GOP set to push nuclear button on Judges

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Again this isn't a move to remove the filibuster ...

Which is the most important point that seems to be carefully pushed aside or ignored in most conversations about this topic.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

That is incorrect. In most cases taxes were never paid on this wealth, that's why the estate tax was implemented. Taxes on stock, real estate appreciation, business appreciation, etc, are not taxed until the asset is sold. Therefore, if you die with it in your possession any capital appreciation has not had taxes paid on it.

Then let the heirs pay taxes on those items when they sell them, Not simply because they have had them left to them.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Again this isn't a move to remove the filibuster

I'll be the first to admit that the slippery slope argument is way overused these days. But once the party in power decides that it's OK to remove the filibuster sometimes, we have pretty much given up the filibuster as a credible tool.

One may agree or disagree with the filibuster, but one cannot correctly argue that the nuclear/constitutional option is not the death of it.

[Barkeep49]

Actually it is not being passed as procedural change. This was covered in a thread a while back but the Republicans are suggesting that the filibuster for judges is not constitutional. The chair of the Senate, in this case Dick Cheney, will make a ruling, saying that the filibuster is indeed unconstitutional and a ruling of the chair on this sort of matter is upheld as long as half the Senate agrees. They are not trying to change the rules so much as say that an existing rule shouldn't be a rule because it violates the Constitution.

[QuikSand]

Barkeep, I agree with your description... but fail to see where you're drawing the line between a "procedural change" and something else. Isolating a current procedure, and eliminating it for whatever reason is, in fact, a procedural change by my reckoning.

But that's esoterica beyond the level of most who give any thought to this, I suspect.

[Barkeep49]

Quik I was responding to this

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

As I understand it, by calling it a procedural change, they can pass it with a bare majority.

I just forgot to quote it in my reply, but I would agree with you that we're trolling the depths esoteria here.

[Barkeep49]

Dola -- Found the thread I referred to earlier in which the mechanics of this are explained. Look at posts 20, 27 (and if you feel like it 28) to see this.

The thread is http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/for...ad.php?t=37703

[Arles]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

How long a time period is 'the last few years'? The Dems haven't gotten anyone appointed to the Supreme Court since Carter, and most of the chicanery in recent years was done by the GOP to my knowledge. The GOP got rid of any non-filibuster techniques when they got into power.

Clinton nominated (and got) Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993 and Stephen Breyer in 1994. Clinton got both his nominees fairly easily - compare that to what happened to republican nominees for the supreme court over the past 10-15 years. The democrats tried to tar and feather both Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork under Bush I, the latter with which they suceeded in removing and forcing Bush to replace him with (the much more liberal) David Souter. The democrats have had runaway victories on three of the last four nominees, with the lone "winner" for the republicans being subject to perhaps the biggest witchhunt since Joe McCarthy.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I'll be the first to admit that the slippery slope argument is way overused these days. But once the party in power decides that it's OK to remove the filibuster sometimes, we have pretty much given up the filibuster as a credible tool.

One may agree or disagree with the filibuster, but one cannot correctly argue that the nuclear/constitutional option is not the death of it.

This is silly. The legislative filibuster has been a staple in public policy for eons. The judicial filibuster is somewhat unprecendented and was rarely used to this point (esp in the past 30 years). Saying the loss of the judicial filibuster will lead to the loss of the legislative one is large stretch that is extremely unlikely.

Again, it's not the senate's role to name judges, it's only their role to provide "consent" to the president's choices. Since it is the job of the president to appoint judges (and not congress), there's really no reason why anything more than an up or down vote should be needed.

On legislation, it is the job of the senate to create and pass bills (along with the House). Therefore, it makes sense for them to have more options to use in this area that in simply the consent role they have with judges.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Then let the heirs pay taxes on those items when they sell them, Not simply because they have had them left to them.

No, we can't do that because ... because it ... umm ... well let's be honest, because it'd risk leaving money in the control of those who earned it (and their assignees) instead of in the hands of the government.

[QuikSand]

My apologies for the (predictable) threadjack. Meant just as an illustration, not to create yet another "debate" about the issue of estate taxes. I assume full responsibility for the very foreseeable outcome.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Arles

This is silly. The legislative filibuster has been a staple in public policy for eons. The judicial filibuster is somewhat unprecendented and was rarely used to this point (esp in the past 30 years). Saying the loss of the judicial filibuster will lead to the loss of the legislative one is large stretch that is extremely unlikely.

