I'm tired of this filibuster crap

[mikester]

I was on a break this morning listening to talking heads on CNN or MSNBC or some crap like that...

I kept hearing over and over again that the judicial filibuster has never been used...liars!

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Filibuster_Derails_Supreme_Court_Appointment.htm

The Text:

October 1, 1968
Filibuster Derails Supreme Court Appointment

Photo of Justice Abe Fortas
Justice Abe Fortas

In June 1968, Chief Justice Earl Warren informed President Lyndon Johnson that he planned to retire from the Supreme Court. Concern that Richard Nixon might win the presidency later that year and get to choose his successor dictated Warren's timing.

In the final months of his presidency, Johnson shared Warren's concerns about Nixon and welcomed the opportunity to add his third appointee to the Court. To replace Warren, he nominated Associate Justice Abe Fortas, his longtime confidant. Anticipating Senate concerns about the prospective chief justice's liberal opinions, Johnson simultaneously declared his intention to fill the vacancy created by Fortas' elevation with Appeals Court Judge Homer Thornberry. The president believed that Thornberry, a Texan, would mollify skeptical southern senators.

A seasoned Senate vote-counter, Johnson concluded that despite filibuster warnings he just barely had the support to confirm Fortas. The president took encouragement from indications that his former Senate mentor, Richard Russell, and Republican Minority Leader Everett Dirksen would support Fortas, whose legal brilliance both men respected.

The president soon lost Russell's support, however, because of administration delays in nominating the senator's candidate to a Georgia federal judgeship. Johnson urged Senate leaders to waste no time in convening Fortas' confirmation hearings. Responding to staff assurances of Dirksen's continued support, Johnson told an aide, "Just take my word for it. I know [Dirksen]. I know the Senate. If they get this thing drug out very long, we're going to get beat. Dirksen will leave us."

Fortas became the first sitting associate justice, nominated for chief justice, to testify at his own confirmation hearing. Those hearings reinforced what some senators already knew about the nominee. As a sitting justice, he regularly attended White House staff meetings; he briefed the president on secret Court deliberations; and, on behalf of the president, he pressured senators who opposed the war in Vietnam. When the Judiciary Committee revealed that Fortas received a privately funded stipend, equivalent to 40 percent of his Court salary, to teach an American University summer course, Dirksen and others withdrew their support. Although the committee recommended confirmation, floor consideration sparked the first filibuster in Senate history on a Supreme Court nomination.

On October 1, 1968, the Senate failed to invoke cloture. Johnson then withdrew the nomination, privately observing that if he had another term, "the Fortas appointment would have been different."

Reference Items:

Henry J. Abraham. Justices and Presidents: A Political History of Appointments to the Supreme Court. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Kalman, Laura. Abe Fortas: A Biography. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990.

Urofsky, Melvin I., ed., The Supreme Court Justices: A Biographical Dictionary. New York: Garland, 1994.

There you have it - the first filibuster against a Judicial nominee who had no business being appointed due to various reasons. What didn't he have? Support from both sides - too bad - so sad - now he's not a federal judge.

Of course - this isn't about these lower court judges, in the end they want the ability to appoint whomever the darned well please when the time comes to appoint a Supreme Court judge.

PErsonally - I think the filibuster should stay. If a judge can not win the mind of the majority of the people that he isn't a good judge to represent those people and rule on their laws. Ultimately that's what the law is - the will of the people - ideally of course. I don't want a liberal judge in there and I don't want a conservative judge in there. I want someone who can represent me AND my conservative brothers - in otherwords - someone with a measure of moderation. Too idealistic and you end up with the 9th circuit we don't want the opposite of that of course - we want somthing balanced. At least thats how I see it but seriously, I'm tired of the lies. People don't pay enough attention to history.

Flame on bros.

[jyl]

Federal judges are lifetime appointments. The Supreme Court can only review a small number of cases, so many issues are in effect finally decided by the US courts of appeals. This makes federal judges very important appointments.

I think any time the government gets to do something very important that can never, ever be changed - like a lifetime federal judge appointment - it should be made very, very hard to do.

Therefore, I personally think the confirmation of a federal judge should require a super-majority (e.g. 2/3 not 1/2). Failing that, I think the minority party should be able to block the candidates that they consider the most extreme. The filibuster is a messy, inelegant tool but it works.

The minority party blocking the majority party's most extreme judicial nominees is hardly a new thing, or an act reserved to Democrats. During the Clinton Administration, the Republicans blocked a number of his nominees that they considered too extreme.

