home

Right Wing Groups Break Ranks Over Filibuster

In what may be a coming trend, two right wing organizations have broken ranks with Republicans and are urging the defeat of the nuclear option and retention of the filibuster. They are the Gun Owners of America and the National Right to Work Committee.

[Note: All sources listed below are available on Lexis.com.]

The Gun Owners of America, which has strong libertarian leanings, has broken ranks before. It opposed the Patriot Act, and in particular, sneak and peek searches. [The National Journal November 3, 2001]. In 1998, it opposed Sen. Jeff Sessions ill-conceived and Dickensian juvenile crime bill, S. 10, that was proposed in response to the Arkansas school shootings that year. [Legal Times, March 30, 1998]

The group was an invaluable ally of defense lawyers when we were fighting for reform of the civil asset forfeiture laws and when we battled Newt Gingrich's Contract on America, specifically, the provision that would have made a good-faith exception for warrantless searches and seizures. It co-signed a letter saying:

"Congress should certainly preserve, and indeed strengthen, the Exclusionary Rule to safeguard citizen rights and curb police misconduct." Congress should heed this advice." [Insight on the News December 11, 1995]

In 1994, the group co-signed a letter to President Clinton that argued:

[for the] the appointment of a commission to review the practices "of all federal law enforcement agencies" as a result of "widespread abuses of civil liberties and human rights." [The American Lawyer November, 1995]

The group opposed the 1996 "Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act" (AEDPA)that was a response to the Oklahoma City Bombing and severely curtailed habeas corpus rights.

"We are strongly opposed to provisions of the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995, H. R. 896 or S. 390, which allow the government to engage in activities contrary to constitutional principles of due process, free speech, and freedom of association. We are also strongly opposed to proposals to increase the government's authority to monitor groups, domestic and international, in the absence of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

"We are fully supportive of law enforcement, but history is clear that when the nation has overreached in moments of crisis, the results have been bad for basic freedoms and have diverted law enforcement from its basic mission of apprehending criminals. [PR Newswire, April 27, 1995,]

Here's how one newspaper described the joining of forces of gun groups and liberal organizations:

An odd coalition that includes the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association urged Congress on Tuesday to create independent oversight of federal law enforcement agencies and back off legislation that would give more power to police.

Leaders of the groups said federal raids at Waco, Texas, and Ruby Ridge, Idaho, showed a lack of consistent guidelines and accountability. And they said they were concerned that legislation like the anti-terrorism bill, written in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, would further erode constitutional rights.[Daily Oklahoman (Oklahoma City, OK) October 25, 1995]

Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of Amercia, said at the time:

"When your house is on fire, you don't quibble with the guy who is bringing you a bucket of water especially when the arsonists are the Democratic and Republican leaders in Washington who want to torch the whole Bill of Rights." [Newsday, April 15, 1996]

As to the group's support for preserving the filibuster, their reasons no doubt will make liberals cringe. You can read their statement here.

Unlike most liberals, TalkLeft is a strong supporter of individual rights under the Second Amendment. Nonetheless, our advice to all liberals is: Take your allies where you find them. The point is, whatever your reasons, we must save the Filibuster.

< Music Industry Sues College Kids Over 'Ihub2' | Wednesday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Right Wing Groups Break Ranks Over Filibuster (none / 0) (#1)
    by scarshapedstar on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 03:44:06 AM EST
    Heh, well, nothing I like more than a Coalition of the Odd.

    Actually, I'm not surprised that there is division amongst the right on this issue. Now that the Senate, Congress, most Governorships and the Presidency are under their control, it's fun to watch them bicker amongst themselves. If the "right" were to have their way with judicial fillibusters, they'd be the first to beeyatch about the unfairness of it the next time the shoe is on the other foot.

    And I think it's fun to watch the left bicker among themselves bitterly now that not much of anything is under their control, and unlikely to be under their control anytime soon, ie, don't expect gains in 2006. As somebody center-right, I don't think the filibuster rule should change either.

    If you think about it this could be a blessing in disguise. We may end up with a few more Conservative Judges but, This could also facilitate out taking back the house & senate in 06. Now without the filibuster we could see for example real Gun control. We were so busy giving the Right a fair chance that thousands and thousands have been Murdered as a result. If you add in the recent Brewhaha over the Court's rulings by the right. Trading the Judges for ridding America of the scourge of Guns, may be worth it.

    From a freedom perspective, gun owners are dead right. However I wish they had put all of their energy into the War on Drugs, which was really IMHO the beginning of the erosion of personal freedom and privacy rights. Do I think you should be able to walk into a gun show and buy a couple of 50 caliber rifles? Probably not. Should you be able to set up a cocaine lab in your basement and farm poppies? Probably not either. The good news for the left leaners is that the real coalition of the odd, i.e. moral, fiscal and libertarian conservatives are ultimately a mismatch in terms of vision and goals. The house they built together cannot stand. Or should I say (having watched a PBS Frontline special on him last night) THE HOUSE THAT ROVE BUILT CANNOT STAND.