I don't think that it is silly. The filibuster has been is use for eons as a way for the minority voice in legislative debate to have more of a say--for every issue that comes before the body. The majority party can come in and say that "we have not used a 'judicial filibuster' in a while," but at that point you are really just defining the terms with an end in mind. I cannot predict the future, but once the public has digested the idea that "the filibuster" can be broken--do you really think that they will stand up in arms against it being broken again in a slightly different context? Whether your distinction between the judicial and legislative filibuster really exists, do you really expect future majority parties to show restraint and not use the current situation as a precedent in the arena of public debate?

Again, it's not the senate's role to name judges, it's only their role to provide "consent" to the president's choices. Since it is the job of the president to appoint judges (and not congress), there's really no reason why anything more than an up or down vote should be needed.

That statement assumes the proposition that you are attempting to prove. The Senate must provide "Advice and Consent" to judicial nominees. The whole debate is over the mechanism though which the Senate chooses to do it. Does the Senate do it through the channels through which it normally conducts business (committees, blue slips, filibusters, etc.)? Does it send every nominee directly to the floor for a vote with no debate? Does it flip a coin? Does it do it alphabetically? There is nothing inherent in "advice and consent" that requires a floor vote, just as there is nothing inherent in it that requires the filibuster to stay. Advise and Consent means whatever the Senate decides that it means. End of story. Accord Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993) (holding that the Senate has almost unchecked power to interpert constitutional provisions governing impeachment proceedings because the Constitution vests the power to impeach in the Senate as a necessary check on the judicial branch).

The question really is--how should the Senate treat judicial nominees as a policy matter. I beleive that, because the system that we have had (things like committees, blue slips, filibusters) has worked for around 200 years, and because the numbers demonstrate that the current executive has not had anything like an unreasonable number of nominess blocked, there is no reason to fix what ain't broke.

You believe that the actions of the current minority party are so egregious that they require, as a policy matter, changing the rules to limit the minority party's ability to abuse the process.

I don't think that either of our positions is unreasonable, though I obviously think that mine is better. I do, not, however, agree that the constitution somehow compells either of our positions. The constitution gives the power to the Senate, and the constitution's role in the process ends there. What the Senate does with that power is simply a matter of public policy.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I cannot predict the future, but once the public has digested the idea that "the filibuster" can be broken--do you really think that they will stand up in arms against it being broken again in a slightly different context?

But if they do, doesn't than indicate their acceptance of such a change? Perhaps even more than "acceptance".

And wouldn't that be an example of government "by the people", after all, a procedural change is just as easily reversed in a fairly short time, simply by changing out the members of the body who made the change in the first place.

Just theorizing a tiny bit, not really arguing strongly for this particular point, just throwing it into play.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But if they do, doesn't than indicate their acceptance of such a change? Perhaps even more than "acceptance".

And wouldn't that be an example of government "by the people", after all, a procedural change is just as easily reversed in a fairly short time, simply by changing out the members of the body who made the change in the first place.

Just theorizing a tiny bit, not really arguing strongly for this particular point, just throwing it into play.

I agree. Personally, I don't think that the filibuster should end (even when it was used to fight for positions with which I disagree--like thwart civil rights legislation--it had the purpose of giving the minority position a voice).

I may be in the minority, however. Perhaps the people are ready to get rid of the filibuster, and then it just goes away. My point above was simply that I don't think that it is really possible to get rid of it in certain instances, but hold onto it as a "sacred right" in other instances. Either you convince the people that it is a good idea, or you convince them that it is a bad idea.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Arles

Clinton nominated (and got) Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993 and Stephen Breyer in 1994. Clinton got both his nominees fairly easily - compare that to what happened to republican nominees for the supreme court over the past 10-15 years. The democrats tried to tar and feather both Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork under Bush I, the latter with which they suceeded in removing and forcing Bush to replace him with (the much more liberal) David Souter. The democrats have had runaway victories on three of the last four nominees, with the lone "winner" for the republicans being subject to perhaps the biggest witchhunt since Joe McCarthy.

I keep saying avoid the politics threads, but this whole issue is too close to my life, so ...

