home

Why We Need Filibusters

By Jeralyn, Section Judiciary
Posted on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 12:00:20 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Judd Legum and Christy Harvey of the Center for American Progress explain why filibusters are necessary and why Bush's most lasting and worst legacy may be his judicial appointments.

< Violence at a Wisconsin Church Service | Sexcapades at Guantanamo >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Why We Need Filibusters | 22 comments (22 topical)
    Re: Why We Need Filibusters (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 05:53:53 AM EST
    et al - What a joke. The Left, who uniformly supported the SC's position of using foreign sources for their latest foray into law writing, is now trying to talk about "original intent." Again. The fillibuster is not in the Constitution. The rules can be changed by the majority. Frist should move quickly and firmly to tell the Demos that if they use the "nuclear option" the rules will be changed, and then bring these apointees to the Senate for an up or down vote.

    Re: Why We Need Filibusters (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 06:46:56 AM EST
    I'm all for filibusters, so long as they are real filibusters. If Robert Byrd wants to gum up the works by regaling everyone about his many years of service to the cause of segregation, that's fine. He can talk until he drops and then the vote can be held. If Ted Kennedy wants to explain what really happened at Chappaquiddick, let's hear it. When he's done, they can hold the vote. And if Trent Lott wants to tell us all what he really meant when he stupidly stroked Strom Thurmond at that birthday party, so be it. We can sit through a gab fest or two and still get the business of the country done. Sadly, no one in Washington is threatening a real filibuster. Instead it's just a bunch of petulent Senators taking orders from a bunch of ultra-liberal interest groups and taking advantage of a dimwit Senate Majority Leader who is unwilling to call them on it. The only good that will come out of this will be the fun to be had watching all of those who support this behavior turn 180 degrees when it's Hillary trying to appoint judges and 41 Republican Senators are standing in the way. Then we'll see how many here support filibuster-light tactics.

    Re: Why We Need Filibusters (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 08:17:03 AM EST
    If the Senate is allowed to make its own rules, and the Senate is elected by the people, then what's the big deal here? The republicans should remember though that what comes around goes around. The tide will shift and they'll be on the wrong end of the stick one day.

    Re: Why We Need Filibusters (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 08:41:23 AM EST
    Filibusters were bad back when Southern Democrats (like Robert Byrd) sought to block civil rights legislation back in the mid Sixties but filibusters are good now. Times change, I guess.

    Re: Why We Need Filibusters (none / 0) (#5)
    by soccerdad on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 09:52:38 AM EST
    As the disingenuous wingers have selective amnesia, the Repubs during the clinton administration used every procedural technique to block Clinton's appointees, in somecases, not even allowing them to be considered. Now that the shoe is on the other foot they are whinning like the little school girls they are. And when they are in the minority some day and there is no filabuster they will the whine that democracy is being subverted by the evil dems and liberals.

    Re: Why We Need Filibusters (none / 0) (#6)
    by Dadler on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 10:17:56 AM EST
    deuce, yes, things can be harmful sometimes, helpful others. imagine that. a world that isn't black and white, but a complicated place. wow, when did this happen? i thought everything was always the same, all the time. oh lordy. my fellow american, filibusters can be both bad AND good, can be used for either. just like everything else in life can be. jaysus h. christo, man, this is a simple truth. better analogies, puh-leeeeeeze!

    Re: Why We Need Filibusters (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 11:13:04 AM EST
    its all in the game.

    Re: Why We Need Filibusters (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 12:23:54 PM EST
    dadler - Given that it is our elected Presidents duty to appoint judges to the Federal bench, and given that it is our elected Senators duty to consent (or deny) then yes, a fillibuster is wrong, because it is subverting the constitution. Let's have a debate and then a vote. If these people are as bad as the Left claims, surely they will be defeated. SD - And yes, it was wrong when the Repubs threatened it. BTW - I would like to see you personally call a couple of those Senators "school girls." I think it would be a regretfuul situation on your part.

    Re: Why We Need Filibusters (none / 0) (#9)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 12:40:00 PM EST
    Regretful only if you forget to include the almost-always-appropos chicken hawk. Of course,the senators may "support" someone else staightening you out.

    Re: Why We Need Filibusters (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 01:46:51 PM EST
    Historically, I believe filibusters, like jury nullification, have been used more by the forces of oppression and evil than by enlightenment. I remember the 60s and the civil rights battles. I say be done with them.

