| Author | Message | ||
     themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 277 Registered: 12-2001 |
Aren't many of the vacancies the legacy of republican delays? | ||
| themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 291 Registered: 12-2001 |
From The New Republic By Michael Crowley It's nearly 1:30 in the morning, and a group of bleary-eyed young boys and girls--who by now should be asleep, dreaming of rocket ships and ponies--have found themselves in the presumably baffling circumstance of being lined up for a press conference in the U.S. Capitol. They file into a rank-smelling meeting room just a few yards from the Senate floor, where a classic exercise in Washington Kabuki theatre is underway. Republicans are staging a marathon 30-hour debate to protest Democratic filibusters of four conservative judicial nominees. The meeting room, normally reserved for private GOP strategy sessions, has been transformed into a bustling propaganda center for the pro-judge forces. Inside, activists wear dark blue "Justice For Judges Marathon" T-shirts. The room stinks horribly of people, coffee, and decaying munchies. At the far end of the room is a large, flat-screen television tuned to the main event. Currently on the floor is South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham. Graham flaps his arms and points to various charts. But no one pays any attention. In fact, the sound's not even on. Which is telling. The point of all this is not anything that will be said or done on the floor; there are sure to be no surprises. The Democrats are dug in, and there's no hope of actually confirming any judges. So the point is ... well, the point is to make a point. Particularly one that will please conservative activists steamed that Senate Republicans can't simply crush the hated Daschle Democrats. The children, perhaps 20 of them, line up behind a lectern. Above them hangs a TV-friendly sign reading: "Fair Up or Down Vote." Through a door comes Graham, and the room bursts into loud applause. The senators are getting tired--"It's 1:30 and I can't believe anybody's here," Graham says--but the activists here seem to be having the time of their lives. ("I have been in Washington since 1984 and I have never seen so much excitement in one room--ever," one of them declares to me.) Several digital cameras beep and whir. Graham himself seems puzzled that such young kids--many of whom are now rubbing their eyes, yawning, and fidgeting around--are here at this wee hour. "You can tell your grandkids about this," he consoles them, to little evident effect. Then he lambastes the Democratic obstructionists: "There's never a good time to hijack the Constitution for partisan politics," Graham declares sanctimoniously, perhaps forgetting, at this late hour, his own role as a manager of Bill Clinton's impeachment. "But now is the worst time." Then things get sleazy. Graham pulls out a blown-up version of a cartoon that appeared on an obscure black political website (www.blackcommentator.com). It depicts one of the stymied nominees, Janice Rogers Brown, as an absurdly stereotyped housemaid with a huge Afro. It's an offensive cartoon, no doubt about it. But no mainstream Democrat had anything to do with it. That hasn't stopped Republicans like Graham from repeatedly implying otherwise. Graham now says the cartoon came from "a liberal paper"--as if it had run in The New York Times--and then smears Democrats with it. "The Senate is sick," he says. "Our Democratic friends have gone too far." It's a truly revolting performance. I keep thinking about the kids. The obvious question is, Don't you have school tomorrow? Then another speaker, an activist whose name I don't catch, clears that one up. He notes in passing that most of the youngsters present are home-schooled. Trying to be open-minded, I do my best to suppress Children of the Corn jokes. By now, the "debate" on the floor has slowed to tedious, repetitive speeches--mostly by freshman members of both parties who got stuck with the debate's worst time slots. Earlier in the evening, however, there had been a few delicious moments as Democrats mocked the phoniness of the marathon. At one point Nevada Democrat Harry Reid noted that when Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist conducted a poll about judicial filibusters on his website, the Democratic position won a 60 percent majority--thanks to some well-coordinated mischief, no doubt--before the posted results mysteriously vanished. With evident delight, Reid also quoted from a GOP email that Democrats had somehow acquired that day. It is important to double your efforts to get your boss to S-230 on time. Fox News channel is really excited about the marathon. Britt [sic] Hume at 6 would love to open the door to all our 51 Senators walking on to the floor. The producer wants to know, will we walk in exactly at 6:02 when the show starts so we can get it live to open Britt Hume's show? Or, if not, can we give them an exact time for the walk-in start? Illinois Democrat Richard Durbin then asked Reid, with a funny faux-earnestness, whether "we [will] get updates from time to time how Fox News would like to orchestrate the rest of this?" "Perhaps so," Reid replied with a smile. "If not, maybe we could check with the Federalist Society, which, coincidentally, is starting their convention tomorrow." This was masterful stuff. Later in the night I would overhear one irked Republican staffer mutter to another "How did they get that email?" Down the hall, Democrats have set up their own headquarters. Theirs is dubbed the "Judges