Arles, please try to educate yourself before echoing The Corner's talking points. You really are out of it on this one. Facts:

1) The federal judiciary is composed of judges overwhelmingly appointed by republican presidents. The composition is about 70/30 even though America is roughly 50/50 between the parties.

2) The GOP has had more success appointing judges that Dems in terms of political viewpoint and actual success rate. The new talking point seems to be Bush's lower rate of success on Circuit judges which proves absolutely nothing. His District appointments have been overwhelmingly approved at record levels for the modern era.

3) While Bork in many ways started the heavier scrutiny of judges (although Fortas really was the beginning), he was incredibly unique in his congressional hearings (also Reagan nominated Bork and not Bush I as you say). He had a long paper trail and was arrogant to a fault. All he had to do was be political and refuse to answer actual issue questions and he would have been appointed. Instead, he decided to say how he would decide almost every hot-botton issue and lectured Congress on why they were dumbasses. Thomas was also unique because his hearings almost entirely revolved around issues of sexual harassment. Generalizing from those two cases is just foolish.

4) The current right wing idealogue on the bench, Scalia, was overwhelmingly approved. By any objective measure, the current Supreme Court is the most right-wing in modern history.

5) Calling the hearings of Thomas a witchhunt analogous to McCarthyism is just plain offensive. The charges against Anita Hill were certainly more egregious than those against Thomas. Hill had books published against her that were pure fiction (as authors have later admitted). Thomas, on the other hand, had to face a series of allegations that were just a run-of-the-mill sexual harassment allegation. Saying that is McCarthyist just shows you have lost all grip on reality.

[cartman]

My view on this is that many people see this as a power grab my the majority. I think the Republicans would have a much stronger case if the judicial filibuster is something that had never been done before. But that is simply not true. In fact, the current majority leader Frist voted in favor of a judicial filibuster for one of Clinton's nominees, Richard Paez, in 2000. It has been a tool used many times in the past by the minority party in the Senate. What has changed since then? Now the Republicans control the White House and Capitol Hill. That is what doesn't sit well with many people opposed to the rule change.

My take on it is that tradtionally the Senate has risen above most partisan politics, and try to come to consensus agreements as much as possible, and try to avoid close votes. That is why they have procedures like filibusters, supermajority votes and such, to encourage debate and not just "toe the party line". The general thinking is that if 45 or more Senators have objections to a matter, then maybe the 55 should take a closer look and make sure they are making the correct choice.

IMHO, anything that creates any sort of fast-tracking or automatic approval, and eliminates chances for debate is a bad thing for our democracy. Especially when it comes to matters involving a position that is a lifetime appointment.

[chinaski]

If this doesnt officially turn you away from the GOP, nothing ever will. This is complete bullshit on every level. Up or down vote on a lifetime position in the federal courts with no room for dissent? go f' yourself if you think thats even remotely acceptable. The Democrats have approved every nominee accept 10! Thats 219 out of 229. Theres no difference between this and a little kid demanding a box of cookies after theyve eaten 20.

Every Republican: Replace Republican with Democrat in every paragraph of this debate and ask yourself if you still stand behind this.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Then let the heirs pay taxes on those items when they sell them, Not simply because they have had them left to them.

Fine, then let's change the current law, because right now when you inherit something, the basis goes up to the fair market value at the date of death. But the GOP doesn't seem intent on changing that part of the code.

Originally Posted by Arles

Clinton nominated (and got) Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993 and Stephen Breyer in 1994.

Your right about that, I can't believe I forgot about it. I don't know much about the judicial nominees from before I became politically aware, but recently it's been the GOP that has had the upper hand. Just look at the stats a couple of posts up.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by chinaski

Every Republican: Replace Republican with Democrat in every paragraph of this debate and ask yourself if you still stand behind this.

I do. It's a limited-use option as presented, and we can't automatically project the slippery slope. Moreso, it simply adds another reason that we can never allow Democrats to acheive a majority position again (not that I really needed another).

It only bites us if they achieve that majority, in which case, we are well & truly FUBAR regardless of whether this item is passed/failed/forgotten, so the risk is actually very limited.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I do. It's a limited-use option as presented, and we can't automatically project the slippery slope. Moreso, it simply adds another reason that we can never allow Democrats to acheive a majority position again (not that I really needed another).

