Via Kos
The tactics Republicans used during the Clinton years to block judicial nominees are coming back to haunt them.
The Republicans used committees and a host of since-discarded rules (like one requiring both home state senators to sign off on any judicial nominees) to hold up a large slate of Clinton judicial nominees. It was their preferred method of obstruction, which they gleefully wielded. Jesse Helms alone was a one-man obstruction machine.
And yes, they even used the now-maligned filibuster to try and stop Richard Paez from the 9th Circuit. Sen. Smith, Republican of NH, even said on the floor of the Senate:
But don’t pontificate on the floor of the Senate and tell me that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States of America by blocking a judge or filibustering a judge that I don’t think deserves to be on the circuit court because I am going to continue to do it at every opportunity I believe a judge should not be on that court. That is my responsibility. That is my advise and consent role, and I intend to exercise it. I don’t appreciate being told that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States. I swore to uphold that Constitution, and I am doing it now by standing up and saying what I am saying." (March 7, 2000)Frist voted with Smith on his filibuster.
Someone needs to remind Frist of this when he makes his speech this Sunday.
I’ll note again that Democrats have blocked only 10 of 229 nominees Bush put forward. Surely that does not represent an abuse of their Constitutional role in the process. There is no justification for changing the rules here.
Justification? What makes you think Frist cares about justification? We’ve been treated to lies, distortions, phony sanctimonious arguments on Social Security, estate taxes, Schiavo, judicial appointments, and that’s just the last few weeks. You think they care about justification on the filibuster?
I’m all for the minority filibustering nominees they don’t think are qualified for the job, but I’m not sure what I think about the minority claiming that they’ve only blocked 10 of 229 appointees. All of the minority filibusters have been aimed at Circuit Court appointees, and the figure is much more impressive presented this way — the minority has been able to block 10 of 60 circuit court appointees (20 more were dropped for various other reasons), nearly twenty percent of the total.
Rather than run from this record, the minority should embrace it: “The president isn’t simply offering a few nutcase appointees to appease the base, he’s offering scads of them. So far we’ve been able to stop the worst of them — with your help we can stop the rest.”
No, I don’t think they care about justification. I think they care about as close as they can get to absolute power. I think their centrist supporters care about justification though, and without appealing to the center, Frist’s odds of getting elected president are really, really slim. Hence, the method behind my madness…
All of the minority filibusters have been aimed at Circuit Court appointees, and the figure is much more impressive presented this way — the minority has been able to block 10 of 60 circuit court appointees
Good clarification notyou…I hadn’t thought of it in those terms.
Actually, Bernard…I think all of this is a means toward clearing the path for a radical Supreme to sail through.
Well, there’s always this, as supplied by the ever-helpful apostropher in comments over at Steve Verdon’s.
GWB: 88%
WJC: 81%
GHWB: 77%
RWR: 88%
So, neither the griping nor the heads-I-win-tails-you-lose arguments seem to make much sense.
The final vote on cloture was 85-14 and Paez was confirmed 59-39. On Paez, a majority of Republicans sided with all of the Democrats in opposing the filibuster. It still remains that Senate Democrats changed precedent by adopting anti-democratic tactics, requiring a 60-vote supermajorities instead of the traditional majority vote. I didn’t approve of Senate Republicans stalling Clinton’s nominees and playing the blue slip game, I also don’t approve of judicial nominees being refused a vote in the first place, and Frist was a hypocrite for voting no on cloture in 2000.
I didn’t approve of Senate Republicans stalling Clinton’s nominees and playing the blue slip game, I also don’t approve of judicial nominees being refused a vote in the first place, and Frist was a hypocrite for voting no on cloture in 2000.
It may be, as others have suggested, that the Democrats have played their best cards too quickly here. Clearly the Supremes are the folks most worthy fighting over…
Frist shuts down Senate (literally) to stop Dems from objecting to the Bolton nomination.
let’s hear some chirping, GOP crickets.
Oh I’m sure we’ll have a copious post by C. Bird pretty soon. He really hates these anti-democratic tactics. You know he does.
OT – hey, we got a new pope!
I’m sorry, I thought the game being played was something like “anything not specifically forbidden is fair game”. So silly of me.
If, on the other hand, rules were violated, someone needs to go stand in a corner for the next couple of weeks.
I’m sorry, I thought the game being played was something like “anything not specifically forbidden is fair game”.
sorry, i didn’t know we were playing any kind of game. but if that’s the game, how can i tell who’s playing which side? can we color-code our names or something ?
Everything’s a game, cleek. Why do you think we have rules?
It still remains that Senate Democrats changed precedent by adopting anti-democratic tactics, requiring a 60-vote supermajorities instead of the traditional majority vote. I didn’t approve of Senate Republicans stalling Clinton’s nominees and playing the blue slip game, I also don’t approve of judicial nominees being refused a vote in the first place, and Frist was a hypocrite for voting no on cloture in 2000.
