PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Is the Filibuster Constitutional?


whoman69
09-25-2012, 08:39 PM
Is the filibuster unconstitutional?
Posted by Ezra Klein

According to Best Lawyers — “the oldest and most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession” — Emmet Bondurant “is the go-to lawyer when a business person just can’t afford to lose a lawsuit.” He was its 2010 Lawyer of the Year for Antitrust and Bet-the-Company Litigation. But now, he’s bitten off something even bigger: bet-the-country litigation.

Bondurant thinks the filibuster is unconstitutional. And, alongside Common Cause, where he serves on the board of directors, he’s suing to have the Supreme Court abolish it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/aviary%20(1).jpg?uuid=GzpEUJ7LEeG8pnJ7y9v4Zg

In a 2011 article in the Harvard Law School’s Journal on Legislation, Bondurant laid out his case for why the filibuster crosses constitutional red lines. But to understand the argument, you have to understand the history: The filibuster was a mistake.

In 1806, the Senate, on the advice of Aaron Burr, tried to clean up its rule book, which was thought to be needlessly complicated and redundant. One change it made was to delete something called “the previous question” motion. That was the motion senators used to end debate on whatever they were talking about and move to the next topic. Burr recommended axing it because it was hardly ever used. Senators were gentlemen. They knew when to stop talking.

That was the moment the Senate created the filibuster. But nobody knew it at the time. It would be three more decades before the first filibuster was mounted — which meant it was five decades after the ratification of the Constitution. “Far from being a matter of high principle, the filibuster appears to be nothing more than an unforeseen and unintended consequence of the elimination of the previous question motion from the rules of the Senate,” Bondurant writes.

And even then, filibusters were a rare annoyance. Between 1840 and 1900, there were 16 filibusters. Between 2009 and 2010, there were more than 130. But that’s changed. Today, Majority Leader Harry Reid says that “60 votes are required for just about everything.”

At the core of Bondurant’s argument is a very simple claim: This isn’t what the Founders intended. The historical record is clear on that fact. The framers debated requiring a supermajority in Congress to pass anything. But they rejected that idea.

In Federalist 22, Alexander Hamilton savaged the idea of a supermajority Congress, writing that “its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of government and to substitute the pleasure, caprice or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junta, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.”

In Federal 58, James Madison wasn’t much kinder to the concept. “In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule; the power would be transferred to the minority.”

In the end, the Constitution prescribed six instances in which Congress would require more than a majority vote: impeaching the president, expelling members, overriding a presidential veto of a bill or order, ratifying treaties and amending the Constitution. And as Bondurant writes, “The Framers were aware of the established rule of construction, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, and that by adopting these six exceptions to the principle of majority rule, they were excluding other exceptions.” By contrast, in the Bill of Rights, the Founders were careful to state that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

That majority vote played into another principle, as well: the “finely wrought” compromise over proper representation. At the time of the country’s founding, seven of the 13 states, representing 27 percent of the population, could command a majority in the Senate. Today, with the filibuster, 21 of the 50 states, representing 11 percent of the population, can muster the 41 votes to stop a majority in the Senate. “The supermajority vote requirement,” Bondurant argues, thus “upsets the Great Compromise’s carefully crafted balance between the large states and the small states.”

Establishing that the Founders intended Congress to operate by majority vote is different than saying that it’s unconstitutional for Congress to act in another way. After all, the Constitution also says that Congress has the power to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”

But as Bondurant notes, there’s precedent for the Supreme Court to review congressional rules: In 1892, in United States v. Ballin, the Court held that while “the Constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings,” it “may not by its rules ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights.” And while some may argue that the filibuster has, at this point, been around for well over a century, the Supreme Court has previously held that the fact that “an unconstitutional action has been taken before surely does not render that same action any less unconstitutional at a later date.”

