[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

Apr. 22nd, 2005 05:56 am
bryant: (Default)
[personal profile] bryant

We're a step closer to the showdown on judicial filibusters. I kinda figured Harry Reid would force the issue.

The short version of what's going on: you can prevent a vote from occurring in the Senate by filibustering it. It requires 60 votes to end a filibuster. Senator Frist is threatening to change the Senate rules in order to require only 50 votes to end a filibuster. However, changing Senate rules has always taken a 2/3rds majority vote. How's Frist gonna get around that?

Well, he's going to raise a point of order arguing that the filibuster is unconstitutional because it prevents the Senate's Constitutional duty to advise and consent on judicial nominations. That point of order will go to the Senate's presiding officer, who will be Cheney. Cheney will then say "You're right," and the vote to end the filibuster will take place.

However, Senate precedent says that Cheney can't make the decision on constitutionality; rather, it should go to a Senate vote, which is itself subject to filibuster. And of course the Democrats would filibuster it. So Cheney has to break precedent and make a ruling. It's fair to note that this does not break Senate rules, but Senate precedent is not unimportant either.

If you want the detailed look at this, start here and go on to this, this, this, this, this, and this. There are more posts in that series, but those are the ones that address Constitutional and Senate rules issues rather than arguing about the value of the filibuster itself and the meaning of "advise and consent." Which are interesting questions, but not as relevant to this post.

Date: 2005-04-22 12:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] multiplexer.livejournal.com
The more I follow this, the more I believe the Republicans are shooting themselves in the head. Not only did they make judicious use of the filibuster in the past, especially under Clinton, they're certainly going to want it again. Also, it's only a matter of time before the Democrats come to power again, and now they're going to come to power with a grudge.

This all seems very short sighted and dangerous to me.

What I like

Date: 2005-04-22 01:18 pm (UTC)
bluegargantua: (Default)
From: [personal profile] bluegargantua
Is the whining about "activist judges" and how they "shouldn't be making the laws".

Well, in a lot of these cases, they have to "make the laws" because Congress completely dropped the ball. And the rest of the time, they are "interpreting the laws"...which is kinda their whole job.

later
Tom

Date: 2005-04-22 01:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] head58.livejournal.com
You will note that in rantings about activist judges, nobody brings up the 2000 election.

Date: 2005-04-22 02:10 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] multiplexer.livejournal.com
Well, they're only activist judges when they don't go the way of the Republican Congress.

Date: 2005-04-22 02:24 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tayefeth.livejournal.com
Unless they don't intend to ever hold real elections again. While stupidity is more likely than malice, in this case the consequences of malice make me reluctant to dismiss it out of hand.

Date: 2005-04-22 02:40 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] head58.livejournal.com
INteresting. The report about this in DailyKos includes a link to the same story, but also includes a couple of paragraphs that no longer appear in the YahooNews story:

Additionally, the survey indicated only about 20 percent of Americans believe the Republican statement that Bush is the first president in history whose court appointees have been subjected to a filibuster

The fact that 20% of Americans do believe this has never been done before is pretty scary.

Date: 2005-04-22 02:46 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] multiplexer.livejournal.com
I am unclear why the Republicans are doing what they're doing anymore. They seem to be completely ignoring polls these days and assuming there is no 2006 election. I guess they want to spend that political capital while they all still have jobs.

Date: 2005-04-22 02:48 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] chadu.livejournal.com
Agreed.

From what I can tell, they either:
A. Have no conception of what being on the receiving end of all these changes they're trying to make would be like;
B. Expect these changes to cement them in power forever; or
C. Plan on making continual changes until they've scrapped the system completely.

CU

October 2025

S M T W T F S
    1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627 28293031 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Feb. 25th, 2026 06:43 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios