Should we let Bill Frist & Co. change the rules of the senate ?

A simple up or down vote is all that is needed, traditionally, for any future Supreme Court nominees--which is really what the issue is all about. To wit: The issues of upholding the law vs interpreting
(or re-interpreting) the law are the focus of these judges. Republicans maintain that these nominees uphold current laws while some of the more liberal nominees that the democrats want actually reinterpret laws and change values that this majority hold dear.Arach is right in that filibustering is merely a way to keep the majority power in check. Some would argue that it is a necessary check, while others such as myself would say that the majority was elected as such and by mandate of majority are things decided. Endless debate allows a minority to control the process until they can once again become the majority. Bad form!

I suggest getting a copy of the federalist papers. Checking minority power is relatively easy. Checking a majority takes a lot more genius. Besides, if you want to play that game, the Senate doesn't represent an elected majority-a voter in north dakota can have greater 'influence' on the judiciary than can a voter in a more populous state.Besides, something like 90% of Bush's candidates were given a vote. The nominees that have become the subject of the filibuster weren't even given the highest certification by the Bar. This is a great example of why we need the filibuster.

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

I suppose it makes sense that the same party that redefined a 51/49 split as indicating a "mandate", would decide to rewrite long held requirements for a 67% majority vote in the Senate as "super-majority".There is good reason not to treat everything in a democracy, or even to view democracy, as working on the principle that "more than 50% wins". What that sets into play is greater emotional division of the population by handing all power to the slight majority.It is important for some matters, and definitely for the more important matters, that it is not a "bare majority" that decides an issue. A greater majority indicates greater public confidence in its choices. Doesn't that make more sense as a desirable end for a legislative decision? That's because the Republicans are liars. Over their own statements and longheld traditions about federalism, they petitioned the SC to overturn state law to install Bush in 2000. Amazingly the Republican justices agreed, and then said no one should follow that lead in the future. Since than Bush and Co have been championing judges that will change longstanding speech and abortion rights issues.What exactly are the democrats flip-flopping on? What are they trying to change by legal fiat?Indeed isn't this very process we are discussing a reversing of longstanding tradition by Republicans? There is no such thing as a "mandate by majority". A large degree of majority indicates a mandate. That is in fact why the laws they are trying to change are to reduce levels from a suggestion of "mandate" (67%) to a "bare minimum majority" (51%). It is a hoodwink. Don't fall for it.A democracy is not served when every, especially important, decisions are made by the slim majority. What is wrong with greater public confidence in a decision? That's what I can't figure out?Indeed please let me understand why a decision made by a greater majority is somehow worse than by a bare majority?In any case, filibustering acts as a tool to force a majority to recognize and deal with minority positions. If such things are not allowed, is it your suggestion the gov't should simply be made up of whoever won 51% and the rest stay at home till next election? That would be the practical result of removing the few tools little guys have for making their voice heard.It also cannot act as you suggest, with the minority holding sway until reaching the majority. If that were the case then what's the difference, because then the new minority can hold things off till they return to power?See the idea here? It forces compromise.I really am living through bizarro times. Jimmy "Mr Smith goes to Washington" Stewart is now some icon of evil nonAmerican activity? Yeah, Republicans are the ones changing values the majority used to hold dear.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yeah you have a point, there! I never thought of it that way!

in this country, the constitution mandates certain things to be decided only by a two-thirds majority in the house, the senate, or both. for instance:

• amending the constitution.
• passing a law
• re-passing a bill over a veto
• trying the president or expelling a member of congress
• making treaties
• stalemated elections
• determining if the president is unable to fulfill his duties

however, senator brownback is technically correct. the appointees need only be confirmed by a simple majority in the senate. my point is merely that this country often sees fit to safegaurd the views of the majority by requiring two-thirds votes, and that majority often does not rule.

---

אָרַח

hear hear!i would have posted something very similar, but you beat me to it.