Bondurant makes a strong case. Will the Supreme Court buy it? I have no idea. But perhaps it’s a moot point. There’s evidence that some of the Senate’s most powerful members are preparing to take reform into their own hands. On Thursday, Reid, who has traditionally been a defender of the filibuster, took to the Senate floor to apologize to all the reformers he had stymied over the years.

“The rest of us were wrong,” he said. “If there were anything that ever needed changing in this body, it’s the filibuster rule, because it’s been abused, abused and abused.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/is-the-filibuster-unconstitutional/2012/05/15/gIQAYLp7QU_blog.html

BigRedChief
09-25-2012, 08:52 PM
this was never a big issue until the Republicans decided to use it to block everything that Obama wanted to do.

La literatura
09-25-2012, 09:02 PM
No, it's not unconstitutional. In order for something to be unconstitutional, it has to violate a specific clause/rule/amendment of the Constitution. The Constitution says that both houses can set their own rules for things like ending debate. Courts have no jurisdiction over this matter; it's entirely political.

La literatura
09-25-2012, 09:03 PM
this was never a big issue until the Republicans decided to use it to block everything that Obama wanted to do.

No, it was the Democrats with Bush judicial nominees. Republicans adopted the tactic.

patteeu
09-25-2012, 09:06 PM
I think it's absurd to believe that the filibuster is unconstitutional.

patteeu
09-25-2012, 09:13 PM
this was never a big issue until the Republicans decided to use it to block everything that Obama wanted to do.

Literature has it right. Sometime between the apocalyptic social wars of the 80s and the moment the rise of the oceans began to slow, democrats decided to use the filibuster to block Bush-nominated judges at an unprecedented rate stimulating some Republicans to threaten rule changes similar to those being contemplated by Harry Reid today.

Of course, in those days, Reid opposed the changes. It wouldn't surprise me if Ezra Klein wrote a blog in support of the grand traditions of the filibuster then either.

BigRedChief
09-25-2012, 09:36 PM
Literature has it right. Sometime between the apocalyptic social wars of the 80s and the moment the rise of the oceans began to slow, democrats decided to use the filibuster to block Bush-nominated judges at an unprecedented rate stimulating some Republicans to threaten rule changes similar to those being contemplated by Harry Reid today.

Of course, in those days, Reid opposed the changes. It wouldn't surprise me if Ezra Klein wrote a blog in support of the grand traditions of the filibuster then either.Judges are far different from blocking every piece of legislation that the president proposes. There is no equivilency.

You might like the results of this unprecedented use of the fillibuster but just wait until the Dems payback a R president and lets see if you still have a high opinion of the fillibuster.

J Diddy
09-25-2012, 09:41 PM
I think it's absurd to believe that the filibuster is unconstitutional.

I think that laid out a pretty good case for why it should be. Hope the SC hears it, curious how they'd rule.

patteeu
09-25-2012, 10:27 PM
I think that laid out a pretty good case for why it should be. Hope the SC hears it, curious how they'd rule.

It laid out an explanation for why the constitution doesn't require a supermajority, but it didn't even begin to make a case for why the Senate shouldn't be allowed to set a rule like this.

The Senate retains the ability to change this rule with a simple majority so it's not a true supermajority requirement.

patteeu
09-25-2012, 10:32 PM
Judges are far different from blocking every piece of legislation that the president proposes. There is no equivilency.

You might like the results of this unprecedented use of the fillibuster but just wait until the Dems payback a R president and lets see if you still have a high opinion of the fillibuster.

Yes, if anything, it's worse when it's done to block judges and appointees.

I haven't said anything about my opinion of the filibuster. I'm just trying to disabuse you of the myth that Republicans started this so-called abuse. Speaking of payback, it doesn't taste all that good does it?

cosmo20002
09-25-2012, 11:45 PM
Literature has it right. Sometime between the apocalyptic social wars of the 80s and the moment the rise of the oceans began to slow, democrats decided to use the filibuster to block Bush-nominated judges at an unprecedented rate stimulating some Republicans to threaten rule changes similar to those being contemplated by Harry Reid today.



Yeah...that's not true.

J Diddy
09-25-2012, 11:46 PM
It laid out an explanation for why the constitution doesn't require a supermajority, but it didn't even begin to make a case for why the Senate shouldn't be allowed to set a rule like this.

The Senate retains the ability to change this rule with a simple majority so it's not a true supermajority requirement.

which would be filibustered

jettio
09-26-2012, 12:29 AM
I wonder in whose name is the lawsuit brought and doubt they would get the first court to find standing to bring the suit.

Pawnmower
09-26-2012, 12:42 AM
No, it's not. In order for something to be unconstitutional, it has to violate a specific clause/rule/amendment of the Constitution.

ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL

oh you mean like SEGREGATION

You are a fucking tool

Aries Walker
09-26-2012, 02:23 AM
Ah, filibusters. Yet another reason why Aaron Burr is the worst American that ever lived.

patteeu
09-26-2012, 06:31 AM
Yeah...that's not true.

Link?

patteeu
09-26-2012, 06:32 AM
which would be filibustered

No

La literatura
09-26-2012, 06:42 AM
ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL

oh you mean like SEGREGATION

You are a ****ing tool

Huh? Maybe you could write out your thoughts in a cogent argument rather than smilies.

Lightrise
09-26-2012, 06:55 AM
There is no need to wait on the court now. It is looking increasingly likely that not only will the GOP fail miserably to gain control of the senate, but they will lose 1 more seat. It will be twelve years after this election before the democrats will again be in position to defend a significant number of seats in closely divided states. Now is the time to stick it to the GOP forever. Reid should change the rules. McConnell is not worthy of working with. It's clear that republicans are only committed to the Grover Norquist blackmail pledge - the Cancer on America that created obstruction, brought light to the astonishing lack of republican intellect, and exposed their sinister motives to destroy. This party is simply pathetic, hopelessly poisoned by the stupidity that bubbles up from the toxic waste of Texas politics.

patteeu
09-26-2012, 10:51 AM
There is no need to wait on the court now. It is looking increasingly likely that not only will the GOP fail miserably to gain control of the senate, but they will lose 1 more seat. It will be twelve years after this election before the democrats will again be in position to defend a significant number of seats in closely divided states. Now is the time to stick it to the GOP forever. Reid should change the rules. McConnell is not worthy of working with. It's clear that republicans are only committed to the Grover Norquist blackmail pledge - the Cancer on America that created obstruction, brought light to the astonishing lack of republican intellect, and exposed their sinister motives to destroy. This party is simply pathetic, hopelessly poisoned by the stupidity that bubbles up from the toxic waste of Texas politics.

There's no point in waiting on the courts because they aren't going to change anything. If Harry Reid wants to change the rules, he should do it, but if he does it in the middle of a Congress, that will be one more precedent the democrats break that you guys will be blaming the GOP for when they decide to reciprocate.

Calcountry
09-26-2012, 12:32 PM
Is the filibuster unconstitutional?
Posted by Ezra Klein

According to Best Lawyers — “the oldest and most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession” — Emmet Bondurant “is the go-to lawyer when a business person just can’t afford to lose a lawsuit.” He was its 2010 Lawyer of the Year for Antitrust and Bet-the-Company Litigation. But now, he’s bitten off something even bigger: bet-the-country litigation.

Bondurant thinks the filibuster is unconstitutional. And, alongside Common Cause, where he serves on the board of directors, he’s suing to have the Supreme Court abolish it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/aviary%20%281%29.jpg?uuid=GzpEUJ7LEeG8pnJ7y9v4Zg

In a 2011 article in the Harvard Law School’s Journal on Legislation, Bondurant laid out his case for why the filibuster crosses constitutional red lines. But to understand the argument, you have to understand the history: The filibuster was a mistake.

In 1806, the Senate, on the advice of Aaron Burr, tried to clean up its rule book, which was thought to be needlessly complicated and redundant. One change it made was to delete something called “the previous question” motion. That was the motion senators used to end debate on whatever they were talking about and move to the next topic. Burr recommended axing it because it was hardly ever used. Senators were gentlemen. They knew when to stop talking.