    Re: Why We Need Filibusters (none / 0) (#11)
    by soccerdad on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:01:37 PM EST
    PPJ i wasn't calling the senators that, i was referring to the posters so stick it

    Re: Why We Need Filibusters (none / 0) (#12)
    by scarshapedstar on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:17:39 PM EST
    I would enjoy few things more than an opportunity to call Bill Frist a school girl, right in his face. Furthermore, I'd tell that idiot that I gave him AIDS by speaking to him, and the good "doctor" would probably believe it.

    Re: Why We Need Filibusters (none / 0) (#13)
    by scarshapedstar on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:21:31 PM EST
    Also, here's a brilliant Deuce/PPJ style observation: Republicans are against a law proposed by the Democrats, yet they, themselves have passed laws on several occasions! Furthermore, they have instructed citizens not to vote for one presidential candidate, while at the same time encouraging them to vote for the other presidential candidate. Will the hypocrisy never end?

    Re: Why We Need Filibusters (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 06:48:16 PM EST
    jim, you hit the trifecta, 3 moronic posts in a role.

    Re: Why We Need Filibusters (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 07:08:49 PM EST
    SD - Having re-read the paragraph in question, I must note that you said what you said. And my proof becomes even more compelling when you consider the phrase at the end of the sentence, "in some cases, not even allowing them to be considered." That, of course, could only be done by the Senators. You seal the observation with your "little girl" comment. Scar - The difference between then and now is that Frist has the ability, and will use it, to change the rules and shut down the fillibuster. Historian - I have always felt jury nullification is the last defense available to someone being unjustly prosecuted or punished. The trial should be prompt, and the jury should be of the defendant's peers. Any group can render law. Only peers can give justice.

    Re: Why We Need Filibusters (none / 0) (#16)
    by scarshapedstar on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 08:08:49 PM EST
    Jim, a Republican seizing upon a "little girl" comment after the 2004 "John Kerry is a gay Frenchman!" campaign is, well... dunno what to say.

    Re: Why We Need Filibusters (none / 0) (#17)
    by glanton on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 08:40:02 PM EST
    My, what a delightful thread! I'll throw in my two cents and say good, let em change the rules. Let those people get every corporate judge they want on the bench. When a stone the size of Montana is rolling down hill at you, and the best defence you got is a fillibuster, you know you're in trouble. ;-) BTW: I'd like a word or two with Rick Santorum and/or Bill Frist, Dubya, Lott, Rove, whomever. I'd like to ask them since they pissed and moaned about Lawrence v Texas what exactly they think ought to be done with homosexuals, once and for all. I'd love for one of those bastards to show the balls to say it out loud, on camera. Then words like "school girl" really would seem ridiculous, but for now, they seem to fit the bill quite well.

    Re: Why We Need Filibusters (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 10:42:35 AM EST
    scar - Try saying, "Jim is not a Republican," for starts. Glanton - I don't see how you bring in homosexuals, but hey, it is a free country. I was just chiding SD for his usual snarky type comments and attacks.

    Re: Why We Need Filibusters (none / 0) (#19)
    by glanton on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 10:56:22 AM EST
    PPJ: At this point any theoretical discussion about the judiciary is going to need to factor in the "Culture War," within which homosexuality is a central topic. Do not think for a second that the GOP isn't trying to do everything it can, with nominees as well as legislation, to de-legitimize homosexuals as much as possible, and if they can make it overtly illegal they will. But they don't have the guts to say such things, that's the sickest thing of all. Your blindness to the judicial agenda of the GOP amazes me, it really does. But then, you're in the majority in that regard. If FOX says they're not homophobic and they're not eroding foundational liberties, then I guess they're not.

    Re: Why We Need Filibusters (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 05:53:02 PM EST
    Strom Thurmond

    Re: Why We Need Filibusters (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 06:27:18 PM EST
    I hope their position doesn't change when a democrat is in the White House.

    Re: Why We Need Filibusters (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 06:33:50 PM EST
    glanton - I see the homosexual issue as a hot button of the far right, just as abortion is a hot button of the far Left, and both parties will pander to their groups. My point about the judical system is simple. Let's have an up and down vote after some spirited debate and testimony from the individuals. If the appointees are as bad as you say, I don't see the Repubs getting 51 votes. But this continual blockage of the system, and yes the Repubs tried many of the same tactics, is wrong, no matter who does it. And continuing to do so is only going to make the culture wars more bitter, more divisive and more disgusting to reasonable people.

    Why We Need Filibusters | 22 comments (22 topical)