Which side is approaching the issue of judicial filibuster correctly?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 12:35:28 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Which side is approaching the issue of judicial filibuster correctly?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Poll
Question: Which side is approaching the issue of judicial filibuster correctly?
#1
Moderates
#2
Democrats
#3
Republicans
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results


Author Topic: Which side is approaching the issue of judicial filibuster correctly?  (Read 4470 times)
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: May 22, 2005, 07:50:20 PM »

The problem is the grounds used.  A constitutional issue is litigable.  Claiming that this ruling is based on a constitutional provision, puts this into the judicial branch.  If there were some "non-constitutional" ground, that could possibly be different, but they are arguing it on constitutional grounds.

Now, if they could reasonably interpret the rules, as the exist, as permitting the majority to limit debate, it would not be a constitutional issue and could not be reviewed by the courts.

The GOP argument here is ultimately, this violateds the rules, but the rules violate the Constitution.  The problem is, the Senate is not the final word on constitutional issues.  The courts would almost have to rule that the senate did not have the power to create the 2/3 vote cloture rule in the first place.
The Senate may change the rules for whatever reason it pleases, including perceived unconstitutionality, and the Supreme Court does not have the authority review the rule change unless the new rule is itself unconstitutional. The grounds of the rule change, in my opinion, are absolutley irrelevant; what matters is whether the rule itself is constitutional or not. Otherwise, the independence of the Senate would be meaningless.

You notice in Ballin, they said or fundamental rights.  The right to demand that an in force rule be enforced is a "fundamental right."
Fundamental rights are those that belong to the People. Senators do not have "fundamental rights" in that capacity.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: May 22, 2005, 08:04:14 PM »

The problem is the grounds used.  A constitutional issue is litigable.  Claiming that this ruling is based on a constitutional provision, puts this into the judicial branch.  If there were some "non-constitutional" ground, that could possibly be different, but they are arguing it on constitutional grounds.

Now, if they could reasonably interpret the rules, as the exist, as permitting the majority to limit debate, it would not be a constitutional issue and could not be reviewed by the courts.

The GOP argument here is ultimately, this violateds the rules, but the rules violate the Constitution.  The problem is, the Senate is not the final word on constitutional issues.  The courts would almost have to rule that the senate did not have the power to create the 2/3 vote cloture rule in the first place.
The Senate may change the rules for whatever reason it pleases, including perceived unconstitutionality, and the Supreme Court does not have the authority review the rule change unless the new rule is itself unconstitutional. The grounds of the rule change, in my opinion, are absolutley irrelevant; what matters is whether the rule itself is constitutional or not. Otherwise, the independence of the Senate would be meaningless.

You notice in Ballin, they said or fundamental rights.  The right to demand that an in force rule be enforced is a "fundamental right."
Fundamental rights are those that belong to the People. Senators do not have "fundamental rights" in that capacity.

The Supreme Court, in Ballin, noted that legislators did.  Now we are no only talking about overturning a Senate rule, but Supreme Court precedent.  That yet another reason why the strategy is bad.
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: May 22, 2005, 10:38:07 PM »

Republicans. The filibuster was never used to block judicial nominees that would otherwise be confirmed before. The Democrats are completely out of power, so now they want to stack the courts with Kennedy/Stevens-types so they can legislate from the bench.

Just beat back the obstructionists and be done with it.

The GOP blocked MORE THAN SIXTY of CLinton's judges who would have been confirmed if votes were held.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: May 22, 2005, 11:11:20 PM »

Republicans. The filibuster was never used to block judicial nominees that would otherwise be confirmed before. The Democrats are completely out of power, so now they want to stack the courts with Kennedy/Stevens-types so they can legislate from the bench.

Just beat back the obstructionists and be done with it.

The GOP blocked MORE THAN SIXTY of CLinton's judges who would have been confirmed if votes were held.

 

I'm completely in favor of abolishing all minority prevention of a vote, but I will point out that the GOP was in the MAJORITY for 6 of Clinton's eight years. 
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: May 22, 2005, 11:18:01 PM »

Republicans. The filibuster was never used to block judicial nominees that would otherwise be confirmed before. The Democrats are completely out of power, so now they want to stack the courts with Kennedy/Stevens-types so they can legislate from the bench.

Just beat back the obstructionists and be done with it.

The GOP blocked MORE THAN SIXTY of CLinton's judges who would have been confirmed if votes were held.

 

I'm completely in favor of abolishing all minority prevention of a vote, but I will point out that the GOP was in the MAJORITY for 6 of Clinton's eight years. 