That was the moment the Senate created the filibuster. But nobody knew it at the time. It would be three more decades before the first filibuster was mounted — which meant it was five decades after the ratification of the Constitution. “Far from being a matter of high principle, the filibuster appears to be nothing more than an unforeseen and unintended consequence of the elimination of the previous question motion from the rules of the Senate,” Bondurant writes.

And even then, filibusters were a rare annoyance. Between 1840 and 1900, there were 16 filibusters. Between 2009 and 2010, there were more than 130. But that’s changed. Today, Majority Leader Harry Reid says that “60 votes are required for just about everything.”

At the core of Bondurant’s argument is a very simple claim: This isn’t what the Founders intended. The historical record is clear on that fact. The framers debated requiring a supermajority in Congress to pass anything. But they rejected that idea.

In Federalist 22, Alexander Hamilton savaged the idea of a supermajority Congress, writing that “its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of government and to substitute the pleasure, caprice or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junta, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.”

In Federal 58, James Madison wasn’t much kinder to the concept. “In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule; the power would be transferred to the minority.”

In the end, the Constitution prescribed six instances in which Congress would require more than a majority vote: impeaching the president, expelling members, overriding a presidential veto of a bill or order, ratifying treaties and amending the Constitution. And as Bondurant writes, “The Framers were aware of the established rule of construction, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, and that by adopting these six exceptions to the principle of majority rule, they were excluding other exceptions.” By contrast, in the Bill of Rights, the Founders were careful to state that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

That majority vote played into another principle, as well: the “finely wrought” compromise over proper representation. At the time of the country’s founding, seven of the 13 states, representing 27 percent of the population, could command a majority in the Senate. Today, with the filibuster, 21 of the 50 states, representing 11 percent of the population, can muster the 41 votes to stop a majority in the Senate. “The supermajority vote requirement,” Bondurant argues, thus “upsets the Great Compromise’s carefully crafted balance between the large states and the small states.”

Establishing that the Founders intended Congress to operate by majority vote is different than saying that it’s unconstitutional for Congress to act in another way. After all, the Constitution also says that Congress has the power to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”

But as Bondurant notes, there’s precedent for the Supreme Court to review congressional rules: In 1892, in United States v. Ballin, the Court held that while “the Constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings,” it “may not by its rules ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights.” And while some may argue that the filibuster has, at this point, been around for well over a century, the Supreme Court has previously held that the fact that “an unconstitutional action has been taken before surely does not render that same action any less unconstitutional at a later date.”

Bondurant makes a strong case. Will the Supreme Court buy it? I have no idea. But perhaps it’s a moot point. There’s evidence that some of the Senate’s most powerful members are preparing to take reform into their own hands. On Thursday, Reid, who has traditionally been a defender of the filibuster, took to the Senate floor to apologize to all the reformers he had stymied over the years.

“The rest of us were wrong,” he said. “If there were anything that ever needed changing in this body, it’s the filibuster rule, because it’s been abused, abused and abused.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/is-the-filibuster-unconstitutional/2012/05/15/gIQAYLp7QU_blog.html They hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds. Since when, has original constructionism been something the left gives a DAMN about. Only when it suits their interests.

What happened to living breathing constitution? Why care what the framers originally thought?

Calcountry
09-26-2012, 12:33 PM
There is no need to wait on the court now. It is looking increasingly likely that not only will the GOP fail miserably to gain control of the senate, but they will lose 1 more seat. It will be twelve years after this election before the democrats will again be in position to defend a significant number of seats in closely divided states. Now is the time to stick it to the GOP forever. Reid should change the rules. McConnell is not worthy of working with. It's clear that republicans are only committed to the Grover Norquist blackmail pledge - the Cancer on America that created obstruction, brought light to the astonishing lack of republican intellect, and exposed their sinister motives to destroy. This party is simply pathetic, hopelessly poisoned by the stupidity that bubbles up from the toxic waste of Texas politics.hyperbole much?

whoman69
09-26-2012, 02:15 PM
No, it's not unconstitutional. In order for something to be unconstitutional, it has to violate a specific clause/rule/amendment of the Constitution. The Constitution says that both houses can set their own rules for things like ending debate. Courts have no jurisdiction over this matter; it's entirely political.

