This has nothing to do with “minority rights”. It’s simply more sniveling from the left.

First - the Constitution provides that the House and Senate can make it’s own rules. To adopt or change a rule requires a simple majority.

Second – one of these is Rule 22, that was put in place in 1917, to end debate (cloture) with a 2/3 vote or 67 members.

Third – this rule was changed in 1975 (see the first point) to reduce the number of senators required from 2/3 (67) down to 3/5 or 60 members.

This “nuclear” option is simply the majority of the senate acting to change the rules as they see fit. It has been done many times on a variety of subjects.

If you don’t like it, there is a procedure in place to rectify the situation…. Vote in more “progressives”. But in the mean time STFU.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is the first time in history that I can see FAITH being debated!!! Im not going to JUDGE one side or the other, but as GOD'S WORD [THE BIBLE] SAYS: YOU KNOW THE TREE BY THE FRUIT IT BEARS!!!! This actully means that GOD will now have to be concidered by both sides of the fence!!! And it's eating some up and they don't know how to combat it!!!!!
Well I got news for the some of them. There is a reason that BUSH got elected. It was a vote for GOD!!![not for bush] There is no doubt that wolves come in sheep's clothing so watch out!!!! In the early morning hours when I was studying my BIBLE, words cane to me that I was compelled to write down. "ALL OF THE PROBLEMS WE FACE ARE TRULY BASED ON VANITY, BUT THE INTENT OF OUR HEART IS ETERNAL. So you big folks in washington, put GOD back into everything that goes on there and don't worry about the destructive folks!!! I can see there is going to be changes on both sides of the fence!!! KEEP IT UP!!!!!

MAY THE LOVE OF JESUS BE WITH YOU!!!
[this has two meanings]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's trace the logic from the first poster:

1) The Senate can change the rules by majority vote.

2) Therefore, if it does so, those who voted against it shouldn't complain.

3) Therefore, any rule is acceptable as long as you can get a majority to vote for it.

What he's described is Tyranny of the Majority, NOT democracy. Because silencing non-majority positions has always worked well. Sheesh.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Our government should be a system of checks and balances. The filibuster is one way to achieve those checks and balances in the Senate. I don't trust zealots on either side of the political aisle. Really bad ideas get set into policy through political means and pressure that favor one party over another. It is the people of this country who have to live with the results of those awful policies. Incompetent and inappropriate people also get appointed to important positions based on political affiliations. There must be opportunities for the minority party to express their concerns about policies and people and to voice their convictions. Senator Frist and all of the other Senators should keep their religion in their private lives. Their public and political lives should welcome reasoned debate and careful consideration of what is best for the whole country. After all, it might be the other party in power with equally bad policies and appointees in the future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ever heard the story of Narcissist and Eco? I call it the republican party.

You little boys ever plan on growing up?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What GeneK is saying makes sense. Any time one party gets 51 senators plus the presidency, they can fill the courts with wackos. What's wrong with that? GeneK is smart enough to know that it only takes a few Tom DeLays to get greedy before the Democrats will have the 51-49 majority. Of course, GeneK's logic doesn't address consistency or stability in government, and would lead to the further polarization of the judiciary (because any time a party has a majority they would have to nominate and confirm extremists to counterbalance the period when the other party was in control). Thanks for showing us your simple logic, Genek.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am using this response as a metacommentary to make the terms of the debate clear. The debate centers on the concept of fairness. The left continues to claim 1) that, e.g., Bill Frist is contradictory while 2) the right responds that there is a category distinction to be made between proper and improper uses of the filibuster. 3) The left’s second argument, no more convincing even as it summons forth Sen. McCain, is a threat that Republicans will someday be the minority. Republicans, therefore, should be motivated by fear and an appeal to self-interest. Democrats need to stop thinking of Republicans as bullies and themselves as reasonable ivory tower victims (the Republicans, meanwhile, imagining themselves as victims.) 4) The left screams out the charge of the tyranny of the majority. 5) On its back, the left ends with “but that’s unfair.”

For the left, there is a lot of thinking to be done.

On the proper use of the filibuster (see GeneK):

1. Possibility: An Appellate Court nomination can be filibustered.
2. Actuality: But an Appellate Court nomination has never been filibustered.
3. Propriety. What is proper is what has been done before.
4. Ought: While such a nomination can be filibustered (see #1), because it never has been before and in accordance with propriety, it ought not to be.

The entailment of #4 from #2 and #3 is debatable since any move from what is the case (a state of affairs) to what should be (a norm) is open for discussion.

What is GeneK’s, and more broadly the right’s, concept of fairness? Is such a concept of fairness fair?