It only bites us if they achieve that majority, in which case, we are well & truly FUBAR regardless of whether this item is passed/failed/forgotten, so the risk is actually very limited.

So you are in favor of a one party system of government? Recent history has shown that has been a WONDERFUL approach for countries to take (ref: Soviet Union, Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan). I guess if that happens in the next 10 years, we will have to hope for China to intervene and "liberate" us.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

So you are in favor of a one party system of government? Recent history has shown that has been a WONDERFUL approach for countries to take (ref: Soviet Union, Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan). I guess if that happens in the next 10 years, we will have to hope for China to intervene and "liberate" us.

Tsk, tsk, I didn't say one-party (remember, I'm a guy who doesn't subscribe to all of the GOP platform either). I do however strongly favor the utter & complete obliteration of the current Democratic party.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I do however strongly favor the utter & complete obliteration of the current Democratic party.

Not a big fan of economic prosperity?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Not a big fan of economic prosperity?

I'm doing quite nicely thanks, better now than during any previous administration in my lifetime as a matter of fact.

But economic prosperity at the expense of moral decay, social re-engineering, depleted national defense, and widespread socialism? (just to name a few) -- I'd take the poverty if those are the choices.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Tsk, tsk, I didn't say one-party (remember, I'm a guy who doesn't subscribe to all of the GOP platform either). I do however strongly favor the utter & complete obliteration of the current Democratic party.

So it gets obliterated tomorrow. What happens to all of those currently associated with the Democratic party? It will just reform under a different name, but be fundamentally similar to the current incarnation.

Similar thing happened in the past in the country. The Whigs were the opposing party to the Democrats in the early to mid 1800s. The Whigs basically imploded and scattered about. Most of them moved to the Republican party. I know this is overly simplified, but it is the gist of things.

It will never happen, because the two parties are so entrenched, but we really need for at least one or two "3rd" parties to become real players on the scene.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

So it gets obliterated tomorrow. What happens to all of those currently associated with the Democratic party?

Well, the first hope would be that those who are beyond any point of return to rational & logical thought would simply fling themselves into the sea in despair.

Splintering the remainder into smaller groups would reduce the chance that they can ever effectively influence policy again, not a bad thing since they've already shown themselves more than capable of associating themselves with failed policies or worse, horrendous policies that succeeded to some degree in accomplishing their intended goals.

Meanwhile, the elimination of considerably organized abhorent opposition might allow more breathing room for the current GOP to reorganize a bit as well, allowing more give and take on finer points without risking the loss of the more important ones.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Well, the first hope would be that those who are beyond any point of return to rational & logical thought would simply fling themselves into the sea in despair.

Splintering the remainder into smaller groups would reduce the chance that they can ever effectively influence policy again, not a bad thing since they've already shown themselves more than capable of associating themselves with failed policies or worse, horrendous policies that succeeded to some degree in accomplishing their intended goals.

Meanwhile, the elimination of considerably organized abhorent opposition might allow more breathing room for the current GOP to reorganize a bit as well, allowing more give and take on finer points without risking the loss of the more important ones.

So then tell me, how is the end result different from a one party system? If one party can do pretty much what is pleases since the other parties are not strong enough to have any influence, isn't that, in effect, a one party system?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Well, the first hope would be that those who are beyond any point of return to rational & logical thought would simply fling themselves into the sea in despair.

You listen to a lot of Hannity, don't you?

[Crapshoot]

Guys, Jon has his views. They are... interesting, to say the least. For example, don't ask him on his thoughts about who should have voting rights...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

You listen to a lot of Hannity, don't you?

Actually, just on odd occasion that I happen to be in the car during his show.

And just to avoid an unneeded dola, I'll do Cartman's question here too.

So then tell me, how is the end result different from a one party system? If one party can do pretty much what is pleases since the other parties are not strong enough to have any influence, isn't that, in effect, a one party system

Different, ultimately, because it allows that breathing room for development of "factions" if you will, and eventually a division of the current GOP. Leaving 2 or more parties of significance that all have at least basic core values in common, leaving room for debate of finer points without risking the loss of more basic tenets in the process.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Guys, Jon has his views. They are... interesting, to say the least. For example, don't ask him on his thoughts about who should have voting rights...