They were in the majority, however their was still enough support from moderate Republicans to get the judges approved.  The heads of the party (Lott, Frist & a few others) knew that so they blocked the vote.  In both cases their were judges which if a full senate voted on would have been confirmed, but were blocked in procedural manuevers & not allowed to have a full vote on.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: May 22, 2005, 11:34:18 PM »

Republicans. The filibuster was never used to block judicial nominees that would otherwise be confirmed before. The Democrats are completely out of power, so now they want to stack the courts with Kennedy/Stevens-types so they can legislate from the bench.

Just beat back the obstructionists and be done with it.

The GOP blocked MORE THAN SIXTY of CLinton's judges who would have been confirmed if votes were held.

 

I'm completely in favor of abolishing all minority prevention of a vote, but I will point out that the GOP was in the MAJORITY for 6 of Clinton's eight years. 

They were in the majority, however their was still enough support from moderate Republicans to get the judges approved.  The heads of the party (Lott, Frist & a few others) knew that so they blocked the vote.  In both cases their were judges which if a full senate voted on would have been confirmed, but were blocked in procedural manuevers & not allowed to have a full vote on.

It depends on the method, but I'm 100% in favor of ending "blue slips" and unlimited debate.  There are some procedural methods, like postponing indefinitely and laying on the table which I do favor, because these require majority action.
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: May 23, 2005, 12:00:14 AM »

Republicans. The filibuster was never used to block judicial nominees that would otherwise be confirmed before. The Democrats are completely out of power, so now they want to stack the courts with Kennedy/Stevens-types so they can legislate from the bench.

Just beat back the obstructionists and be done with it.

The GOP blocked MORE THAN SIXTY of CLinton's judges who would have been confirmed if votes were held.

 

I'm completely in favor of abolishing all minority prevention of a vote, but I will point out that the GOP was in the MAJORITY for 6 of Clinton's eight years. 

They were in the majority, however their was still enough support from moderate Republicans to get the judges approved.  The heads of the party (Lott, Frist & a few others) knew that so they blocked the vote.  In both cases their were judges which if a full senate voted on would have been confirmed, but were blocked in procedural manuevers & not allowed to have a full vote on.

It depends on the method, but I'm 100% in favor of ending "blue slips" and unlimited debate.  There are some procedural methods, like postponing indefinitely and laying on the table which I do favor, because these require majority action.

What happened with Clinton wasn't majority action, it was the act of a few within the majority, not the majority as a whole
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: May 23, 2005, 01:00:41 AM »

My point is, a minority shouldn't be able to do that.

Logged
MissCatholic
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,424


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: May 23, 2005, 09:22:10 AM »

A minority must have some sort of rights. If a president gets 100% of the vote but his party only has 44 senators. then the majority house can force decisions on the president that he doesnt want.

Strem cell research will put bush in a tight spot. highlighing the growing theocracy in america.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: May 23, 2005, 09:52:30 AM »

A minority must have some sort of rights. If a president gets 100% of the vote but his party only has 44 senators. then the majority house can force decisions on the president that he doesnt want.

Strem cell research will put bush in a tight spot. highlighing the growing theocracy in america.

I'm not aguing that that minority shouldn't have some right, but am suggesting that unlimited debate isn't one of them.
Logged
MissCatholic
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,424


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: May 23, 2005, 10:09:46 AM »

I understand what your suggesting but this is not what the issue is about. The Republicans SAY they will only use it for judicial nominees but these nominees are extreme.

Terri Schiavo was convicted to die by Reagan judges. Yet the religious right blamed the courts for her death. They support the end to the filibuster because they think the judges that are doing this are liberal judges. They are telling stories.

The republicans that are trying to find a way to negiotiate are those that have been in the senate along tim or they live in a national democratic state.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: May 23, 2005, 10:25:56 AM »

I'd actually be in favor of ending judiciial filbusters but I'm also in favor of a supermajority to confirm judges. It's not ridiculous to demand a judge get 60 votes to confirm, when you consider most judges are confirmed almost unanimously.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: May 23, 2005, 10:45:07 AM »

If they're so out of the mainstream, they won't get 50 votes. If they can get 50 votes, they aren't out of the mainstream in the Senate, which is all that matters, as it's the body that confirms judges.
Logged
MissCatholic
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,424


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: May 23, 2005, 10:53:24 AM »

If any Republican stands up to the religious right the moment they are up for re-electino they will have to run agaisnt a Pat Robertson Republican - ask Arlen Spector.

Republicans have to sit with Robertson or they will get another nutty to replace him. Notice the number of republicans writing books saying thatits our party too.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: May 23, 2005, 10:54:40 AM »

Um, nomo, can you follow a point?
Logged
MissCatholic
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,424


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: May 23, 2005, 10:56:53 AM »

Yes i`m saying that republicans are scared of Pat Robertson as if they dont vote how he would vote then they will find republicans like yourself to oust them.