    Old time republicans will continue to break ranks with the current bunch of oligarchs who have seized control of the country. The oligarchs are not small government fiscal conservatives. Small govt and fiscal conservatism have been hallmarks of traditional republicanism. The libertarians will continue to be a wildcard. Their sensibilities don't allow for consistent alliance with traditional dem or repub parties.

    mfox: I think it started earlier, with the war on communism in the 50's, but Nixon's drug war wasn't too far behind.

    Guntoting indie, you are whistling past the graveyard because you haven't lived long enough to recognize that the two party duopoly in this control is an old tire swing in the back yard.

    The Dem's have filibustered 33% (2/6) of Bush's nominations to the 9th Circuit. Obviously they are intent on keeping the 9th Circuit a bastion of Liberal Ideals. Time to axe the filibuster. The repub's have the votes, expect it soon.

    I can't believe that some people, be they trolls, or legitimately on the left, actually think that either gun control or drugs are important issues right now. Bizarre. Let's not forget to outlaw tobacco, OK? Moonbats and wingnuts. We are doomed.

    Horse With No Name, expect them to force the issue now, because they realize they are losing support fast. Don't be surprised if it fails. The water mark was reached. The tide is coming back in or going back out, depending on your perspective.

    Horse says:
    The Dem's have filibustered 33% (2/6) of Bush's nominations to the 9th Circuit.
    Obviously they are intent on keeping the 9th Circuit a bastion of Liberal Ideals.
    Horse!! You're saying that our fair and balanced President sent up a list of nominees that was 2/3 (or 4/6 as you don't like to reduce your fractions)comprised of Liberal idealists???? I must confess that I'm shocked and pleasantly surprised!

    That's Republican math for you. One for us, nineteen for them.

    Folks, I've sat through the filibuster discussions after coming out of the civil rights wars of the 60's - and haven't been able to put words to the inherent hypocrisy in some of the defenses of the filibuster. This guy does a good job.

    mfox - Why is the Left afraid to debate the merits of the nominees and then have a vote? Is it because they know they will loose?

    I invision Rove's big outhouse collapsing like a house of cards. Make it so, popular opinion.

    Jim - does the phrase tyranny of the majority mean anything to you? Our system is set up to allow a minority to protect itself against a majority who may want to overstep. Now, one question: did it bother you when the Repubs refused to bring up Clinton's judges for a vote?

    PPJ doesn't answer real questions conscious. Lack of appropriate FRAMING.

    True enough mfox, but we should all be required to face certain questions when our positions and statements indicate we are being dishonest or just stupid. I think most of us say something stupid occasionally, and most of us are self-righting in that regard when the stupidity of our statement or position is pointed out. Jim is a typical right-winger that likes to talk about accountability but does not want to be held accountable. Hence, his tactic of changing the argument regularly to avoid straight answers to straight questions. So, Jim - you want to answer the question about Clinton's judge nominees?

    How about let's not play this game altogether. The President has the right of judicial appointment with advise and consent powers by the Congress (anybody think that means a super majority?). If you cannot muster enough votes to block someone getting 51% of the Congressional vote - do better in the next election. (And I apply that to Left, Right, Center, etc judges). Let government do what its supposed to do. The filibuster does not add to the democracy of our country

    JCH, The text of the Constitution does not require a vote on nominees at all, only the advise and consent of the Senate. Such consent, or advise against a nominee, could in theory be shown by a simple majority of the Senators signing a letter to the president approving the nominee or even going over the Whitehouse in person to give their consent in person. I think this may be where Robert Byrd was headed when he brought this up a couple of weeks ago, since he knows that even though Hillary has a decent chance in 2008, the likelihood of the Democrats regaining the Senate with a filibuster proof majority is slim to none. So instead of agreeing to kill it off now, which does them no good, the Democrats may be planning to simply ignore it altogether if they can once again get 51 Senators on their side. In the meantime, we all suffer because Bill Frist is too weak to force a filibuster in reality (which I would prefer) or to follow Byrd's advice on this and go around the threat altogether.

    Is it because they know they will loose?
    you don't fight fight's you can't win (art of war, apparently GWB II was absent from polisci when that reading assignment was required), you use all the means/tools/weapons that have been available to you and the opposition, in this instance "theFilibuster". a tool that has served both parties well. get off the "just vote" stick, it's apparent that's not what they want to do with alternatives/options available.

    Outside, Its not a "they" thing. The filibuster is a double-edged sword which cuts both ways - historically against minorities and civil rights. As the link I put in above points out - we have become so focused on the tactics of today (or the minute) that we lose sight of the strategic picture/thinking.

    So fleet guy, same question: were you bothered when the republicans refused to bring up the Clinton nominees for a vote?

