the fact that I generally disagree with democrat legislative proposals.

I don't think that I would have been critical of those who opposed Abe Fortas, but frankly that was way before my time and I'm kind of foggy on the issues.

The funny thing is that you misrepresent what the GOP is claiming. The standard GOP claim is that the filibuster has never been used against a SCOTUS nominee who had majority support in the Senate. They claim that the Fortas nomination didn't have that support. In fact, from what I've read (minimal at best), LBJ was trying to expedite the Fortas vote because his support was eroding in the face of some kind of scandal and the filibuster was, in reality, a maneuver to facilitate a complete debate rather than an attempt to block a nominee who would otherwise be approved.

I have nothing against the filibuster in general, but I don't think it's at all indespensible. And, while I support using any and all (legal and moral) means available to achieve political results, I think it makes less sense in the context of Presidential nominations than it does in a legislative context. Having said that, I'd be OK with keeping it around if I thought the Republicans would use it to block the nominees of the next dem president AND if I thought the dems would refrain from doing just what the Republicans are now threatening to do (i.e. use the nuclear option). Since I don't trust that either would be the case, I'd just as soon see them get rid of the filibuster for judicial appointments now and get it over with.

[patteeu]

Nobody is comparing it to the Alito filibuster. It was raised in response to claims from some of you that filibustering is wrong, that it should be done away with, ...

There you go again. :shake:

You raised it in response to me and I wasn't arguing either of those points. I was just disagreeing with your claim that the filibuster is "necessary." Where is that famous ability of you left-leaners to see nuance instead of black and white? Or is it just the diehard liberals who can do that?

[patteeu]

actually, i think the magical number is 66, a two thirds majority...

i was sad to see the senate reduce it to 60... :( :( :(

I'd be OK with a higher cloture threshold. The less productive Congress is, the better, as far as I'm concerned. :)

[banyon]

Dems need to show some sack at some point this year.

http://www.people.virginia.edu/~jls6c/strips/strategies.gif

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Dems need to show some sack at some point this year.

http://www.people.virginia.edu/~jls6c/strips/strategies.gif


God if this isn't true. Democrats have been absolutely spineless the last 25 years. They need to stop being so conciliatory and actually stand up for their beliefs. They allowed the word 'liberal' to become a pejorative in this country--hopefully the next generation of democrats will have more fortitude than this current one that has had the rigidity of jellyfish.

[banyon]

CNN just announced filibuster is over.

[patteeu]

When Kerry said he would have gone to war in Iraq but that he would have done it better and with a bigger alliance, I guess we should have trusted his powers of persuasion and his unmistakeable leadership qualities. Looks like we really missed out on a good one. ;)

[banyon]

When Kerry said he would have gone to war in Iraq but that he would have done it better and with a bigger alliance, I guess we should have trusted his powers of persuasion and his unmistakeable leadership qualities. Looks like we really missed out on a good one. ;)

Kerry was my next to last choice to be the Democratic Nominee (only ahead of Joe Lieberman). Yeah, Kerry's whole campaign was pretty much "I agree with the Republicans, I just won't do it quite as abysmally". Looks like he figured out (like Gore) how to stand up for himself a bit too late.

[Stinger]

CNN just announced filibuster is over.

Anti-Alito filibuster soundly defeated
Final confirmation of Supreme Court nominee expected Tuesday

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Judge Samuel Alito stands just one step away from a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court after a spirited ninth-inning campaign by some Democratic senators to block his nomination fizzled Monday evening.

The final vote on Alito's nomination is now scheduled for Tuesday morning, and, with at least 57 senators on board, approval is virtually assured.

Alito's supporters in the Senate, as expected, cleared the final roadblock Monday when senators, by a vote of 72-25, decided to cut off debate and proceed to a final vote, rebuffing an attempt by a cadre of liberal senators to talk the nomination to death.

The vote easily exceeded the 60 votes needed to pass the motion. (What is a filibuster?)