[lendaddy]

Fortas was opposed by 24 Republicans and 19 Democrats, not exactly a partison minority movement. Also, they were not attempting to prevent a final vote, but rather extend the hearings as Fortas was involved in a scandel for which they wanted time to see pan-out. But before they could do so President Johnson withdrew his nomination. Fortas later resigned from the bench under pressure from the scandel,(the first judge to ever do this).

So it was a bipartison movement, and they did not want to stop a final vote, rather extend the hearings. And before it even happened the nomination was withdrawn. Same???? Not so much. Now who is "lying".

[mikester]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Fortas was opposed by 24 Republicans and 19 Democrats, not exactly a partison minority movement. Also, they were not attempting to prevent a final vote, but rather extend the hearings as Fortas was involved in a scandel for which they wanted time to see pan-out. But before they could do so President Johnson withdrew his nomination. Fortas later resigned from the bench under pressure from the scandel,(the first judge to ever do this).

So it was a bipartison movement, and they did not want to stop a final vote, rather extend the hearings. And before it even happened the nomination was withdrawn. Same???? Not so much. Now who is "lying".

I don't see your point at all - the republicans today are saying that the judicial filibuster has never been used when in fact it has. Either they are misinformed and stupid or they are lying. I do understand that the case I have cited is a case where it was a bipartisan effort to stop an inappropriate judge from getting a lifelong appointment. Honestly - I don't think it's relevant to my point which is simply that the judicial filibuster has been used once before and in fact it was the republicans who did it.

They stopped an inappropriate judge from taking a life long appointment and I applaud them for it.

[mikester]

Originally posted by jyl
[B

Therefore, I personally think the confirmation of a federal judge should require a super-majority (e.g. 2/3 not 1/2). Failing that, I think the minority party should be able to block the candidates that they consider the most extreme. The filibuster is a messy, inelegant tool but it works.

The minority party blocking the majority party's most extreme judicial nominees is hardly a new thing, or an act reserved to Democrats. During the Clinton Administration, the Republicans blocked a number of his nominees that they considered too extreme. [/B]

Dude, We're on exactly the same page - I said those exact things to my wife last night as I was discussing it with her.

Supermajority, Clinton had 35% of his nominations turned away.

[legion]

Originally posted by mikester
I don't see your point at all - the republicans today are saying that the judicial filibuster has never been used when in fact it has. Either they are misinformed and stupid or they are lying. I do understand that the case I have cited is a case where it was a bipartisan effort to stop an inappropriate judge from getting a lifelong appointment. Honestly - I don't think it's relevant to my point which is simply that the judicial filibuster has been used once before and in fact it was the republicans who did it.

They stopped an inappropriate judge from taking a life long appointment and I applaud them for it.

I think it is a technicality. The nomination was withdrawn before a filibuster actually occurred, meaning one was never used, just threatened.

[lendaddy]

No guys that's not what I'm saying. The Fortas deal was not a filibuster(real or threatened) to prevent Fortas from getting an up/down vote. It's purpose was to delay until his scandel was vetted. They(reps & dems) didn't want to vote him in while he was being investigated. That's it, they had every intention of giving him a vote later. That is not what's happening today, JRB has been waiting 5 years for a vote. She is not being vetted, she is being blocked.

So when Reps say that a Senate filibuster has never been used to prevent a nominee from getting a vote, they are telling the truth. Fortas was withdrawn before they gave him one.

[lendaddy]

Also, Clintons nominees not getting out of committee is normal practice that happens ALL the time and is SOP in the Senate. It's not underhanded or otherwise. The Reps had control of the Senate and knew they would not get confirmed on a full vote so why pass them out of committee? That's what they do....save the time of the general assembly, that's why they exist. I mean to argue otherwise is like saying the Senate MUST actually CONFIRM every nominee or they are being unfair, and that's asinine.

[cowtown]

No doubt in my mind, the Dems are acting like spoiled children by preventing an up/down vote. The country spoke, and their influence has been minimized. But I don't want to see the filibuster taken away because the tables will eventually turn.

What bugs me is that they can apparently filibuster without any "Live Breaking News!" publicity, because they don't even have to be up there speaking ala Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. They just say they're filibustering, and that's it.

I want to see Teddy Kennedy having to stand up there taking his 5-hour shift. Then I want to see Boxer, then Feinstein. And I want it on CSPAN in Times Square. They should have to hurt a little if they're going to do it.

[lendaddy]

Agree 100% Colin, I don't like the idea of changing the rules either. I have not been convinced either way yet regarding that. I have heard some say that the filibuster was never intended for this purpose, but I have not been convinced. But yes, make Kennedy stay up all night on a gin binge and talk about his neighbors dog.