Once articulated and understood, one ought not to dismiss it but to take it up and discuss it honestly. The left’s great weakness is its inability to speak to people and to convince them either by inhabiting the other’s terms and criticizing them (immanent critique) while maintaining a good ethos or by developing a new frame (see Lakoff).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

On Rule changes in Congress (see GeneK):
1. Actuality implies possibility. If a rule did change, then it can happen (again). (See GeneK’s opening remarks. Cf. izzyw, #1). Something to consider, however, is the distinction between creating something/eradicating something and changing/amending it. Is there not a qualitative distinction to be made here?
2. Rule changes are necessary to ensure fairness.
3. Therefore, if it can happen and if it is necessary to ensure fairness, then it should happen.

Here, e.g., izzyw claims that this is the logic of the tyranny of the majority, i.e. that it is unfair.

The problem is the antinomian concept of fairness: On the one hand, fairness is doing right by one’s constituency (GeneK) in accordance with representative democracy. On the other hand, fairness is doing right by everyone (izzyw) in accordance with the true spirit of democracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would refuse to put an anonymous hold on any judge; that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate should do its duty. If we don't like somebody the President nominates, vote him or her down."

Who do you suppose said this????

Sen. Patrick Leahy


Who was it that LOWERED the number of Senators required to invoke cloture from 2/3 of those present to 3/5 (60)?

Sen. Robert Byrd

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In 1995, Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) And Eight Other Democrats Now Serving In The Senate (Bingaman, Boxer, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, And Sarbanes) Supported Ending All Filibusters. The Harkin-Lieberman Proposal Would Have Amended The Senate Rules To Allow A Simple Majority To Overcome "Any" Filibuster, Legislative Or Executive.

"Senators Who Feel Strongly About The Issue Of Fairness Should Vote For Cloture, Even If They Intend To Vote Against The Nomination Itself. It Is Wrong To Filibuster This Nomination, And The Senators Who Believe In Fairness Will Not Let A Minority Of The Senate Deny [The Nominee] His Vote By The Entire Senate." Sen. Ted Kennedy

"According To The U.S. Constitution, The President Nominates, And The Senate Shall Provide Advice And Consent. It Is Not The Role Of The Senate To Obstruct The Process And Prevent Numbers Of Highly Qualified Nominees From Even Being Given The Opportunity For A Vote On The Senate Floor." Sen. Barbara Boxer

"For Too Long, We Have Accepted The Premise That The Filibuster Rule Is Immune. Yet, Mr. President, There Is No Constitutional Basis For It." Sen. Joseph Lieberman

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As Majority Leader, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) Initiated Four Precedent-Setting Procedures That Allowed A Simple Majority To Change Senate Procedures Without Altering The Standing Rules, Thereby Undermining Minority Rights To Filibuster And Use Related Tactics.

Byrd Led The Creation Of Precedents In 1977, 1979, 1980 And 1987 To Stop Filibusters And Other Delaying Tactics Previously Allowed Under Senate Rules Or Precedents.

"Let the Senate vote on amendments, and then vote up or down on the resolution. ... If I have to be forced into a corner to try for a majority vote, I will [change the rules] because I am going to do my duty as I see my duty, whether I win or lose." Sen. Robert Byrd

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When Clinton was President, Trent Lott and Orrin Hatch blocked at least 60 of his judicial nominees. They didn't even have the deceny to filibuster, because they knew that they didn't have 40 votes. They would refuse to schedule hearings for nominees and allowed Republican Senators to use anonymous "holds" to stop votes.

Hatch changed the "blue slip" rule that allowed Senators from the nominee's home state to block the confirmation. Until 1995, both Senators from the nominee's home state were needed to block the confirmation. Hatch changed the rule to one Senator. In 2001, he changed the rule back to both Senators after Bush won the election. In 2003, he decided that the rule didn't apply at all, because the Democrats were still able to block some of Bush's nominees. Hatch changed the rule three times in eight years, each time to his own advantage. Three times in eight years.

I guess one Senator blocking a nomination in an anonymous, unaccountable way is more democratic than 40 Senators blocking a nomination in an open, accountable way.

The GOPbots can't really debate this, so this simply ignore it and keep mindlessly spewing their RNC talking points.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Historically, lawmakers of both parties have engaged in filibusters -- a word derived from the Dutch name for pirates to describe a process of unlimited debate that has been enshrined in the Senate for two centuries -- mostly to block or delay final votes on legislation. But filibusters have also been used against judicial and other nominations, although never in such a systematic manner, Republicans said. In 1968, Republicans filibustered President Lyndon B. Johnson's choice of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas to be chief justice, but Johnson withdrew the nomination in the face of Fortas's likely rejection by the Senate.

Democrats contend the 10 filibustered judges are too far outside the legal mainstream to warrant lifetime appointments, describing them as the cutting edge of an effort by Bush to pack the courts with ideologically driven conservatives. They also argue that, during the Clinton administration, the GOP majority in the Senate blocked action on dozens of judicial nominations, without need for a filibuster because they could use their majority-party powers to bury nominations in committee or block them through anonymous "holds" on the Senate floor.

