If the Republicans are guilty of anything, it's timidity, not stupidity. They should have pushed for the rule change during Pres. Bush's first term.

While it's easy to indulge in evenhanded recriminations, the reality is that when the Republicans were in the minority, they never used the filibuster to prevent a floor vote on Pres. Clinton's nominees.

Those who did not make it to the bench received an up or down vote on the floor; the GOP did not deny Clinton's nominees an opportunity to see if a simple majority of the Senate -- engaging in their advise-and-consent role -- would back their candidacy.

I think the GOP's move to ensure all judicial nominees receive their "day in court" is a great move; the Senate should not require a supermajority to let the vote take place.

Didja notice the distinction he made?

Conservatives say that liberals are a strange bunch to be defending the filibuster -- and the conservatives have a point. Liberals fought the filibuster when it was used by the Senate's Southern segregationist minority to stall civil rights bills.

IIRC, the Senate's "southern segregationist minority" was composed of Democrats back then. Funny how he doesn't mention that, instead acting as if "liberals" has always meant "Democrats".

I understand your overall point, but I don't think this specific case is an example. The rule change is just for the unprecedented fillibustering of judges, not for legislation.

I'm a Republican and I support them changing this rule and I can live with it when we eventually return to the minority.

If we get to the point where the Senate and the White House are controlled by the same party then we deserve judges whose temperment and, yes, ideology, that the president and majority of senators agree on.

None of these judges is being held up because of some gross misconduct or other egregious behavior. And I think, like Kerrick(sp) for HS secretary, that we can assume if a president's nominee for a position is truly wrong, even his own party controlling the Senate will not be enough to get him approved.

But again, that's not the case with any of these judges.

yeah, this whole filibuster thing is bs

zoe baird got nuked, cause she had a nanny problem. kerrick got nuked, cause he had one too (along with a whole bunch of other crap). clinton still got his people through, if they didn't have any problems (reps screamed, but didn't filibuster, they voted against)

consent seems to equal 51, not 60. and if someone really wants to filibuster, then bring on the marathon sessions. senators these days are pansies, no actual filibusters, just threats to do it.

also, the 60 rule is new, it used to be 2/3, but was downgraded to 60 relatively recently. and yes it is important to note that most of all filibusters throughout history have been by dems (evil kkk ones or not).

To conflate legislative filibusters with the filibuster of judicial nominees, as the quotee here does, is to show a fairly shallow understanding of the whole thing I'm afraid.

Qwinn

I'm with Stephen on this one --- posted on it last week (two years too late, I'm afraid).

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as they say up heah in New England.

Stephen,

I am very open to persuasion via arguments that one should do things the way they have always been done. It fits with my conservative temperment.

So I could very well find your argument about not changing the rules regarding filibusters for nominations to sit on a court to carry sway.

But first-- can you find even a single example where a judge was prevented an up or down vote by the Senate when nominated for a seat on a court?

I can't. And that tells me that it is not the Republicans who are trying to change something, but rather that Republicans are trying to restore things to some sembelance of the way the system worked for decades upon decades.

The closest approximation was Abe Fortas, but the filibuster for him was 1) short, for four days, with a stated purpose not of preventing him from ever getting a vote but rather for giving some in-progress investigations time to be completed, and 2) not one that prevented him from a seat on a particular court. He was already on the Supreme Court, having been confirmed two years prior by essentially the same Senate. In other words, completely not comparable to any of the current filibusters.

Now, the proposed "Constitutional Option" (the phrasing conservatives use) or the "nuclear option" (the press' phrasing) would not alter filibusters for anything other than judicial nominations. Has using this maneuver ever been done before to break a filibuster of a judicial nominee? No-- because there never before has been one. That seems to weaken greatly the argument that the Republicans should follow the way things have always been. Perhaps the Democrats should.

Further, the argument that Republicans should fear the Democrats doing back to them when the Democrats return to power seems weak to me as well. The Democrats have shown that they will create precedents whenever it suits their needs, ignore existing precedents whenever it suits their needs, change rules whenever it suits their needs, whatever.

A system that relies on one side hewing to tradition while the other ignores it is bound to be inequitable. Especially when things that are not tradition are treated as if they are.

Akawie's law of Partisan Overreaching:

Always remember, any power you grant to Janet Reno will some day be in the hands of John Ashcroft. And vice versa.

"Liberals fought the filibuster when it was used by the Senate's Southern segregationist minority to stall civil rights bills."