It was answered in the article.
Establishing that the Founders intended Congress to operate by majority vote is different than saying that it’s unconstitutional for Congress to act in another way. After all, the Constitution also says that Congress has the power to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”

But as Bondurant notes, there’s precedent for the Supreme Court to review congressional rules: In 1892, in United States v. Ballin, the Court held that while “the Constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings,” it “may not by its rules ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights.” And while some may argue that the filibuster has, at this point, been around for well over a century, the Supreme Court has previously held that the fact that “an unconstitutional action has been taken before surely does not render that same action any less unconstitutional at a later date.”

whoman69
09-26-2012, 02:17 PM
They hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds. Since when, has original constructionism been something the left gives a DAMN about. Only when it suits their interests.

What happened to living breathing constitution? Why care what the framers originally thought?

Just because they don't vote like you want, doesn't mean they don't follow the intent and meaning behind the original document. Hyperbole on your part.

I'd say this quote pretty much sums up our current circumstance.

In Federalist 22, Alexander Hamilton savaged the idea of a supermajority Congress, writing that “its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of government and to substitute the pleasure, caprice or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junta, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.”

whoman69
09-26-2012, 02:21 PM
There's no point in waiting on the courts because they aren't going to change anything. If Harry Reid wants to change the rules, he should do it, but if he does it in the middle of a Congress, that will be one more precedent the democrats break that you guys will be blaming the GOP for when they decide to reciprocate.

To change the rules he needs a supermajority. You know that isn't happening.

Depending on the number of all 100 senators "duly chosen and sworn" who are actually "present and voting", an amendment (change) to U.S. Senate Rule XXII can be difficult. Paragraph 2 of said rule states that "to amend the Senate rules...the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting." This means 67 senators if all 100 senators are "present and voting", but only 34 senators if under Rule VI, the minimum quorum of 51 senators, i.e., "a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn" is "present and voting."

whoman69
09-26-2012, 02:43 PM
Literature has it right. Sometime between the apocalyptic social wars of the 80s and the moment the rise of the oceans began to slow, democrats decided to use the filibuster to block Bush-nominated judges at an unprecedented rate stimulating some Republicans to threaten rule changes similar to those being contemplated by Harry Reid today.

Of course, in those days, Reid opposed the changes. It wouldn't surprise me if Ezra Klein wrote a blog in support of the grand traditions of the filibuster then either.

Sorry to burst your bubble but I can't leave your revisionist history unchecked. The number of filibusters started rising greatly with the 103rd Congress in '93-'94. After a modest rise when Republicans took over, the number dipped each year from a high of 80 to 60-70. The numbers we are talking about now are 130 plus.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/cloture-stats-chart2.jpg

Aries Walker
09-26-2012, 03:01 PM
I don't give a shit which party is misusing it - Congress is misusing it. It's going to get used more and more, and the government will get less and less done, unless we either get some bipartisan pissed-off-edness, or one party or the other gains such a crushing majority that they can either put some serious restrictions on it, or force it right the f*** out.

Calcountry
09-26-2012, 03:37 PM
I don't give a shit which party is misusing it - Congress is misusing it. It's going to get used more and more, and the government will get less and less done, unless we either get some bipartisan pissed-off-edness, or one party or the other gains such a crushing majority that they can either put some serious restrictions on it, or force it right the f*** out. Nothing should get done, unless the consent of the governed, i.e, bi partisan support.

Why do you want tyranny of the majority?