In the end, only 24 of the chamber's 44 Democrats went along with the filibuster, a maneuver allowed under Senate rules to block a vote by extending debate indefinitely. It was also supported by the chamber's lone independent, Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont.

Arguing against cutting off debate, Sen. John Kerry -- who spearheaded the filibuster effort with his fellow Massachusetts Democrat, Sen. Ted Kennedy -- said Alito's record during his 15 years on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has given "the extreme right wing unbelievable public cause for celebration."

"That just about tells you what you need to know," Kerry said. "The vote today is whether or not we will take a stand against ideological court-packing."

But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said the move to cut off debate fulfilled a "very straightforward principle -- a nominee with the support of a majority of senators deserves a fair up-or-down vote."

"The sword of the filibuster has been sheathed because we are placing principle before politics, and results before rhetoric," Frist said.

The White House released a statement from President Bush hailing Monday's vote and saying he was looking forward to Alito's confirmation.

"I am pleased that a strong, bipartisan majority in the Senate decisively rejected attempts to obstruct and filibuster an up-or-down vote," Bush said.

The motion to cut off debate drew the support of 53 Republicans and 19 Democrats, including all 14 senators who signed on to an agreement last year that ended a series of Democratic filibusters of Bush's judicial nominations.

The so-called Gang of 14 included seven Democrats and seven Republicans.

The Democrats agreed not to support judicial filibusters except under "extraordinary circumstances," which would be up to each senator to define. In return, the GOP members agreed not to support any attempt by Republican leaders to change Senate rules to permanently end the practice.

Among the 24 Democrats who supported the filibuster were five senators being mentioned as possible 2008 White House contenders -- Kerry, who lost to Bush in 2004; Hillary Clinton of New York; Evan Bayh of Indiana; Russ Feingold of Wisconsin; and Joe Biden of Delaware.

The Senate's top two Democrats, Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Minority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois, also supported the Kerry-Kennedy filibuster effort.
Confirmation expected

With debate now over, the final vote on Alito's nomination is scheduled for 11 a.m. Tuesday. With at least four Democrats and 53 Republicans in favor, confirmation is all but guaranteed.

At least 37 Democrats and Jeffords have announced they will vote no. Only one of the Senate's 55 Republicans has come out against Alito's confirmation -- Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, a moderate facing re-election this fall in an overwhelmingly Democratic state.

"I am a pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-Bill of Rights Republican, and I will be voting against this nomination," Chafee said in a statement.

Another moderate GOP senator, Olympia Snowe of Maine, said she has not yet taken a position on Alito's nomination, but she criticized the filibuster effort.

The four Democrats who have said they will vote for Alito are Sens. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Kent Conrad of North Dakota. All four represent states Bush carried in both 2000 and 2004.

If confirmed as expected, Alito, 55, will replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a moderate swing vote and the first woman appointed to the high court.

On the Senate floor, Kerry said Alito's nomination poses a threat "to the balance that the Supreme Court has upheld in all the years that Justice O'Connor has served there."

"This nomination is an extraordinary circumstance," he said. "What could possibly be more important than an entire shift in the direction of the Supreme Court of the United States?"

LINK (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/30/alito/index.html)

[Nightwish]

You said that the filibuster is a necessary check, but for some reason you are satisfied with a weak filibuster that only requires a 60% majority to break it. If it is such a necessity and if the downside of going "otherwise unchecked" is "tyranny and bully politics," it just makes me wonder why 60% is the magic number for you.
That's simply the rule that is currently in place. It's not an arbitrary number that I just came up with off the cuff. It is the number that is the rule. If you want to discuss whether or not that particular number is satisfactory, perhaps you should take that up in a new sidebar or a new thread. Comprende?