Action Room." But as 2 a.m. approaches, there's not a lot of action here--just a few TV reporters and cameraman watching Arkansas Democrat Blanche Lincoln speak on a video monitor. As in the GOP war room, the "the debate" is barely audible. But the room does make the Democrats' point clear. Its centerpiece is a large blue placard with the word JOBS printed on it perhaps 100 times in yellow--what Andy Warhol might have produced if he'd been a media consultant. I run into a Democratic aide and tell her about all the children down the hall. "It's kind of..." I begin, searching for a mature phrase. "Creepy?" she asks with a smile. Yes, creepy. Thank you. Harry Reid shows up for a TV interview, looking wilted. He says that Republicans have privately apologized to him for what's happening. A secret ballot would send everyone home to bed right away, he says. A bit later reporters and cameramen are ushered into the office of Democratic leader Tom Daschle. Dressed in shirtsleeves, Daschle has a cup of Starbucks coffee on his desk and looks his usual chipper self. Daschle has heroically claimed a 2 a.m. speaking slot, and it's time for him to go. More empty theater follows, as a pack of cameramen dutifully record Daschle's half-dozen steps from his office foyer to the Senate floor. In the dark hall their flashes give Daschle's short walk a weird strobe-action quality. It's 2:30 and I'm ready for bed. I make one last swing through the GOP nerve center. There I see an adorable brown-haired girl, maybe 10 years old. Her eyes are swollen and red. She's crying. An older woman crouches down. "What's the matter honey?" "I just wanna go home," the poor girl whimpers. "I know. So do I." | ||
| Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 11 Registered: 11-2003 |
I believe a smart political move by the dem's would be to allow this process to move along, making sure their statement to the press is well heard accross the country. One of the things hurting dem's the last couple years is perception--the public sees them as obstructionist. They need to take steps to fix this perception, not fueling it by holding unconstitutional filibusters. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 1883 Registered: 12-2001  |
This Republican stunt is simply preaching to the choir. They will get the faithful all worked up, but they aren't going to turn anybody against the Democrats that aren't already that way. Bottomline: 168 appointess approved. 4 extremist appointees being filibustered. Where's the beef? | ||
| Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 14 Registered: 11-2003 |
I'll let others argue the merits of the judicial nominees; my problem is the constitution does not allow this process to be filibustered. If you don't like the law, change it. but until then, adhere to it---especially if you are representatives of the government. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 1884 Registered: 12-2001 |
Does the Constitution prohibit filibustering? Does the Constitution specifically prescribe Senate rules? Where's Pierce Butler? | ||
| Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 15 Registered: 11-2003 |
The constitution calls for advice and consent. they can vote nominees down, but they have to vote. | ||
| Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 16 Registered: 11-2003 |
Article 2, section 2 | ||
| ashear Citizen Username: Ashear Post Number: 791 Registered: 5-2001 |
The fillibuster is a creature of Senate Rules. Article I, Section 5 gives each house the power to set its own rules so I find it hard to see how there is anything unconstituional about it. Changing it requires only a change of those rules. It is certainly antidemocratic but there are a number of things in the Constitution that are antidemocratic, including the Senate itself. There is certainly nothing in the Advice and Consent provision in Article 2, section 2 that requires the Senate to vote on nominies. If they do not consent, they do not consent. Indeed, many Clinton nominies did not get floor votes because the Republicans keep the nominations bottled up in committee. | ||
| Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 19 Registered: 11-2003 |
"There is certainly nothing in the Advice and Consent provision in Article 2, section 2 that requires the Senate to vote on nominies."--ashear I guess it depends what your definition of "is' is....back to this game,eh? The constitutions requires the senate to advice and consent on judicial nominees. they can fashion any means they want on the consent part, but i think voting makes the most sense. I realize now why it's so difficult teaching my kid to be honest when she does something wrong. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 1885 Registered: 12-2001 |
The Founding Fathers also deliberately intended to have a form of government that prevented rapid, radical change. From that point of view, the government is working, because the Bush Junta is finding it difficult to jam their most objectionable appointees down the throats of the majority of Americans. You will recall that Bush did not win the popular vote and, were it not for the attacks of 11 September, 2001, would be enjoying about a 35% approval rating. | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 2407 Registered: 10-1999  |
