home

Filibuster History

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 07:15:08 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Crooks and Liars has a CBS video clip from Walter Cronkite's September 25th, 1968 broadcast with W GOP Sen. Robert Griffin justifying the Republican's use of the filibuster to block President Johnson's nominee Abe Fortus for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. As we noted here, Republicans have been inaccurately describing such use of the filuster as "unprecedented." [link fixed]

< Death Row Sentences Drop to Lowest Level Since 1976 | Attention Sirius Radio Listeners >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Filibuster History | 14 comments (14 topical)
    Re: Filibuster History (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 08:20:15 PM EST
    Bad url on the CBS video clip, you didn't put the h on the http. Correct link is here As always you rock. [Thanks, Karl, I fixed it.]

    Re: Filibuster History (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 08:43:52 PM EST
    et al - You need a better exampke. LBJ withdrew the nomination. He understood that, even with a majority of his party in the Senate, and even with his legendary arm twisting skills, Fortas could not be confirmed because of bi-partisan understanding that he was very damaged goods.

    Re: Filibuster History (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 09:29:01 PM EST
    Wow, Maybe we can get Senator Byrd to talk about the 1964 Civil Rights filibuster he was involved in.

    Re: Filibuster History (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 09:58:41 PM EST
    PPJ, Maybe President Bush should withdraw the nominees of his whom are "damaged goods." Joe Biden has proferred a compromise wherein Bush could withdraw the worst 2 or 3 and the rest would not be filibustered.

    Re: Filibuster History (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 10:07:07 PM EST
    Justin- You must have forgotten Bush's motto- "My way or the highway." Frist is being pushed by the far-right, and Rove is whispering in his ear, "If you wanna run for prez in '08..." It's the hammer-and-anvil, business as usual in the Senate, House and White House. These guys make the Clinton Administration look like the BoyScout era. Blaghdaddy was off to bed but saw the new posting...now he's really, really going, so PPJ can talk more nonsense and pretend that the far-right aren't the biggest hypocrites within earshot of Washington. Goodnight all.

    Re: Filibuster History (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 10:45:28 PM EST
    This is a great video. I think all Americans should see it! It is hard to pick my favorite part. Maybe it was Senate Majority Leader (and Democrat), Mike Mansfield’s warning to “all members of the court.” Or maybe it was Democrat Philip Hart stating that “…the meat and potatoes of the issue before the Senate is, ‘Is Mr. Justice Fortas qualified?’” Hopefully, this is only the first in a series. Part two could be the clip where Abe Fortas admits that he had lied in the Judiciary Committee hearings, PRIOR to this filibuster. Part three could be the clip where Abe Fortas resigns from the Supreme Court because he was taking bribes. Two questions come to mind. First, was Abe Fortas on the Supreme Court when the filibuster began? Second, was Abe Fortas on the Supreme Court when the filibuster ended? For those of you in Rio Linda, both answers start with the letter “Y.” The Fortas filibuster lasted about a week. Even if each of the Democrats’ filibusters had lasted ten times that long, the Republicans would not be considering changing the rules.

    Re: Filibuster History (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 12:32:04 AM EST
    Soldier, I really have no clue what you're talking about. Maybe because it's late, but what was the point again? The Senate is a deliberative, not a majoritarian, body. The purpose for its existence is to protect the rights of the minority (although, ironically, in this case Democratic Senators represent a majority of US citizens). It has a tradition of unlimited debate, hence the filibuster. Not extended, mind you, but unlimited. A filibuster can be overridden by a 3/5 vote. Since about half of Democrats tend to vote with Republicans on most legislation, and those votes don't seem to be there now, I get the feeling that these few nominees (fill me in, Talkleft, is it 5? I can't remember) don't exactly inspire broad support. That, in turn, tells me that they should not be approved. It's not an unreasonable argument. Do we want good justices or extremist ones?

    Re: Filibuster History (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 03:05:58 AM EST
    Do we want good justices or extremist ones?
    The extremists want extremist judges and they are willing to go to extremes to get them. This is the most important point in U.S. history since Watergate.

    Re: Filibuster History (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 03:53:31 AM EST
    Justine, thank you for the respectful response. I have no problem with unlimited debate. But, this is unlimited non-debate. You have a minority of Senators saying, “We don’t want to talk about this.” And in so doing, denying the right of debate, to the remaining Senators. While the filibuster has been used for many subjects, the main subject that comes to my mind is civil rights. The filibuster was used to prevent civil rights legislation from the late 1800s up until 1957. I cringe every time I hear someone say, “The filibuster is used to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.” For 70 years, a minority of Senators used the filibuster to guarantee the “tyranny of the majority.” If the Senate wants to use the Frank Kapra style of filibuster, where one or more Senators hold the floor and speak on topic, then I am all for it. But, if the filibuster amounts to reading the phonebook aloud or worse, suppressing debate (as is happening now), then it should be eliminated completely. Using your reasoning about voting closure, I would have to conclude that you believe that civil rights legislation not passing earlier, is a good thing. Truthfully, Justine, I don't believe that about you.

    Re: Filibuster History (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 03:54:33 AM EST
    Justin, sorry I got your name wrong.

    Re: Filibuster History (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 06:39:50 AM EST
    Posted by JCHFleetguy at April 25, 2005 10:29 PM Wow, Maybe we can get Senator Byrd to talk about the 1964 Civil Rights filibuster he was involved in. Maybe we could get the Fristian fundies to talk about the filibuster that the current senate leader engaged in in 2000, too!

    Re: Filibuster History (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 10:15:40 AM EST
    Justin - The problem LBJ had was he could not find the support to carry the nominee, even with no filibuster, even with a vote. Even with a Democratic majority. So he withdrew. Bush has the support to carry the nominee, all he has to do is get a vote in the Senate. And since the Senate is a "deliberative" body, if the Democrats will kindly get out of the way, the Senate can debate, deliberate, BS8 and then... are you ready for this??? VOTE!!!!! What a concept! Blaghdaddy - Hmmmm, Paul in LA drops off the face of the earth and you show up... Are you...PIL...without the "everyone is a racist who disagrees with me" bit? Oppps, I just read your "killing gets little attention" comment, so I'll have to take back that "everyone is a racist" qualifier. As for Bush. You are right. He isn't poll driven, so his actions have been totally confusing to the media, both left and right. If you want to know what he is going to do, all you have to do us listen. Only a Leftie would consider that to be bad. Ernesto - One more time. If they are so bad the Demos should be able to muster 51 votes. Since they can't, that makes their actions just political. BTW - You still haven't answered my question.

    Re: Filibuster History (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 11:33:22 AM EST
    Actually, I hope the filibuster stays - people so ingrained in the "advantage of the moment" over inherent process - deserve to live to see that current advantage turned to their disadvantage (again) in the future. After the dismal use of the filibuster to block civil rights and other progressive legislation for years; and your frequent pointing to what happened during Clinton - WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING IT? Use the short-term ("advantage of the moment") thinking of the Republicans to kill this dinosaur.

    Re: Filibuster History (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 12:19:43 PM EST
    Whosoever looketh into the perfect law of liberty,and continueth therein,he being not aforgetful hearer,but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.James 1-25 through 27

    Filibuster History | 14 comments (14 topical)