They didn’t just “stall” Clinton’s nominees, Charles, they blocked a fair number of them from coming to a vote. Now they piously proclaim that every nominee is “entitled to an up-or-down vote.” That’s worse than hypocritical. Would they be saying that if Kerry had been elected?
Rather than revisit old arguments about tradition, parliamentary maneuvers, etc. let me ask you something. What should happen? You concede, I think, that Republicans unfairly blocked Clinton nominees, thereby creating vacancies for Bush to fill. So are Democrats obligated to roll over without a fight, and let Bush fill these seats with his choices, including even the nutballs being filibustered? That looks awfully one-sided to me. Sure, you can cloak it in, “Let’s stop the nonsense and let a fair process work,” but we all know the outcome of that. Can you honestly claim it would be equitable?
If someone can defend the Federal court nominees on their merits, I wish they would. Frankly, I don’t think it can be done. They are a collection of individuals who have expressed extremist views, many of whom lack qualifications. One, for example, is a lobbyist with no law experience at all. This is important because we all have to live the results. So it isn’t a question of who is messing with the rules. It is a question of who is promoting unqualified people and extremists, and who is trying to prevent us from being inflicted with the unqualified people and extremists.
I know process matters, but we have strayed so far from responisble political process in Congress that it will take years and many elections before we get back. In the mean time I don’t want to see one of the parties that has abused process to succeed in inflicting seriously harmful judges on the rest of us.
Naming names would be nice, lily. Not having followed this closely, I have no idea what you’re talking about.
I’m sorry, Slarti, but I am really aphasic about names. One of the individuals I am speaking of is from California, but trwice was been refused a recommendation by the California bar. Another is a former lobbyist. He has written that the profits derived by private businesses from the use of public resources such as the National Forests are private property and constitutionally protected from regulation (takings). He has stated that the Endagered Species Act is unconstitutional on this basis. Mostly I have learned about this from NPR, but also Hilzoy had some posts about it. I think my other source was Bull Moose, but I’m not sure. Also, there has been information about this in either Audubon or the Nature Conservancy magazine, probably Audubon.
I’d think that putting a former lobbyist for natural resources exploitation on any court that’s likely to hear such cases is a lot like putting a wife-beater on the bench in family court.
Which, you know, has happened. I think the guy’s still on the bench, despite having threatened a juvenile with an unregistered firearm. Of course this is in small-town Indiana, so it’s largely invisible.
It still remains that Senate Democrats changed precedent by adopting anti-democratic tactics…
Let’s try that again, shall we? The Senate Democrats, responding Republican outright anti-democratic tactics (blue-slipping), changed tactics. [Not precedent, incidentally; filibusters against judicial nominations go back a long way.] That change, i.e. the threatened filibuster, is only “anti-democratic” if you believe that playing by the current Senate rules is “anti-democratic”. [See Slarti’s 12:51pm post.] There’s an argument lurking within the quoted sentence that might, barely, give you something approximately like what you wrote, but you’ll need to do some serious spadework in order to make it stick.
Just out of curiosity, which kind of filibuster are we talking about, traditional or procedural? I’m all for the Mr. Smith style, but this procedural nonsense is just that.
On the other hand, is the nuclear option even necessary? I thought the Senate majority leader could require a traditional filibuster? If not the rules should at least be changed to remove the procedural variety. In my opinion, and this is regardless of the context, if the opposition doesn’t have the conviction to undertake an actual filibuster, they should just put the issue to a vote.
However, I will have to admit that I’m approaching the point where I think the GOP should either go nuclear or just shut up about it.
let’s hear some chirping, GOP crickets.
Yep, pretty effective, cleek. So effective that Democrats are still going to get their time to find more dirt on Bolton.
So are Democrats obligated to roll over without a fight, and let Bush fill these seats with his choices, including even the nutballs being filibustered?
The issue with the nuclear option, Bernard, is that Democrats already employed it by filibustering. When you filibuster circuit court nominees for the first time in American history, you’ve fundamentally change the landscape. The tradition of Senators stalling nominees through delays is a long one, played by both sides. Not that I like it, but that’s how the game was played. I don’t mind that Democrats fight. I expect it. But I do mind that they call something nuclear without acknowledging that their own actions were just as radioactive. They should change the name of their party because their actions are surely not democratic, not when a minority, driven by hardline leftist groups like People for the American Way, are foiling the will of the people. It’s a joke that these judges are called extremists, particularly when these special interest groups are much closer to the periphery than the judges.