Hmm, I think penalties for controlled substances is a better choice there, but I still got a out of your observation.

FTR, I really wasn't looking for such a wide sidetrack here (naively perhaps, but I really didn't expect one of even the length-to-date), I just gave a quick answer to a question asked up the thread about "what-if-it-were-reversed" & this sort of snowballed.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Hmm, I think penalties for controlled substances is a better choice there, but I still got a out of your observation.

FTR, I really wasn't looking for such a wide sidetrack here (naively perhaps, but I really didn't expect one of even the length-to-date), I just gave a quick answer to a question asked up the thread about "what-if-it-were-reversed" & this sort of snowballed.

No No- I know that. Its just that it is fairly surprising to people when they see your stance on some of these things. Having been involved in discussions with you in the past, the path of discovering JIMGA's views (irrespective of what I think about them) is a familiar one...

[Lucky Jim]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

How long a time period is 'the last few years'? The Dems haven't gotten anyone appointed to the Supreme Court since Carter, and most of the chicanery in recent years was done by the GOP to my knowledge. The GOP got rid of any non-filibuster techniques when they got into power.

When I said the last few years I was referring to basically the judicial fiascos of the last two years or so, which really weren't all that publicized in the national media but had a profound effect on Republican interest groups especially those involved in judicial happenings. There was basically a small Senate scandal involving leaked Democratic memos, again really not all that well-publicized considering. The memos contained a number of things, but all basically revolved around the idea that Dems in the Senate Judiciary Committee were unduly influenced by certain special interest groups.

For example as a result of these leaks Elaine Jones, former president and chief counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, was forced to resign when it was revealed in these memos that she sought to delay the confirmation hearing of a judge to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals until after the Michigan affirmative action case she was involved in was completed. (This is basically pretty illegal.)

Other memos revolved around DC Circuit Court nominee Miguel Estrada. (When I say "memos," these are basically internal email correspondence both between Senators themselves and Senators and special interest groups.) The memos call Estrada "especially dangerous" and list the fact that he is "latino" as a reasoning for this. They also ask that Senators "hold off on Estrada as long as possible." Basically because the hispanic vote is becoming so important both sides are jockeying for political position. Estrada was seen as threatening because he could one day become a Supreme Court nominee, and Democrats (as well as Republicans) are adamant about appointing the first hispanic justice to the court. Estrada has since withdrawn from consideration after being filibustered and delayed in committe for two years.

And then there were other memos which show that Democratic Senators were scheduling hearings based on the dictates of special interest groups. These groups would basically demand delays on hearings to allow them more time to gather negative information, and advance notice on any nominees that might be controversial. The main players in these memos are Senators Leahy (D-VT), Kennedy (D-MA), and Durbin (D-IL) as well as their staffs. They were leaked to a number of sources and were the subject of a Wall Street Journal editorial in November of '03.

What happens next is what has basically enraged the conservative judicial community. The memos were obtained by a pair of Republican staffers, one of whom was Frist's top aide on judicial strategy and he was the source of the leak. Despite the incendiary nature of the memos (blatant tampering in some cases) Dems were able to win the spin game and focus the primary attention of the situation on how the memos were obtained and not on their content. The memos were on a shared server and Dems had failed to protect their documents for a little over two years. (I may be mistaken but I'm pretty sure this was as simple as these Republican staffers simply going into Network Neighborhood and browsing unprotected folders on Dem computers. Not exactly the most comforting example of Senate information security.) Both an internal Senate investigation by the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms and a year long investigation by a special prosecutor in the Manhattan DA's office (appointed by Dems after the Sergeant-at-Arms investigation came up empty) have shown no criminal wrongdoing with how the documents were obtained, but the Frist aide was forced to resign very early in this process, more or less thrown out as a fall guy to appease Dems. Needless to say as this was Frist's top aide on judicial affairs he worked closely with a number of conservative groups and they were basically furious that Frist and Hatch were hanging him out to dry to smooth things with Dems, and allowed the focus of the investigation to revolve around the aide and not the content of the memos themselves.

