Should the Senate eliminate the filibuster?

[digamma]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

FWIW, I do not find abusing parlimentary rules to be anymore the province of Republicans than Democrats. In the current political climate, I beleive that a Democratic White House and Congress would be abusing the system just as badly.

Completely agree.

I was thinking about this on my drive to work this morning, albeit in a different context. I feel like we've gotten to the point where we're watching a football game and the fans on each side are not just cheering for a win, but rather to run up the score to the nth degree.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by digamma

Republicans would never use delaying or other tactics to avoid an up or down vote on a judicial nominee (even when both Senators from the home state of the nominee support him/her).

Signed,

Roger Gregory

Gregory was originally blocked under some technicality in the blue slip system towards the end of Clinton's term (never made it out of committee because it was stated Clinton never talked with both senators of his state) . Clinton then used a recess appointment on him. Then, when Bush became president, he renominated Gregory for the 4th circuit and he passed through fairly easily. Hardly an example of republicans being unreasonable.

In a wierd twist of irony, his case was a major reason why many democrats wanted the blue-slip process elimintated.

[st.cronin]

I seriously doubt this will go 'nuclear.' The ramifications are too severe. Smart republicans will realize that someday *they* will be the minority party.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

FWIW, I do not find abusing parlimentary rules to be anymore the province of Republicans than Democrats. In the current political climate, I beleive that a Democratic White House and Congress would be abusing the system just as badly.

I wouldn't have one problem if the Democrats regained the majority in the senate and re-instituted the blue-slip policy. I also wouldn't be in favor of republicans using a judicial filibuster in the event they lose the senate.

My concern is the separation of powers in our system. IMO, that means that if a appeals court nominee passes senate rules judgement, gets through committee and gets a majority of the vote, he should be confirmed. Be it if the president/party in power is a republican or a democrat.

The moment we start feeling the "other side" is so dangerous that we need to change the role of the president to protect certain interest groups is the moment that we start losing our system. And I don't doubt for one minute that if this current judicial filibuster method is continued under Bush, the right will use the same avenue on judges named by a democrat if the roles get reversed. And that would also be unfortumate.

It's better for both sides to agree that this method isn't valid for the judicial confirmation process and refrain from using it than either being forced to "go nuclear".

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by cartman

Unfortunately yes. There is so much partisian crap that needs to be fixed, that it never, ever will. I'm for getting rid of the recess appointments as well, for the same reasons I mentioned in my previous post. Anytime one person can appoint someone to a powerful, lifelong post without 3rd party approval is a bit too much for me. Democrat, Republican, independant, or alien overlord, it doesn't matter.

"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos"

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Fonzie

Bingo.

Eliminating the filibuster is the worst idea ever. Even worse than the idea for Ishtar.

SI

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Arles

The moment we start feeling the "other side" is so dangerous that we need to change the role of the president to protect certain interest groups is the moment that we start losing our system.

But you also have to consider that for the first time in a very long time, this nation is under the utter control of one party. They have enough of a majority everywhere to literally railroad this nation into a condition it may never recover from.

If we eliminate the only avenue left for the other side to get their opinions out in the open, then we've already lost "our system" and we might as well nuke washington and start over.

seriously...anyone got a russian nuke???

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by RendeR

But you also have to consider that for the first time in a very long time, this nation is under the utter control of one party. They have enough of a majority everywhere to literally railroad this nation into a condition it may never recover from.

1976 wasn't all THAT long ago, and we seem to have come through the Democrats' stranglehold on Congress just fine. I think this is just so much fearmongering bluster coming from Democratic leadership, frankly.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RendeR

But you also have to consider that for the first time in a very long time, this nation is under the utter control of one party. They have enough of a majority everywhere to literally railroad this nation into a condition it may never recover from.

And if that power is abused, the situation will reverse very quickly. I doubt a few appeals court judges are "irreversable" in the grand scheme of things.

If we eliminate the only avenue left for the other side to get their opinions out in the open, then we've already lost "our system" and we might as well nuke washington and start over.

Here's another avenue - Get more senators in the minority party

Let's say that republicans pick up enough senators to stop the judicial filibuster - what then? The people are in charge of voting their representatives and if enough people feel that republicans should control the house, senate and presidency, then so be it. It was the other way a few decades back.

There are enough rules to allow the minority to block legislation and require careful vetting of judicial nominees. But, if people really have a problem with the judges/laws passed by this group, then vote them out. But to not allow them to do what has normally been the case for decades seems a little short-sighted.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Arles

Gregory was originally blocked under some technicality in the blue slip system towards the end of Clinton's term (never made it out of committee because it was stated Clinton never talked with both senators of his state) . Clinton then used a recess appointment on him. Then, when Bush became president, he renominated Gregory for the 4th circuit and he passed through fairly easily. Hardly an example of republicans being unreasonable.

In a wierd twist of irony, his case was a major reason why many democrats wanted the blue-slip process elimintated.

I guess it depends on who you believe. That was Orrin Hatch's publicly stated reason for never giving Gregory an up or down vote, but John Warner the Republican from Virginia was on record as calling Gregory an excellent nominee (or something like that). Chuck Robb, the other Virginia senator, was Gregory's sponsor. As you define it, Hatch had no stake in the blue slip process for Gregory (as he was not from Virginia), just as Leahy (or whichever Dem you want to blame) has no stake in the appointment of nominees in question today.

[larrymcg421]

If 41 Senators think a judicial nominee would be very dangerous for the country, then they should do everything in their power to stop that nominee. Whether that be filibuster, blue slip or anything else.

It's extremely naive to expect Senators of either party to allow a nominee that goes against everything they believe in sail through just so they can be honorable by not using a filibuster. In the end, no one will care that the Senator was honorable and that judge will be on the court for life.

The majority party is always gonna try to tear down roadblocks into getting their measures passed and the minority party is always gonna try to enact stronger roadblocks. It doesn't matter what specific method is used and it doesn't matter which party is in control.