It seems kind of arbitrary to me given the fact that the filibuster isn't mentioned at all in the Constitution and the practice has evolved dramatically over time.
There are a lot of things that aren't mentioned in the Constitution, which have evolved over time. I'm pretty sure the 70-mph speed limit is also not mentioned in the Constitution. Is it therefore too arbitrary to be of any value? You remind me of those Christians who believe that they can't do anything that isn't specifically mentioned in the Bible.

The original filibuster wasn't subject to cloture at all. Why shouldn't the tiniest minority be capable of keeping the majority from achieving tyranny and bully politics?
You'll have to take that up with the Senate.

The problems I have with your argument are (1) that you frame it in such overly dramatic terms and (2) that you apparently accept the 60 vote cloture rule just because that happens to be the current rule. As if our republic's very nature is at stake if we allow 51% majorities to shape legislation instead of 60% majorities. :shrug:
Why are you making such an issue over the specific number? If you don't like 60%, take it up with the Senate. I don't care if it's 60%, or 70% or 54%. Take your pick. Hell, you can make it 57.548% if you like. The specific number isn't the point. The point is that significant legislative power lies in the hands of 100 men and women who wield a great deal more power than the populations which they represent, and with that power comes the risk of corruption. We're talking about legislation which is not put to the American people at large, and 100 men and women who may or may not give a frog's fart what their constituency would actually have to say in regard to that legislation. These are 100 potentially (indeed, likely) corrupt individuals who may well be inclined to vote according to their own opinions, and the American people be damned. As you well know, the split across the country between Republicans and Democrats is nearly even, and the split between the parties in Congress is not representative of the popular affiliation of those parties. When a majority in Congress is disproportionate to the majority in the country, the filibuster serves to return at least some semblance of a level playing field to Senatorial proceedings.

[Nightwish]

Yes, I deny that it is necessary.
Then you're ignorant on that score.

No, I have rarely been critical of it and I don't recall being critical of it when the Republicans have used it. This shouldn't be surprising since I think I've been pretty open about the fact that I generally disagree with democrat legislative proposals.
In other words, you think according to your party, rather than according to your brain. Is that what you're saying?

The funny thing is that you misrepresent what the GOP is claiming. The standard GOP claim is that the filibuster has never been used against a SCOTUS nominee who had majority support in the Senate. They claim that the Fortas nomination didn't have that support. In fact, from what I've read (minimal at best), LBJ was trying to expedite the Fortas vote because his support was eroding in the face of some kind of scandal and the filibuster was, in reality, a maneuver to facilitate a complete debate rather than an attempt to block a nominee who would otherwise be approved.
If believing that makes you comfortable, by all means ...

I have nothing against the filibuster in general, but I don't think it's at all indespensible. And, while I support using any and all (legal and moral) means available to achieve political results, I think it makes less sense in the context of Presidential nominations than it does in a legislative context.
Actually, I think it makes even more sense. I've always thought it was a bit too much power in the hands of the President to be the only one who can nominate someone to the highest court in the land. Especially when it is a President who has such a documented propensity toward nepotism, giving people positions of power based less on their qualifications for the job than on how good a friend they are. After the Harriet Miers debacle, I'd be surprised not to see a filibuster of any and every nominee from Bush that gets a majority support from the Senate.

Having said that, I'd be OK with keeping it around if I thought the Republicans would use it to block the nominees of the next dem president AND if I thought the dems would refrain from doing just what the Republicans are now threatening to do (i.e. use the nuclear option).
So in other words, it's okay, but only if it's the Republicans doing it? That's rich!

Since I don't trust that either would be the case, I'd just as soon see them get rid of the filibuster for judicial appointments now and get it over with.[/QUOTE]

[patteeu]

That's simply the rule that is currently in place. It's not an arbitrary number that I just came up with off the cuff. It is the number that is the rule. If you want to discuss whether or not that particular number is satisfactory, perhaps you should take that up in a new sidebar or a new thread. Comprende?

I understand that you've accepted this arbitrary number as some kind of personal, holy truth and that you don't have an explanation for why you've done so.

There are a lot of things that aren't mentioned in the Constitution, which have evolved over time. I'm pretty sure the 70-mph speed limit is also not mentioned in the Constitution. Is it therefore too arbitrary to be of any value? You remind me of those Christians who believe that they can't do anything that isn't specifically mentioned in the Bible.

It's too arbitrary to be considered "necessary." You remind me of the teenage girl who thinks her world will come to an end if her parents don't let her get a bellybutton piercing.

You'll have to take that up with the Senate.

Why, because you don't have an explanation for why previous versions of the filibuster were so much less necessary than the current 60% filibuster?

Why are you making such an issue over the specific number? If you don't like 60%, take it up with the Senate. I don't care if it's 60%, or 70% or 54%. Take your pick. Hell, you can make it 57.548% if you like. The specific number isn't the point. The point is that significant legislative power lies in the hands of 100 men and women who wield a great deal more power than the populations which they represent, and with that power comes the risk of corruption. We're talking about legislation which is not put to the American people at large, and 100 men and women who may or may not give a frog's fart what their constituency would actually have to say in regard to that legislation. These are 100 potentially (indeed, likely) corrupt individuals who may well be inclined to vote according to their own opinions, and the American people be damned. As you well know, the split across the country between Republicans and Democrats is nearly even, and the split between the parties in Congress is not representative of the popular affiliation of those parties. When a majority in Congress is disproportionate to the majority in the country, the filibuster serves to return at least some semblance of a level playing field to Senatorial proceedings.

As I said, I'm making such a big deal because you made such a big deal by using such overly dramatic language. You're certainly entitled to your opinion that the filibuster serves a useful purpose, but to say that majority rule leads to "tyranny and bully politics" is preposterous. A simple majority of a much smaller and less democratically representative group is capable of reversing major constitutional interpretations in the Supreme Court, but I doubt that you consider that tyranny (at least until the decisions turn out to be ones you don't care for).

[patteeu]

Then you're ignorant on that score.

:rolleyes:


In other words, you think according to your party, rather than according to your brain. Is that what you're saying?

No. I think my answer was pretty clear. Maybe you forgot the question.

If believing that makes you comfortable, by all means ...

Yes, I'm more comfortable with accuracy than with the simplistic misrepresentation that you posted.

Actually, I think it makes even more sense. I've always thought it was a bit too much power in the hands of the President to be the only one who can nominate someone to the highest court in the land. Especially when it is a President who has such a documented propensity toward nepotism, giving people positions of power based less on their qualifications for the job than on how good a friend they are. After the Harriet Miers debacle, I'd be surprised not to see a filibuster of any and every nominee from Bush that gets a majority support from the Senate.

Well I disagree about Harriet Miers, but if we accept your apparently negative view of her nomination, that just shows that the system works even without a filibuster. There were enough Senators who agreed with you that she wasn't the right person for the job and because of bipartisan opposition, she was forced to withdraw.

So in other words, it's okay, but only if it's the Republicans doing it? That's rich!

If I didn't know you had such a hard time understanding what you read, I'd come to the conclusion that you have an unusual commitment to misrepresentation. Your "other words" are completely different than what I said. If I believed that the democrats would show the same restraint as Republicans then I'd be in favor of the Republicans continuing to show that restraint. Since I don't think the dems will, I don't think the Republicans should tie their own hands and continue to operate at a disadvantage. To illustrate what I'm talking about, consider the nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsberg versus the nomination of Sam Alito. Despite the fact that Ginsberg is just as liberal as Alito is conservative, she was passed with nearly unanimous Republican party support. Alito by contrast, will pass with very little democrat party support. The democrats don't treat judicial nomination battles the same way that Republicans have. All I want is for the Republicans to even the playing field. They can't force the democrats to come up to the Republican level, so the only other option is for the Republicans to join the democrats in the mud.