If the Senate, as a whole, has a problem with a nominee, then checks and balances will kick in and that person will be appropriately voted down. The issue isn’t competence with these judges. They’ve all been highly rated by the ABA. The issue is power politics. If Democrats really want to block nominees, they should do it the old-fashioned way: win elections. Everything happens in cycles. You had your day in the sun. Now we have ours. Someday, the shoe will be on the other foot. I suspect, though, that with you guys using these vindictive tactics and being the Party of NO instead of the Party of Better Ideas, your day in the sun will be a long time coming.
They should change the name of their party because their actions are surely not democratic, not when a minority, driven by hardline leftist groups like People for the American Way, are foiling the will of the people.
Right, and the Republican party should totally change their name too because their actions are surely not democratic, not when they devolve to lockstep fanatical pro-monarchical policies driven by even-more-hardline far-right moonbats like James Dobson, Grover Norquist or, heck, Dick Cheney!
Sheesh. And you wonder why people have a hard time reading what you write?
you guys using these vindictive tactics and being the Party of NO instead of the Party of Better Ideas, your day in the sun will be a long time coming.
As has been repeatedly pointed out to you: the Democrats are, in fact, the Party of Better Ideas. [I happen to think that holds in all definitions of the term, but it certainly holds in the manner in which you’re using it.] The problem isn’t that they lack Better Ideas, the problem is that people like you continually refuse to recognize this.
They’ve all been highly rated by the ABA.
Not true.
Four of them, Myers, Pryor, Brown, and Griffith were rated “qualified,” as opposed to “well-qualified,” with a substantial minority considering them “not qualified.” Other ratings varied.
If the Senate, as a whole, has a problem with a nominee, then checks and balances will kick in and that person will be appropriately voted down.
Yeah. They told me that in Junior High Civics class too. Funny how the Republicans didn’t think this was the case during the Clinton Administration. Else why bother killing nominations in committee?
As for “better ideas,” I don’t see the Republicans being particularly open to Democratic suggestions. They rejected a boatload of amendments to the bankruptcy bill. They reject modifications to the estate tax in favor of tax relief for the private airplane set. In the House the Republican leadership has a lovely habit of only letting Democrats see lengthy bills a few minutes before the vote. Bush won’t let anyone with any sign of being a Democrat into his phony Social Security meetings. There have been some suggestions for small changes to Social Security – ignored. A principal Republican strategist considers bipartisanship to be date rape.
So the Democrats are faced with the choice of accepting or rejecting Republican proposals. No compromise.
Finally claiming that the “hardline leftist” PFAW is foiling the will of the people is absurd. PFAW is no extremist organization. They are liberal, true, but the “extreme” label just can’t be justified. It’s a bad joke compared to the stranglehold people like Dobson and the FRC have on the Republicans.
“A principal Republican strategist considers bipartisanship to be date rape.”
Given that when I hear the phrase “bipartisan”, my thoughts are “ahh, so both sides of the political class are in agreement on how to screw us”, this isn’t that shocking.
Right, and the Republican party should totally change their name too because their actions are surely not democratic, not when they devolve to lockstep fanatical pro-monarchical policies driven by even-more-hardline far-right moonbats like James Dobson, Grover Norquist or, heck, Dick Cheney!
You’d have had a point if you had actually cited a Republican-led filibuster, Anarch.
As has been repeatedly pointed out to you: the Democrats are, in fact, the Party of Better Ideas.
If you believe that, you should encourage your fellow party members to make Better Ideas a higher priority than “No”. Alas.
So the Democrats are faced with the choice of accepting or rejecting Republican proposals.
There’s another choice, Bernard: Winning elections. If you don’t believe PFAW is not hardline and at the political fringe, I can’t help you.
Yeah, Bernard. It’s not like Charles could, you know, outline exactly how PFAW is hardline and at the political fringe, and use actual statements and positions from them to support his argument. Asserting it flatly and expecting you and everyone else to accept it should be good enough. Now sit down and be quiet.
Kinda funny that Charles actually admits that Democrats should not expect any compromise from Republicans. I didn’t expect it, but, well, there it is.
Charles: You’d have had a point if you had actually cited a Republican-led filibuster, Anarch.
I didn’t realize there were secret rules to this game, Charles. Had they been posted, doubtless I’d have played by them; as it is, my point — actually points, for the cognoscenti or for those who take the time to read what I wrote — stands just fine, thanks all the same.
[And you’re surely not insinuating that the Republicans have never led a judicial filibuster, are you? Because that precedent-breaking act is the GOP’s alone.]
If you believe that, you should encourage your fellow party members to make Better Ideas a higher priority than “No”. Alas.
They did and do; again, the fact that you’re not listening doesn’t change this. You even implicitly acknowledge the problem, as Phil points out, when you say that the only way to enact those Better Ideas is to win elections. [How on earth could one ever expect Better Ideas to achieve bipartisan support? Preposterous!] So what you’re really saying is not that the Democrats aren’t the party of Better Ideas, it’s that the Democrats’ Better Ideas don’t count unless they win elections… which is a much different proposition than the one you’ve ostensibly been claiming.