Kenney - Ashear gave you a legitimate answer, there was no reason for your comeback. It's not a matter of "what the definition of 'is' is", it's a matter of reading the Constitution, which says in the section you mention: It doesn't say, "and the Senate must vote". As already pointed out, each branch of Congress sets its own rules. If it wasn't unconstitutional for the Senate to keep nominations tied up in a Committee, it's also not unconstitutional for the Senate to follow its own rules on how to debate and vote. You may want to think about whether the dishonest ones might be those Senators who claim that the constitution "requires" that there be a vote. | ||
| Cliff Harris Citizen Username: Cowboy Post Number: 135 Registered: 9-2003 |
Where's the beef? Start with your erroneous assumption that the 4 appointees being filibustered are in fact "extremist." To whom are they considered extreme? The far left, that's who. Let's put it to a floor vote before a majority of Senators, not the super majority that only those willing to be dictated by the far left demand. | ||
| ashear Citizen Username: Ashear Post Number: 794 Registered: 5-2001 |
You might want to spend less time worrying about the definition of "is" and more reading the actual text of the Constitution. The Constituion does not require the Senate to give consent, it requires the president to get consent. To give consent they have to vote. To withhold it they do not. Under Article I Section 5 the Senate could directly require 60 votes to confirm a judicial nominee, which is the effect of the cloture rule. Its up to them. (In fact, before the 20th century, there was no cloture rule, i.e. no rule alowing debate to be cut off by a vote of 60 Senators, before that debate was limited only by a Senator's stamina.) The Senate already requires a committee vote before a floor vote and it was through that process that many Clinton nominies were denied floor votes, they were bottled up in committee. As far as teaching your kid about right and wrong. I don't know why you are having trouble but I am not talking about right and wrong, I am talking about what the Cosntitution requires. Those are not necessarily the same thing. I think it would have been better if the Republicans had allowed Clinton's nominies to be confirmed. Having keep many judicial posts vacant by their obstruction I don't have a problem with the Democrats blocking a few of Bush's worst nominies. To do otherwise would be to reward the bad faith the Republicans showed. At the same time, for the good of the judiciairy, this has to stop sometime or no decent, intelligent person will want to sit on the federal bench. Unfortunately I don't know how you settle this. Neither side is going to be willing to unilateraly disarm by allowing the other to have its way. Genuine advice, as well as consent, might be the answer, but the level of rehtoric on both sides seems to high for that. | ||
| Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 20 Registered: 11-2003 |
Thanks for posting the section--hopefully it will clarify the debate to some. As i have written, consent--not filibuster. President to Senate: Yes or No. I actually think the process is flawed, but until the law is changed with an amendment to the constitution, they should follow the founding fathers lead. | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 3846 Registered: 5-2001 |
Cliff, I am by no means a left winger and I am not comfortable with some of these nominations. There are, I am sure, any number of right of center judges who are qualified for Court of Appeal appointments and who would not be filibustered. Bring on the Kennedys and the O'Connors! | ||
| Pierce Butler Citizen Username: Pierce_butler Post Number: 128 Registered: 6-2003 |
Nohero, you are exactly right. It appears that the framers knew very well that the Senate might simply withhold "consent" by not voting, and that was fine with them. How else does one explain that no provision was made for such circumstances? Compare the provision in Art. I, sec. 7 that if the President fails to act within 10 days (excluding Sundays) of a bill's being presented to him, the bill shall become law even without his signature (unless the Congress has adjourned during that period, in which case we have the so-called "pocket veto"). Sorry, tjohn, I was snoozing. There's nothing like Being and Nothingness. | ||
| Cliff Harris Citizen Username: Cowboy Post Number: 136 Registered: 9-2003 |
bobk, then please tell, specifically what evidence makes you uncomfortable with each candidate. I cannot help but suspect that you have fallen victim to the tirades of the elite media. Take Pickering for example, I'll wait for your response. In addition please consider this: The Constitution expressly establishes supermajority voting requirements for authorizing treaties, proposing constitutional amendments, and other specific actions. To confirm judicial nominees, by contrast, the Constitution requires only a majority vote — as the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in United States v. Ballin (1892). | ||
| Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 22 Registered: 11-2003 |
Just curious how many think the court should be made up of great minds(left or right) rather than politically correct average scholars. Doesn't it look like this is the direction we are headed? ..yes, i realize this is off topic. | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 2409 Registered: 10-1999 |
Mr. Harris: You've fallen into the trap of "proving too much". If the Ballin case really applied here, then it would apply to all votes in Congress, not just nominations. But nobody, not even the Republican leadership in the Senate, is claiming that all filibusters are unconstitutional. Kenney: Interesting question, but not only is that off topic here, that's not really the choice being presented to the Senate. |
