home

Filibuster Precedent

By Jeralyn, Section Judiciary
Posted on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 08:42:07 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Abe Fortas in 1968.

That four-day talkathon in September 1968 has largely been forgotten. But some Senate Democrats want to bring it back to mind to counter a key Republican attack against their stalling tactics that have blocked confirmation votes for several of President Bush's most conservative judicial nominees. The GOP claim, asserted in speeches, articles and interviews, is that filibusters against judicial nominees are unprecedented.

Not so.

Such claims, however, are at odds with the record of the successful 1968 GOP-led filibuster against President Lyndon B. Johnson's nomination of Abe Fortas to be chief justice of the United States. "Fortas Debate Opens with a Filibuster," a Page One Washington Post story declared on Sept. 26, 1968. It said, "A full-dress Republican-led filibuster broke out in the Senate yesterday against a motion to call up the nomination of Justice Abe Fortas for Chief Justice."

< John Ashcroft's New Gig | Bush Brings Social Security Roadshow to Denver >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Filibuster Precedent | 8 comments (8 topical)
    Re: Filibuster Precedent (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 10:09:07 AM EST
    Considering that 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, it's probably a good thing that Fortas was filibustered; he was far too political to be a justice at all, let alone chief justice. Nevertheless, the claim that this hasn't happened before is wrong. Thanks for pointing this article out Jeralyn.

    Re: Filibuster Precedent (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 11:20:40 AM EST
    Not only is the narrow point that filibusters are unprecedent false, but more broadly, ther's tons of precedent, going back to the time of the founding fathers and continuing through the Clinton administration, for the Senate refusing to bring nominations to a vote. How, exactly, is there a principled difference between a filibuster and what happened to Helene White?

    Re: Filibuster Precedent (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 12:28:14 PM EST
    I can't say I know much about the precedent of filibusters in the nomination of any justice, but considering the GOP and Right Wing have used filibusters many times just says to me perhaps partisan hypocracy is at work here. The longest filibuster is still held by Strom Thurmond against Civil Rights, of all things.

    Re: Filibuster Precedent (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 08:50:50 PM EST
    Glenn M - Can you provide us a link detailing the "many times" the Right Wing used the fillibister on judical nominations? Somehow, I don't think you can. et al - The issue is simple. Can the Repubs change the rules? The answer is, yes. Thank your unprincipled hostility to a debate and a vote to what is going to happen. And if you can't win, start thinking about why that is.

    Re: Filibuster Precedent (none / 0) (#5)
    by terry on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 09:36:40 PM EST
    Jeralyn, I want to know why Dems are stupidly allowing Republicans every chance to talk solely about the filibuster. Every single time they have this discussion on TV or in print, Dems should be pointing out that, despite Democrats' multi-year deference to the "blue slip" rule, Republicans changed the rules as soon as they got in power. Democrats should be pointing out that they were honorable in leadership, unlike Republicans. When Republicans say the filibuster is "unprecedented," it should be pointed out every time that A) that's a lie and B) Republicans didn't have to use the filibuster, but have stripped all of the Democrats' options from them -- the same options they had (and used) during the Clinton years to prevent a so-called "up or down vote."

    Re: Filibuster Precedent (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 19, 2005 at 06:09:40 PM EST
    DA - I have noted that what we should have is debate and a vote. No matter who is in power. Your complaining over the filibuster says that in the arena of ideas, you have lost. Funny thing. There are numerous red hot issues that the Demos can make hay out of, but they are fighting a battle that they can't win. Stupid is as stupid does. Terry. What you fail to understand is this. The majority wanted the judges you are referring to blocked. That same majority is now in power. Guess what? They want them confirmed. This isn't about political debates. It is about getting an agneda completed. BTW - Glen M? I'm waiting!

    Re: Filibuster Precedent (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 19, 2005 at 09:19:42 PM EST
    DA - If you thought the Repubs were making a mistake, you wouldn't be complaining about it. And I never say never, but I don't think the Demos will take back the majority with the current players and plans. Glen M? I'm waiting.

    Re: Filibuster Precedent (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 06:32:38 AM EST
    DA - When did a liberal stand for tradition? Discrimination agauinst blacks? Traditrion. No unions. Tradition. No health care for the poor? Tradition. A liberal believes in change when it is needed. A radical believes in change when he wants it. See the difference.

    Filibuster Precedent | 8 comments (8 topical)