Umm, No that would have been conservatives who fought the Democrats filibuster of the civil rights bills. Someone needs to get the facts straight.

Agreed, Republicans are desperately overplaying their hand. In some ways, they're worse than the Dems. Government's hand is reaching everywhere, and all the reliable radio hosts contort their views to promote this agenda. I suppose it was all too predictable, but still it saddens me. We need to restart the movement, and define once again what it means to be conservative.

Maybe I'm missing something, but regardless of what the GOP does today, is there anything that would prevent the Democrats from changing the filibuster rules after gaining a Senatorial majority?

And if not, then why should the Republicans be concerned with setting a precedent?

jason: If we get to the point where the Senate and the White House are controlled by the same party then we deserve judges whose temperment and, yes, ideology, that the president and majority of senators agree on.

I find this problematic in terms of lifetime appointments, and even moreso in terms of 'ideology' when considering the judiciary, who is supposed to be unfailing in their devotion to the constitution.

Of course, the term 'activist judges' has been hammered by this administration and ideologues in terms of their favorite boogeymen (gay marriage, abortion, and now terri schiavo). Conveniently, they forget that this term can be applied to judges who just apply ideology instead of strict adherence to the constitution (which in fact, as many constitutional experts argue, may render things like gay marriage legal, not illegal).

The GOP knows this, and is displaying a gross amount of over-reach in order to prevent things like gay marriage from becoming law. Simply because they know it's just as possible that it could be legalized under strict Constitutional conservatism.

So to avoid this, they want to appoint the ideologues who would apply their views to the Constitution for lifetime appointments, thus bringing to the table their own brand of 'activists'.

This is sad. And to dismiss the minority party in this country and their duty to review such appointments Jason, is sad and wrong.

Green's example does in fact apply. Legislation at least can be overturned. Lifetime appointments, however, cannot. It's not playtime for the GOP, and even though I'm a mild republican, I find this behavior reprehensible.

Nah, Dionne's column is fairly off-base, since:

1) Actually, the Democrats did change the rules to limit the filibuster, reducing it from a 2/3rds to a 3/5ths majority-- right after the Watergate elections, when they had a 3/5ths but not 2/3rd majority.

2) Actually, they did consider limiting it further after that several times. Yes, they backed down each time, but they discussed it just as much as the Republicans have now-- and Sen. Byrd as Majority Leader made several speeches about the necessity of changing it.

3) Actually, no one has filibustered judges before. So there are two parties breaking precedent here. Just as increased use of the filibuster led to the invention of cloture in the early part of the century, and again to the 2/3rds to 3/5ths change in cloture later. (And the abolition of the filibuster with the guillotine motion in the House of Commons in the late 19th century in the UK.)

DDD-

Of course people know that the "term [judicial activist] can be applied to judges who just apply ideology instead of strict adherence to the [C]onstitution." However, it's also fairly clear that it's the moderates and liberals on the SCOTUS who also just apply ideology.

Many legal scholars do agree that the Constitution might force some states to recognize gay marriages in other states. Few if any believe that the current Constitution mandates legality of gay marriage. (And indeed, when the ERA was being proposed, supporters loudly blasted opponentns for suggesting that a possible logical consequence was gay marriage. But then Hubert H. Humphrey promised to eat the Federal Register if the Civil Rights Act could be found to support quotas or positive affirmative action in any way.) Most readings of the Consitution would assert that legislatures can allow or disallow gay marriage, just like many other things. Certainly the recent juvenile death-penalty case was an example of the moderates and left on the SCOTUS substituting ideology for law.

You'll have to kindly explain how Justices Scalia and Thomas, for example, do such.

The House does not have the filibuster. It doesn't function less well. The filibuster should be abolished for all purposes. if this helps the Dems or liberals in general down the line, so be it. I

I know for a fact that overturning the Democratic leadership's control of the secrecy of signatories of discharge petitions in 1993 led to their losing control of the House.

I know of no such thing.

Norm Ornstien of AEI went on the record with the Chairman of the Rules Committee in a effort to stop the Republicans from making the names on potential discharge petitions public. He said this would destroy the comedy of the House and make it impossible to stop the chaos or words to that effect.

And they sounded just like EJ. And they were wrong. Some change is good, even for conservatives.

Uh, Stephen, that would be Al MacInnis, wouldn't it? Sorry to be niggling and tangential.
And welcome back, dude.