[legion]

I agree that in order to filibuster, you should be required to actually hold the senate floor.

Still, as I understand it, what the press is calling the 'nuclear option' is just eliminating the filibuster in the case of judicial nominees. It would still exist for all other senate business.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by legion
the 'nuclear option' is just eliminating the filibuster in the case of judicial nominees. It would still exist for all other senate business.

Correct

[fintstone]

The reason that the filibuster threat can be used with such impunity is the press. If they were not so biased, they would expose that fact that all the liberals are doing is preventing an up or down vote and going against the obvious will of the electorate. If voters were better informed about the situation, the filibuster would never be used in such a situation because the slimeballs would know that they would pay next election. Instead, the press leads the simpletons to believe just the opposite...that this is somehow the normal use of a filibuster. If that were true, you could never confirm a new judge or pass a law or budget.

[mikester]

Originally posted by cowtown
No doubt in my mind, the Dems are acting like spoiled children by preventing an up/down vote. The country spoke, and their influence has been minimized. But I don't want to see the filibuster taken away because the tables will eventually turn.

What bugs me is that they can apparently filibuster without any "Live Breaking News!" publicity, because they don't even have to be up there speaking ala Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. They just say they're filibustering, and that's it.

I want to see Teddy Kennedy having to stand up there taking his 5-hour shift. Then I want to see Boxer, then Feinstein. And I want it on CSPAN in Times Square. They should have to hurt a little if they're going to do it.

I don't know that it's true that they don't have to be up there actually filibustering but I would agree with you - if they are going to do it then they are ACTUALLY GOING TO BE UP THERE DOING IT.

Oh...yeah - Fienstein needs to be up there doing a long shift.

[mikester]

Originally posted by cowtown
No doubt in my mind, the Dems are acting like spoiled children by preventing an up/down vote. The country spoke, and their influence has been minimized. But I don't want to see the filibuster taken away because the tables will eventually turn.

See here's the thing - 49% of the country is a pretty large part and you're telling me that it's okay to disregard their representation completely?

This is what the filibuster ensures does not happen.

I also agree that the press these days is not looking for anything but the bad: "Oh look...ohohohohohohohohohohoh! Look what *HE'S* Doing" and I think it's bad for the country but the only way around it is to breed some good news people. We can't just shut down the press; we are the land of the free aren't we?

Man...it just never stops flaberghasting me how much of a the right wants to change this country, I thought things were pretty good under Reagan and I thought things were pretty good under Bush Sr. and Clinton but the poeple these days seem so disparate in their feelings.

I can accept that there are few issues that Fint, Len and I are going to agree on regarding the Senate but at the same time I can respect them for their opinion. That just doesn't seem to be the case for the majority of the country. The ability to respectfully disagree with another american and allow that american to live as he or she sees fit (within the law of course) just doesn't seem to be there. It's some weird twisted mcarthyism going on...

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's specifically democrats or republicans. Why can't John McCain run for president?!

[cowtown]

Originally posted by mikester
See here's the thing - 49% of the country is a pretty large part and you're telling me that it's okay to disregard their representation completely?

No, and that's partly why I don't want the filibuster to be suspended. I do believe that the minority should have a voice - that's why it's a 2/3rds vote instead of a simple majority.

But your question should be asked about the (D) side, not the (R)...because it's the minority party that is bringing the system to a screeching halt at the moment. Why should the minority have, in essence, more control over the proceedings just because they are using the filibuster? To paraphrase your words, "you're telling me that it's OK to disregard the Republicans' representation completely?"

My thought is that Bush followed the rules of nomination, and wants a certain guy appointed. The Dems need to follow through and vote against that guy, not just bottle up the whole appointment process because the appointee is not philosophically in alignment with Nancy Pelosi.

Man...it just never stops flaberghasting me how much of a the right wants to change this country, I thought things were pretty good under Reagan and I thought things were pretty good under Bush Sr. and Clinton but the poeple these days seem so disparate in their feelings.

Well, I actually consider myself a moderate, and it sounds like you do too.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's specifically democrats or republicans. Why can't John McCain run for president?!

I'm with you there. McCain 2008!

[mikester]

We're on the same page Cow.

[jyl]

McCain wouldn't make it past the Republican primaries, sorry to say.

[fintstone]

I know I would not support him.

[lendaddy]

He's definitely different. One moment he'll make perfect sense and make you want to support him. The next he'll come out of left field and say something totally out of line. I don't get him.