This was not a major national news story, but it was pretty big for the judiciary community and has hardened some of the party hatred that has led to the "nuclear option." Some of the Dems have been particularly vindictive with their pursuit of the Frist aide, both with the special prosecutor appointment and in the case of Ted Kennedy and his staff, making personal phone calls threatening area law firms considering hiring the former aide (who is now with a conservative thinktank working on the current judicial agenda). This is probably way more information than anyone wanted, and I will admit a certain degree of bias as I have clearly come to some of my own conclusions following these events and have more or less sided with the aide. The Dem Senators in question will say the memos were stolen etc etc, and I personally believe that the way they were obtained was obviously not illegal but a respectful argument exists on the morality of the situation. To sum up Repubs are pissed that they've been eating it on these issues the last few years, and doubly pissed that some of their own leadership folded big time in the face of Dem pressure, and triply pissed that they just had to swallow hard and put on a nice face for the election year, and now Frist is facing a lot of pressure to not back down from anymore Dem crap. Hence, nuclear showdown. Politics is fun

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by John Galt

...
...

3) While Bork in many ways started the heavier scrutiny of judges (although Fortas really was the beginning), he was incredibly unique in his congressional hearings (also Reagan nominated Bork and not Bush I as you say). He had a long paper trail and was arrogant to a fault. All he had to do was be political and refuse to answer actual issue questions and he would have been appointed. Instead, he decided to say how he would decide almost every hot-botton issue and lectured Congress on why they were dumbasses. Thomas was also unique because his hearings almost entirely revolved around issues of sexual harassment. Generalizing from those two cases is just foolish.

4) The current right wing idealogue on the bench, Scalia, was overwhelmingly approved. By any objective measure, the current Supreme Court is the most right-wing in modern history.

5) Calling the hearings of Thomas a witchhunt analogous to McCarthyism is just plain offensive. The charges against Anita Hill were certainly more egregious than those against Thomas. Hill had books published against her that were pure fiction (as authors have later admitted). Thomas, on the other hand, had to face a series of allegations that were just a run-of-the-mill sexual harassment allegation. Saying that is McCarthyist just shows you have lost all grip on reality.

I'm in agreement with John here. Bork was supremely qualified as a judge, but in my opinion, his character was deficient based on his role in Watergate. Add to that his attitude and dissertations during the hearings, and I'm glad he was bounced. I also think that the Thomas/McCarthyism bit is more than a little bit of a stretch.

I guess I'll even consider that this court is the most right wing in modern history, even though I consider that to be a function of just how far to the left the court has been in most of modern history. I consider the court fairly balanced now. There are Justices at the polar extremes Scalia, Thomas, Stephens, and Ginsburg. There are more moderate counterparts Souter, Kennedy, Rhenquist, O'Connor, and Breyer. Some are more/less moderate than others of course, but this last group is less polarized than the others.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

My apologies for the (predictable) threadjack. Meant just as an illustration, not to create yet another "debate" about the issue of estate taxes. I assume full responsibility for the very foreseeable outcome.

Hey I reacted...Can I get an assist or something for my role in the threadjack? I mean you'll get credit for the start and all, but I did step up where you left off.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Arles, please try to educate yourself before echoing The Corner's talking points. You really are out of it on this one. Facts:

1) The federal judiciary is composed of judges overwhelmingly appointed by republican presidents. The composition is about 70/30 even though America is roughly 50/50 between the parties.

2) The GOP has had more success appointing judges that Dems in terms of political viewpoint and actual success rate. The new talking point seems to be Bush's lower rate of success on Circuit judges which proves absolutely nothing. His District appointments have been overwhelmingly approved at record levels for the modern era.

Thanks for the completely off-point diatribe with the extra pompous attitude for effect But, again, the statement I was responding to was:

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

The Dems haven't gotten anyone appointed to the Supreme Court since Carter

My response was specifically tailored to that comment regarding the Supreme Court. Here it is, once again, for you to hopefully read a little closer this time:

Originally Posted by Arles

Clinton nominated (and got) Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993 and Stephen Breyer in 1994. Clinton got both his nominees fairly easily - compare that to what happened to republican nominees for the supreme court over the past 10-15 years. The democrats tried to tar and feather both Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork under Bush I, the latter with which they suceeded in removing and forcing Bush to replace him with (the much more liberal) David Souter. The democrats have had runaway victories on three of the last four nominees, with the lone "winner" for the republicans being subject to perhaps the biggest witchhunt since Joe McCarthy.