You must be a Robertson disciple and follow the party line. Ask RickSantorum represents PA, but thinks he represents Texas.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: May 23, 2005, 10:58:59 AM »

How dumb. You can't cite political pressures as a reason to allow obstructionism. If senators are influenced by their constituents, I guess the system is working.
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: May 23, 2005, 12:13:24 PM »

I'd have to say Moderates because, I, for one, don't want Democrats to perish on the sword for being "obstructionists"; however principled, such obstruction may be. That said, I'm all for compromise so I wish the moderates on either side of the divide well in their efforts

Ideally, all senators should to reflect the views (in voting) of their electorate - this, however, needs to be tempered with what they consider to be, rightly (or wrongly), best for the nation

Furthermore, judicial nominations should never be for ideological reasons. The less ideological the judiciary the better that judiciary will be

Dave
Logged
Brandon H
brandonh
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,305
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.48, S: 1.74

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: May 23, 2005, 03:01:51 PM »

I don't like the Democrats filibustering the nominees, but I don't want the Republicans to end the filibuster. I hope a compromise can be reached. (I find it ridiculious though that more people think the Dem's are right than the Moderates, even more so that it is more than the Mod's and Rep's combined.)

One thing that keeps coming up is "limiting debate". What the Democrats is doing is not really a "filibuster". A real filibuster is what Strom Thurmond did when he talked for 24 hours straight. Maybe they should start enforcing the rule that if you want to filibuster, you actually need to talk.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: May 23, 2005, 04:47:09 PM »

I don't like the Democrats filibustering the nominees, but I don't want the Republicans to end the filibuster. I hope a compromise can be reached. (I find it ridiculious though that more people think the Dem's are right than the Moderates, even more so that it is more than the Mod's and Rep's combined.)

One thing that keeps coming up is "limiting debate". What the Democrats is doing is not really a "filibuster". A real filibuster is what Strom Thurmond did when he talked for 24 hours straight. Maybe they should start enforcing the rule that if you want to filibuster, you actually need to talk.

I do want the filibuster ended, but I also want debate, just not unlimited debate.

Yes, there should be a requirement for a filibuster to be people talking. 

One question thast I have is that if the filibuster is ended, will the nominees be confirmed?  My guess is that some won't.
Logged
Palefire
Rookie
**
Posts: 234


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: May 23, 2005, 04:53:40 PM »

I don't like the Democrats filibustering the nominees, but I don't want the Republicans to end the filibuster. I hope a compromise can be reached. (I find it ridiculious though that more people think the Dem's are right than the Moderates, even more so that it is more than the Mod's and Rep's combined.)

One thing that keeps coming up is "limiting debate". What the Democrats is doing is not really a "filibuster". A real filibuster is what Strom Thurmond did when he talked for 24 hours straight. Maybe they should start enforcing the rule that if you want to filibuster, you actually need to talk.

I do want the filibuster ended, but I also want debate, just not unlimited debate.

Yes, there should be a requirement for a filibuster to be people talking. 

One question thast I have is that if the filibuster is ended, will the nominees be confirmed?  My guess is that some won't.

If the filibuster is ended, I'll be suprised if all the judges don't get confirmed. But, I hope you are correct - it would at least show moderation after the fact. I think the actual judges have more support from the GOP than the idea of ending the filibuster. Who knows?
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: May 23, 2005, 07:05:27 PM »

It has been solved; two have been withdrawn.  Owens is up for a vote.

There will be no filibustering for the SCOTUS, execpt in "extreme cases."
Logged
Schmitz in 1972
Liberty
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,317
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: May 23, 2005, 07:11:33 PM »

It doesn't matter which side is approaching it better because both sides are approaching it infinitely better than the cowards from the center who have just made a terrible "compromise" that benefits neither side
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: May 23, 2005, 07:16:32 PM »

There will be no filibustering for the SCOTUS, execpt in "extreme cases."

If that's Robert Bork, okay. If it's Scalia, no real deal has been reached, as the Democrats are just lying.
Logged
Schmitz in 1972
Liberty
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,317
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: May 23, 2005, 07:23:36 PM »

There will be no filibustering for the SCOTUS, execpt in "extreme cases."

If that's Robert Bork, okay. If it's Scalia, no real deal has been reached, as the Democrats are just lying.

What in the heck is wrong with Bork? He was a well qualified guy who would have made decisions (for the most part) based on the Constitution. Instead we get stuck with that weasel Kennedy who makes decisions based on international law
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.055 seconds with 13 queries.