---

אָרַח

As I underatand it, the value / purpose of allowing filibuster in the senate is to give minority opinion a chance to block legistation from being bulldozed thruough by the party in power on the sole basis of partisan support. It's not Congress, its the Senate. It's supposed to be the chamber of 'sober second thought'. While there might not be an *explicit* article in the constitution protecting the right to philibuster per se, it is *implicitly* protected under the constitution because it falls under the list of things you need 67% support to over-rule. IF we change that, then to 51 %, then we permanently weaken minority voice in the senate for many other things, not just this particular philibuster, and the constitution set the bar at 67% for a very good reason, as attested to by the other comments below.This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-20-2005 03:31 PM

Not true. By blocking a process to which they are opposed, the minority does not 'gain control' of anything. The philibuster can only negate passage of something, not pass an agenda of its own. A little 'negative power' hardly equals control, and it becomes completely irrelevant if power subsequently changes hands.This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-20-2005 03:26 PM

Not so when the issue is judicial appointments. If the judges of this country all have the same ideology, the laws of the land will eventually get changed. All that liberal same sex marriage, pro abortion, tax the church type of stuff will eventually become law.
(I know that many of you are saying "right on!" We DO have different ideologies!) The problem is that there needs to be both ideologies represented in the judiciary. Now that the Republicans have their moment in the sun, they can't get any of their folks through the process. If the Democrats regain majority vote, then they will allow all sorts of liberal judges to fill the vacancies and our entire moral fabric will change! We will be like Denmark!This message has been edited by Phatboy, 05-20-2005 02:43 PM

no, in confirming a president's nominations for supreme court justices you currently only need 51%. common misconception. in fact, according to article 2, section 2, paragraph 2 of the constitution, congress doesn't even have to consent, if they elect not to.however, by the same standard, if they elect that consent counts as 67%, that's up to them.

---

אָרַח

i like aclj less and less the more i hear about them. rampant bush support and liberal bashing is just plain idocy, and not part of valid political debate. liberals, like their name should imply, are for liberty.you make it sound as if liberals would have it so that all babies are aborted, and you'll have to marry someone of the same gender. it's not a matter of law. it's a matter of what the law cannot and SHOULD NOT touch. it's jurisdiction. people arguing for laws on these things want to extend the power and authority of government into the lives of individuals.and that's DANGEROUSLY close to totalitarianism.{edit: CAPS = channeling the holy spirit, as per my discussion in the style guide}This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 05-20-2005 05:07 PM

---

אָרַח

Thank GOD!