Calcountry
09-26-2012, 03:39 PM
Heck, Harry can't even pass a budget, and he only needs 51 votes for that. Wait, he doen't want to pass a budget. Budget??? what's that?

Garcia Bronco
09-26-2012, 03:48 PM
Ah, filibusters. Yet another reason why Aaron Burr is the worst American that ever lived.

thought the same thing myself when I read this OP.

He tried to steal the Presidency from Jefferson leading to a Constitutional Amendment
He killed Alexander Hamilton by cheating
He tried to steal the LA Purchase and raise an Army to take over the US.
And now this...what a cockbag.

This is just the shit I know about off the top of my head.

patteeu
09-26-2012, 03:57 PM
It was answered in the article.

It doesn't answer anything. There's nothing in that passage that indicates what restraint in the constitution is being violated by the filibuster rule. As Literature said, this is an entirely political argument.

patteeu
09-26-2012, 04:00 PM
To change the rules he needs a supermajority. You know that isn't happening.

That may be enforceable during the middle of a Congress (I'm reserving judgment on that point), but a rule change at the beginning of a new Congress would only require a simple majority. Anything that suggests otherwise actually would be unconstitutional.

patteeu
09-26-2012, 04:01 PM
Sorry to burst your bubble but I can't leave your revisionist history unchecked. The number of filibusters started rising greatly with the 103rd Congress in '93-'94. After a modest rise when Republicans took over, the number dipped each year from a high of 80 to 60-70. The numbers we are talking about now are 130 plus.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/cloture-stats-chart2.jpg

You're changing the measure of merit here. You're going to have to do better than that if you want to burst my bubble.

Pawnmower
09-26-2012, 04:43 PM
Huh? Maybe you could write out your thoughts in a cogent argument rather than smilies.

You don't recall arguing against that exact same definition of the word not too long ago?

You yourself claimed segregation was constitutional DESPITE it being in violation thereof.

You are the biggest ****ing moron in the history of moron-kind.


edit: I actually agree with THIS definition, and this is exactly what i was trying to beat into your stupid thick skull before...i guess i succeeded!

whoman69
09-26-2012, 04:49 PM
Nothing should get done, unless the consent of the governed, i.e, bi partisan support.

Why do you want tyranny of the majority?

Is that any better than the tyranny of the minority we have now?

whoman69
09-26-2012, 04:53 PM
You're changing the measure of merit here. You're going to have to do better than that if you want to burst my bubble.

You sticking your fingers in your ears and saying la-la-la is not a real response here. You are the one who eronously reported that the Democrats were the first to abuse the filibuster, yet the numbers now are double what they were then and there is no abuse. You are rewriting history and responding back with the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I."

patteeu
09-26-2012, 10:38 PM
You sticking your fingers in your ears and saying la-la-la is not a real response here. You are the one who eronously reported that the Democrats were the first to abuse the filibuster, yet the numbers now are double what they were then and there is no abuse. You are rewriting history and responding back with the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I."

1. Just because the Republicans responded to an unprecedented use of the filibuster with an even heavier use of the filibuster doesn't mean that the democrats didn't do exactly what I say they did.

2. Your graph doesn't show how many times the filibuster was used to block judges and presidential appointments, it shows total use of the filibuster. Therefore, it has no value in your effort to refute my claim. I'm not re-writing history. You're just having a hard time understanding what we're talking about.

whoman69
09-27-2012, 08:23 AM
1. Just because the Republicans responded to an unprecedented use of the filibuster with an even heavier use of the filibuster doesn't mean that the democrats didn't do exactly what I say they did.

2. Your graph doesn't show how many times the filibuster was used to block judges and presidential appointments, it shows total use of the filibuster. Therefore, it has no value in your effort to refute my claim. I'm not re-writing history. You're just having a hard time understanding what we're talking about.

I already proved they didn't. You are the one that made the claims. You want to back them up, give some numbers. You want some more evidence.

President Clinton’s federal district and appellate court nominees confronted historic delays. For instance, 1999 was a historic year for the Clinton presidency not only because of the president’s acquittal in his impeachment trial but also because by mid-year the Clinton Administration had only two judges confirmed — the lowest number ever confirmed midway through a non-election year. Moreover, the statistics for some other years are striking. For instance, the percentage of President Clinton’s judicial nominations confirmed in 1997 — 47 percent — is significantly lower than the percentage of judicial confirmations for any president (except for Clinton’s own record the previous year) over the past four decades. In 1998, the percentage of judicial nominees confirmed climbed well back into the respectable range at 79.5 percent. Though 101 judges were confirmed in 1998, the numbers of confirmed judicial nominees in 1997 and 1999 were each lower than the number of President Reagan’s judicial nominees confirmed in 1998 (41) and the number of President Bush’s judicial nominees confirmed in 1992 (66), both of which were election years. (167-8).

http://www.samefacts.com/2011/05/watching-conservatives/judicial-filibusters-who-started-it-and-why-does-it-matter/

Stop re-writing history.

patteeu
09-27-2012, 08:52 AM
I already proved they didn't. You are the one that made the claims. You want to back them up, give some numbers. You want some more evidence.

Stop re-writing history.

:facepalm: Wake me up when one of your bizarre, random attempts to disprove what I said actually has something to do with what I said. Until then, stop talking about re-writing history, you ahistorical noob.

whoman69
09-27-2012, 01:05 PM
:facepalm: Wake me up when one of your bizarre, random attempts to disprove what I said actually has something to do with what I said. Until then, stop talking about re-writing history, you ahistorical noob.

Does your Earth coutnerpart look normal? I can't even make sense of what you are saying anymore.

mikey23545
09-27-2012, 01:11 PM
Does your Earth coutnerpart look normal? I can't even make sense of what you are saying anymore.

Is your earth coutnerpoint able to spell, or understand the English language?

mikey23545
09-27-2012, 01:15 PM
It's obvious that as long as the Dems don't have a super-majority in Congress, filibusters are unconstitutional. Unless...

Republicans have any kind of majority, then they are constitutional.

patteeu
09-27-2012, 01:57 PM
The bottom line here is that Republicans wouldn't be able to get away with so many filibusters if the democrat agenda weren't so massively unpopular.* When Newt Gingrich stood firm against Bill Clinton to the point of a government shutdown, Clinton's popularity carried the day and Gingrich and the Republicans were damaged. That's not happening here because the democrats are operating from a position of weakness after their poorly received strong-arm hijinks during the first two years of Obama's term.

____________
* The corollary is that democrats would have been (and will be in the future) just as willing to use the filibuster if they ever face off against a majority party that is as disrespected as much as Harry Reid and Barack Obama's democrats of the past few years.

whoman69
09-27-2012, 02:18 PM
Is your earth coutnerpoint able to spell, or understand the English language?

I'm sure you've never misspelled anything on here ever. I have totally debunked any points he had, but Patteau always ignores that or micromanages a single point so that he can go in another direction.

whoman69
09-27-2012, 02:29 PM
The bottom line here is that Republicans wouldn't be able to get away with so many filibusters if the democrat agenda weren't so massively unpopular.* When Newt Gingrich stood firm against Bill Clinton to the point of a government shutdown, Clinton's popularity carried the day and Gingrich and the Republicans were damaged. That's not happening here because the democrats are operating from a position of weakness after their poorly received strong-arm hijinks during the first two years of Obama's term.

____________
* The corollary is that democrats would have been (and will be in the future) just as willing to use the filibuster if they ever face off against a majority party that is as disrespected as much as Harry Reid and Barack Obama's democrats of the past few years.