Clinton nominated Paez for an appellate court seat; he was finally confirmed in March 2000 after four years of delay by the Republican-controlled Senate. Republican senators blocked 16 of Clinton's appellate court nominees in his second term alone. Finally, only three of the 10 Bush nominees that Democrats have filibustered have received the ABA's highest rating.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here's how it would work, according to a story by Brian Naylor and Ron Elving of National Public Radio. When a judicial nomination is brought to the floor and a filibuster is under way, Majority Leader Bill Frist will "seek a ruling of the chair (meaning the Senate's presiding officer) as to the number of votes needed to end the debate."

Vice President Cheney will presumably be the presiding officer. Since the Senate rules are clear, one might assume that Cheney will be forced to inform Frist that 60 votes are needed. But Cheney plans to rule that only a simple majority is needed, for he will claim that the Senate rule requiring 60 votes is unconstitutional.

Cheney's ruling can be challenged by senators, but, and here's the crucial trick, it would only require a simple majority to uphold the presiding officer's ruling. Hence only 51 senators are needed to go through with the nuclear option.

But make no mistake: the 51 senators would not be voting simply to change the Senate rules. They would be voting to affirm the presiding officer's ruling that the normal Senate rule violates the Constitution.

So, if nobody has questioned the Senate rule before, why would anyone think that it is unconstitutional? The conservatives suggest that the filibuster is constitutional for legislation, but not for the approval of judicial nominees. In support of this view, they cite the "advice and consent" clause of Article II, which says this: the president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint" judges.

Senate conservatives claim that this clause somehow precludes the Senate rule requiring a supermajority to end debate. This is an extremely adventurous reading of the Constitution. On the face of things, the "advice and consent" clause simply limits the president's power to appoint judges: He can appoint a judge only if the Senate consents. Article II says nothing about the rules for senatorial debate on the matter.

By claiming that the filibuster rule is unconstitutional, Senate conservatives will be engaging in exactly what they say they are trying to prevent: activist readings of the Constitution to get a desired result by being unfaithful to the text. Even the most jaded observer must be stunned by such brazen and open hypocrisy.

www.presshearal.mainetoday.com
MAINE VOICES: Scott Sehon

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here's a point I don't hear mentioned from either side of this debate over the nomination process. As I understand it, our federal judiciary (not getting into states or municipalities where judges are elected) is supposed to be independent, impartial and non-partisan. Mr. Bush is a Republican President. Mr. Lieberman is a Democratic Senator. But the Hon. Mr. Scalia is a conservative justice. Not a Republican justice, just a conservative one. Presidents may nominate judges because of similar political views, but they are not (officially, anyway) nominating based on party affiliation.
Now, if the Senate is going to fall out on party lines over a nominee, that should raise concern over whether said nominee really does show imparitality, in my mind. Rejecting someone just because you disagree with their politics would be churlish, but concerns that justice wouldn't be getting a fair shake should always be valid. This is why I disagree with the concept of simple majority. In a Senate as closely divided as this one (I'm having trouble finding current figures, but last I knew it was 51R, 48D, 1I), a simple majority vote along party lines would give me concern about how fair that judge would be on the bench. And since it's a lifetime appointment, there's no chance for a recall later on.
Again, this isn't about which "team" wins or loses. It's about the idea that federal judges aren't supposed to be beholden to party politics, and the best way I can think of to ensure that is to only allow nominees that have shown they can garner support from both sides of the aisle to pass. Obviously in a less-balanced Senate this would still be problematic, but that's an argument for another day.
(And nevermind that only 10 of Mr. Bush's 230 or so nominees have been rejected. Would that we all could have over 95% of our choices endorsed by others.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Has anyone out there read Jim Wallis's 2005 release?
"God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and The Left Doesn't Get It"
www.godspolitics.com
www.sojo.net

This evangelical progressive Christian proves there are thinking Christian's who will speak out against this current administration, it's rush to war in Iraq, it's immoral federal budget and DO SOMETHING about it.
A greater awakening is upon us.


otfp,ef
www.olivetreesfoundation.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I read the article and many of the posted comments. None of this sounds like the religious principles I was taught in Sunday School and church. Obviously, some people are happy to hijack religion to further their own agendas. We are backsliding into the age of the Crusades where it's "onward Christian soldier, marching as we go." I am afraid. Very afraid.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fron The Louisville Courier/Journal:

Worst of all was the demagoguery of R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
He said that putting more evangelicals in judgeships will lead to more rulings consistent with "Christian citizenship."

"We are not asking for persons merely to be moral," he said. "We want them to be believers in the Lord Jesus Christ."
It would be hard to articulate a more succinct definition of a theocracy, and that is precisely what this country is not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You looney liberals are starting to bore me with your cut and paste talking points.

Why don't you read the Constitution, study some senate history, and get a clue before you parrot Kos/Eddie/Franken or any of the rest of the Lieing Loosers

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You know, discussions at Alternet used to be held in a civil forum. What a shame that forum been abandoned in favor of this flame fest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]