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Really, Phatboy...I want to know: Given that the ACLJ has been caught in more than one...shall we say "exaggeration" of reality, why do we trust anything they say?"Left-wing pro-abortion ideology"? What on earth does this mean? The majority of Americans don't want to criminalize abortion. Oh, they may have their issues regarding exactly how to go about administrating abortion, but it is a clear and solid majority of Americans who want to keep abortion safe and legal. This is a "left-wing" ideology? How on earth did Bush win if such a large majority of the population is "left-wing"?And "pro-abortion"? What on earth does that mean? Who on earth wants to have an abortion? Women do not get pregnant in order to have an abortion.And regarding the vacancies in the federal court system...hmmm...maybe there wouldn't have been so many vacancies if the Republicans had allowed Clinton's judicial nominations come up for a vote. For all the whining the Republicans have been emoting regarding the "four years!" that Janice Brown has been waiting, they seem to have forgotten that the very same Republican Senators managed to hold up the nomination of Richard Paez for longer.The Republicans then attempted to fillibuster his nomination with Bill Frist leading the way.It would seem that the Republicans didn't think it was "radical" (to use Frist's word) to fillibuster judges when they felt it was appropriate. Why are they whining now? Let me quote from Republican Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire as he was attempting to fillibuster Paez: If it isn't a problem when they do it, why would it be a problem when someone else does it?Of course, the Republicans were even more insidious regarding Clinton's nominations beyond their fillibusters (and the subsequent...er..."deviations from established fact" they have spouted regarding how no justice has ever been fillibustered). Specifically, they didn't even allow the nominees to have a hearing before the Judiciary Committee. The Republicans were the majority party so the leader of the Committee, Orrin Hatch, got to set the agenda. And he did so by refusing to schedule hearings on the nominations. Forty-five district court nominations were refused hearings (and many circuit court nominees, too).And he wasn't averse to stalling the process even after. Just because you get a hearing doesn't mean you get a vote of the Judiciary Committee. Many nominees managed to get a hearing but had their votes refused.In the end: What is the point of the Judiciary Committee? I keep hearing all this whining about how the nominations should get an "up or down vote!" But isn't the point of the Judiciary Committee to be a hurdle that nominations must cross before they make it to the floor of the Senate? Are you seriously saying that if the President were to nominate, say, me to a federal judgeship, I should expect to have an "up or down vote"? That the Judiciary Committee shouldn't say to themselves, "This guy has never held a judgeship in any other jurisdiction, isn't a lawyer, has never written a formal legal opinion, isn't a legal scholar, etc., etc. No need to waste the full Senate's time on this. No"?If you're not willing to have someone so clearly unqualified as me to be put to an "up or down vote" before the full Senate but rather feel that the Judiciary Committee is charged with actually making sure that the Senate's time is not wasted on someone so clearly unqualified as myself, then why are you so upset that there are people on the Judiciary Committee who are doing their job?Just because you don't agree with their assessment of your candidate?I hear the whining of the Republicans about the "well qualified" status of their candidates. According to whom? They're quick to bring up the ABA, but Janice Brown, their poster judge, was actually declared "qualified/not qualified" by the ABA (meaning she did not achieve the two-thirds majority required to be declared "qualified"). In fact, not a single member of the panel rated her as "well qualified."Of course, the Republicans have abandoned the ABA's recommendations, so one wonders why they are bringing it up. They don't get to have it both ways. If the ABA recommendations are worthless, then it doesn't really matter how they feel about the nominations, now does it?Which leads us back to the previous question: Isn't the role of the Judiciary Committee to determine for itself whether or not a nominee is "qualified" for the role before calling the full Senate to a vote?If not, then why on earth have a Judiciary Committee? Just send the nominee straight to the floor for a vote. What on earth is the point of the Judicary Committee?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Judges are not supposed to be ideological and be concerned solely regarding state law/state constitution and federal law/federal constitution comparisons.There may be some "ideology" based on interpretation of vague or conflicting segments of law, but if what drives a ruling is moral or political ideology then that is not a worthy justice.It should not be "I don't like this side of an issue, so I will rule against it".The fact of the matter is that most civil rights have not been the advancement of on ideology over another, but a recognition of protections from the constitution such that certain laws are not appropriate. If Republicans want to keep bashing their own heads against the constitution, or subvert the constitution, and so feel put upon by the courts, that is their own problem. It is not that the courts have become more "active" it is that the legislators have become obstinate and want to overthrow the nation to put in place an ideology.But I stand confused on what you just said. Do you really believe that this nation's courts are best served by having ideologically driven justices that represent the moral outlook of the ruling party?Thus you think that there should be, or it would be best served to have contingents that want to persecute blacks, or deprive them of voting rights, have some members in the courts? If for some reason militant atheists gain sway, they should be able to pack the courts with justices that will rule that there should be no churches at all?You might want to rethink your position. It may seem beneficial in the short term, but it makes a mockery of the nation our founding fathers built, the history of our courts and civil rights movements, and could backfire on you in the long run.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

No, I'm just stirring up the pot a bit! I DO think that the controversy is part of a larger issue between absolute truths and relative truths, however. The republicans, it would seem, are in favor of legislation of conservative fixed morality while the democrats by and large are in favor of evolving relative morality.If one has a worldview which is unbending and absolute, which I do not btw...one fears changes.If you REALLY want to cut to the meat of the issue, its all about holding on to money and power rather than the Christian veneer that they have used. Republicans, backed by the wealthy, want to preserve the concentrations of money and power. Democrats, backed by a broader range of economic representation, want whats best for all of us. Only 9-11 gave the fear factor mandate, without which none of this would have happened. The rest of this mandate is economic fear...the not quite rich have been duped into supporting the mandate through that Christian veneer that pits an ideological battle between Christian absolute values and the evil socialist agenda.Don't worry, though. This, too shall pass.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 05-21-2005 10:10 AM