You may notice I don't post on here very much anymore because its just a partisan dogshit factory. I only bring up non partisan topics like this one which you then run down the partisan trail of shit. I am not going to keep running with Democrats did this/Republicans did that. Whoever did this, the filibuster is being overused in a manner in which the founding fathers never wanted. It is in my opinion unconstitutional, and has created a tyranny of the minority that has deadlocked this government. So from now on make your points relevent to the topic and not just another partisan attack.

patteeu
09-27-2012, 03:10 PM
You may notice I don't post on here very much anymore because its just a partisan dogshit factory. I only bring up non partisan topics like this one which you then run down the partisan trail of shit. I am not going to keep running with Democrats did this/Republicans did that. Whoever did this, the filibuster is being overused in a manner in which the founding fathers never wanted. It is in my opinion unconstitutional, and has created a tyranny of the minority that has deadlocked this government. So from now on make your points relevent to the topic and not just another partisan attack.

Constitutional law issues aren't decided based on uninformed opinions.

bandwagonjumper
09-27-2012, 03:59 PM
Constitutional law issues aren't decided based on uninformed opinions.

On what are there based?

whoman69
09-27-2012, 04:54 PM
Constitutional law issues aren't decided based on uninformed opinions.

Who said they were? Most people couldn't even tell you what a filibuster was.

I think the OP puts forth some compelling evidence that the filibuster is unconstitutional and certainly not what the founding fathers intended. House and Senate rules have individually been ruled as unconstitutional. The argument that because each body of the legislature can make its own rules then its constitutional doesn't hold water if those rules are found to be unconstitutional in themselves.

jettio
09-27-2012, 05:11 PM
Who said they were? Most people couldn't even tell you what a filibuster was.

I think the OP puts forth some compelling evidence that the filibuster is unconstitutional and certainly not what the founding fathers intended. House and Senate rules have individually been ruled as unconstitutional. The argument that because each body of the legislature can make its own rules then its constitutional doesn't hold water if those rules are found to be unconstitutional in themselves.

I doubt that the opening post's article is accurate in the sense that it suggests that an actual lawsuit has been filed by Common Cause.

Maybe a lawsuit has been filed, but I doubt that it could be brought in anyone's name who would survive a challenge to standing.

patteeu
09-27-2012, 05:27 PM
Who said they were? Most people couldn't even tell you what a filibuster was.

I think the OP puts forth some compelling evidence that the filibuster is unconstitutional and certainly not what the founding fathers intended. House and Senate rules have individually been ruled as unconstitutional. The argument that because each body of the legislature can make its own rules then its constitutional doesn't hold water if those rules are found to be unconstitutional in themselves.

That's because you're a constitutional law illiterate.

whoman69
09-27-2012, 08:17 PM
That's because you're a constitutional law illiterate.

Ok Bizarro

petegz28
09-27-2012, 08:19 PM
That's because you're a constitutional law illiterate.

too may big words in that sentence

whoman69
09-27-2012, 08:19 PM
I doubt that the opening post's article is accurate in the sense that it suggests that an actual lawsuit has been filed by Common Cause.

Maybe a lawsuit has been filed, but I doubt that it could be brought in anyone's name who would survive a challenge to standing.

http://www.civilrights.org/archives/2012/may/1281-lawsuit-challenges-filibuster.html

jettio
09-28-2012, 10:41 AM
http://www.civilrights.org/archives/2012/may/1281-lawsuit-challenges-filibuster.html

Thanks.

I looked up the case and see that the senate's lawyer filed a motion to dismiss. Seems like the plaintiffs are House Representatives and people who claim they would benefit if the dream act were passed. Seems to me that a lot of bills pass one chamber and do not get voted on the floor of the other chamber due to that chambers procedural rules. The filibuster rule is not the only way that bills passing one chamber do not get floor votes in the other chamber.

It wil be interesting to see if the judge rules on the motion to dismiss before the new Senate is sworn in. I am not sure how easy it would be for the Senate to amend its rules to end the filibuster rule.

If you always need a supermajority to amend the filibuster rule even when a new senate is sworn in, then maybe there is a case, if the plainitff were a senator. But if one part of the constitution says the house and senate make their own rules, then you may just have competing constitutional provisions, in a situation where nobody has brought a lawsuit before, and where the standing of the plaintiffs is questionable.