    I wasnt paying any attention to politics at the time - I was bothered in the 60's when the filibuster was used to block voting and civil rights legislation. Click the link at my post above - he mentions that, and this guy states my opinion. Yes, I believe that the filibuster is anti-democratic; and is used to keep the Senate from acting on things unless a super majority is present that was not intended by the founders. This may be particularly true of judicial appointments (conservative or liberal) where advise and consent so much implies a simple majority. Further, to defend its use now when you are likely to get roasted on the spit later is short-sighted politically.

    Here are the most recent stats on judicial nominees: G. W. Bush (to date) Circuit Court 52 nominated 35 or 67% confirmed Fed Dist Court 174 nominated, 162 or 93% confirmed Clinton (2nd Term) Circuit Court 64 nominated 35 or 55% confirmed Fed Dist Court 178 nominated 137 or 77% confirmed Clinton (1st Term) Circuit Court 42 nominated 30 or 71% confirmed Fed Dist Court 204 nominated 170 or 83% confirmed.

    I am not sure when you were following politics fleet guy, but just the past twelve years indicates that the filibuster of Dubya's judicial nominees has been limited to 6 nominees out of hundreds nominated. In the case of the filibuster of the civil rights bill in 1964, it failed. It was long, but democratic president LBJ waited the filibuster out and the civil rights bill passed. The filibuster is a desperate measure and is used sparingly by either party. The current railing against the filibuster is ridiculous given the rate of confirmation of the nominees, but it fits with an attack on the judiciary when it is seen in conjunction with DeLay's comments about the judiciary. So, again, Fleetguy, did it bother you when the Republicans blocked so many of Clinton's nominees to the court?

    I will answer one more time: Despite voting for President Clinton (and Kerry for that matter) I was not paying attention to the filibuster of Pres. Clinton' judicial appointments - so I can only go with my opinion in retrospect above where I make it clear I am opposed to filibusters in general and particularly judicial ones (conservative or liberal). The piece I referenced as modeling my opinion did call that hypocrisy on the part of the Republicans who are currently whining. As to the 1964 Civil Rights filibuster:
    Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the thirty-seven years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure.
    Incidentally, the hero of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a Republican, Minority Whip Everett Dirksen, who gathered the votes necessary to pass this historic legislation.

    Heres an interesting link on Dirksen

    Conscious, You had me answer that question twice because I was apparently unclear the first time - do you feel adequately answered now or do I need to reword it one more time?

    I find your answer evasive. Let me try another way: if the dems blocking 6 or 8 of Dubya's nominees irritates you now, do you feel any chagrin to find out the republicans blocked so many more of Clinton's nominees? If you think it is undemocratic, do you think the repubs who resorted to blocking the nominees and who now complain when it comes back in some measure are being hypocritical? These are simple yes or no questions.

    And I gave simple yes or on answers: yes to both. I told you I agreed with the opinion I linked:
    Yes, the Republican move to disallow filibusters when the Senate takes up presidential nominees is cynical (Republicans seemed pleased enough to have the filibuster when Bill Clinton was president).
    I said:
    I was not paying attention to the filibuster of Pres. Clinton' judicial appointments - so I can only go with my opinion in retrospect above where I make it clear I am opposed to filibusters in general and particularly judicial ones (conservative or liberal).
    If I have to say I am irritated by this - I am irritated by this. I am so confused - I thought I knew English

    Sorry you are irritated. It takes a little thick skin to enjoy these settings. You can expect to be grilled from time to time. So why are you suddenly paying attention to the blocking of six or eight judges now when you weren't paying attention to the blocking of many more judges just a few years ago? And followup question - could it be that you are being manipulated by political hacks on what is really a very standard process of advise and consent? To my way of thinking advise and consent implies that occasionally there will be non-consent. Non-consent may take many forms, it usually takes the form of protracted hearings, public questions, trial in the press, during which time the nominee reads the handwriting on the wall and decides to withdraw his/her willingness to run through this process. This seldom happens to well qualified nominees who have served on the bench in other forums. Their decisions may be reviewed to display their political leaning or constitutional theories, but it's quite different from the process that may be applied to a lobbyist for industry who is suddenly being nominated for a lifelong term on the federal bench. My guess is you don't work in the law, right?

    no, not irritated by the question - I was expressing posthumous irritation at Clinton's filibusters as you requested. Filibuster's have had a history pointed out here. We are in that 4th area where they have exploded. What you said about using it to slow up debate until debate is complete is valuable - using it to stop action is undemocratic. Frankly, all the noise here made me pay attention - not the Republican stuff. I do not like moral/ethical relativism - so I feeled called upon to take a stand on filibusters in general at all times in all places - not just supporting the ones that benefit me and opposing the ones that do not benefit me. I, overall, do not consider in its long history and usage the filibuster to be a good thing. If they are going to have it - go back to the take the floor and hold it stage. Make them talk for 17 hours not just say they will. At least it wouldn't be so easy and they might not do it so much in this C-Span era