Phil: Asserting it flatly and expecting you and everyone else to accept it should be good enough.
I’ve always thought of this as worthy of an UltraKarnak Award, given to those — oh heck, I’ll follow in Charles’ footsteps: to conservatives, because of course liberals would never do such a thing! — who attempt to mind-read (or at least, project their image onto) reality.
There’s another choice, Bernard: Winning elections.
So your view is that the minority party ought to abdicate any responsibility to oppose the majority, and simply roll over? Do you think that challenging the positions put forth by the majority is a not legitimate function of a party in the minority?
If you don’t believe PFAW is not hardline and at the political fringe, I can’t help you.
I don’t need your help, thanks. If you think PFAW anything like the mirror image of the crackpots at FRC and Dobson’s Focus on the Family you need to think again. These right-wingers are people who think the evidence for evolution is meager, that homosexuals have more political power than conservative Christians.
To quote Gene Wilder in “Blazing Saddles,”
“You know, morons.”
I’m sure you disagree with many of PFAW’s views, but you will not find either this level of idiocy or extreme views. It’s a liberal organization. Unless you make no distinction between “liberal” and “hardline left,” you cannot support your statement.
Yes and no. Opposition for its own sake doesn’t have any value as far as I can see. I’m not saying you’re advocating that, but I have seen others do so. So, not wiping it off on you, but there’s opposition and there’s opposition.
And now back to your axe-fight.
Opposition for its own sake doesn’t have any value as far as I can see.
Depends what you mean by “opposition.” Certainly challenging majority proposals, probing them, pointing out flaws, arguing about consequences and underlying assumptions is always valuable. Voting no or otherwise blocking them for no good reason is silly. But sometimes you have to at least threaten the latter to accomplish the former.
I agreed with you right up to this point. Here, you lost me.
I agreed with you right up to this point. Here, you lost me.
Maybe I wasn’t clear. Just saying that the threat of blocking legislation is one weapon that sometimes puts pressure on the majority to consider minority objections.
Not sure if anyone’s still reading this thread, but on the subject of the party of No vs “better ideas” you might want to check out this story in today’s Boston Globe.
The House has passed the energy bill, permitting drilling in ANWR and making other changes in enery policies. The Republican majority rejected, among others, Democratic amendments to:
-Remove tax breaks and subsidies for energy companies
-Prevent the bill from shielding MBTE makers from liability for contamination of drinking water
-Give local communities control over LNG facility construction
So where are the fine principles of fiscal responsibility, of corporate accountability, of local control?
Congressman Markey (D, MA) showed a photo of a large LNG tanker in Boston Harbor, with a high school clearly visible nearby. This did not trouble Joe Barton, a Texas (where else?) Republican, in the least. He saw only “energy for America.”
The House ignored Markey’s argument that here was no crisis of LNG facilities, since the number has gone from two in 2001 to five today, with six more licensed to be built.
It is worth noting that Rep. Michael Castle, a Republican from Delaware, cosponsored the LNG measure with Markey, and received support from “a few of his fellow Republicans,” including Shays.
Can anyone really say that opposition to this bill is simply “obstructionism?” Sounds more like common sense.
Not sure if anyone’s still reading this thread, but on the subject of the party of No vs “better ideas” you might want to check out this story in today’s Boston Globe.
The House has passed the energy bill, permitting drilling in ANWR and making other changes in enery policies. The Republican majority rejected, among others, Democratic amendments to:
-Remove tax breaks and subsidies for energy companies
-Prevent the bill from shielding MBTE makers from liability for contamination of drinking water
-Give local communities control over LNG facility construction
So where are the fine principles of fiscal responsibility, of corporate accountability, of local control?
Congressman Markey (D, MA) showed a photo of a large LNG tanker in Boston Harbor, with a high school clearly visible nearby. This did not trouble Joe Barton, a Texas (where else?) Republican, in the least. He saw only “energy for America.”
The House ignored Markey’s argument that here was no crisis of LNG facilities, since the number has gone from two in 2001 to five today, with six more licensed to be built.
It is worth noting that Rep. Michael Castle, a Republican from Delaware, cosponsored the LNG measure with Markey, and received support from “a few of his fellow Republicans,” including Shays.
Can anyone really say that opposition to this bill is simply “obstructionism?” Sounds more like common sense.
Sorry about the double post. Funny error message appeared.
We Shall Overcome!
Republican Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist, is continuing his campaign to entrench the new American theocracy by threatening the “nuclear option” to change Senate rules to prevent filibusters. Presently, the Senate enjoys the privilege of unlimited …