Now, let's deal with the small portion of your reply that actually responded to my comment:

3) While Bork in many ways started the heavier scrutiny of judges (although Fortas really was the beginning), he was incredibly unique in his congressional hearings

Again, I was citing this as an example of the left attacking candidates based primarily on their idealogy. Bork's opinions on certain issues scared the daylights out of many on the left. Yet, his record showed that was often able to seperate his opinion from the law. Whether or not Bork would have been the best choice given his personality was not the issue. It was used to show a pattern of sliming techniques by the left against conservative Supreme Court nominees.

5) Calling the hearings of Thomas a witchhunt analogous to McCarthyism is just plain offensive. The charges against Anita Hill were certainly more egregious than those against Thomas. Hill had books published against her that were pure fiction (as authors have later admitted). Thomas, on the other hand, had to face a series of allegations that were just a run-of-the-mill sexual harassment allegation. Saying that is McCarthyist just shows you have lost all grip on reality.

A witchhunt is exactly what they were. Hill never had anything remotely resembling proof against Thomas. Heck, Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers' cases against Clinton were about 10-times stronger and those were laughed off by the public when they came up in the 90s. I certainly don't agree with the levels of attack taken against Hill. I don't think you need to attack her personally to show this charge against Thomas was simply not true. To cite David Brock's book:

Originally Posted by David Brock

If one wanted to believe that she had told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, one would have to believe that all of the other people who had offered conflicting testimony and evidence were incorrect, or simply lying: Diane Holt, Harry Singleton, John Doggett, Phyllis Berry-Myers, Andrew Fishel, Carlton Stewart, Stanley Grayson, Charles Kothe, Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post, Harriet Grant, Joe Biden, the two FBI agents, and all four of Hill's own witnesses -- Susan Hoerchner, John Carr, Ellen Wells, and Joel Paul. Alternatively, all of these individuals could have been correct, and Hill could have made more than a dozen false statements under oath.

Also, stating that being paraded in front of national TV to answer baseless sexual harrassment charges from a full senate committee is "run-of-the-mill sexual harassment" shows quite a loss of reality. Thomas was attacked by the left on national TV because he was taking Thurgood Marshall's spot and he didn't favor affirmative action. It had nothing to do with the sexual harassment case. In fact, the hearing itself was only supposed to look into who violated Senate rules by leaking Hill's confidential allegations. It was never to try and weigh the evidence for and against her charges. To act is if this "senate hearing" was anything more than a chance to try and sully Justice Thomas' reputation is extremely nieve and it was most certainly not "run of the mill".

[sabotai]

Sab's quick Political Post:

Estate tax goes, filibuster stays. Thank you.

[st.cronin]

I really don't understand how this is at all an important issue. Judges are confirmed by 3/5 vs simple majority ... I can't imagine how anything would be different either way, except maybe a few judges don't get confirmed.

This whole fight is a huge waste of brain cells.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Arles

Thanks for the completely off-point diatribe with the extra pompous attitude for effect But, again, the statement I was responding to was:



My response was specifically tailored to that comment regarding the Supreme Court. Here it is, once again, for you to hopefully read a little closer this time:



Now, let's deal with the small portion of your reply that actually responded to my comment:


Again, I was citing this as an example of the left attacking candidates based primarily on their idealogy. Bork's opinions on certain issues scared the daylights out of many on the left. Yet, his record showed that was often able to seperate his opinion from the law. Whether or not Bork would have been the best choice given his personality was not the issue. It was used to show a pattern of sliming techniques by the left against conservative Supreme Court nominees.


A witchhunt is exactly what they were. Hill never had anything remotely resembling proof against Thomas. Heck, Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers' cases against Clinton were about 10-times stronger and those were laughed off by the public when they came up in the 90s. I certainly don't agree with the levels of attack taken against Hill. I don't think you need to attack her personally to show this charge against Thomas was simply not true. To cite David Brock's book:


Also, stating that being paraded in front of national TV to answer baseless sexual harrassment charges from a full senate committee is "run-of-the-mill sexual harassment" shows quite a loss of reality. Thomas was attacked by the left on national TV because he was taking Thurgood Marshall's spot and he didn't favor affirmative action. It had nothing to do with the sexual harassment case. In fact, the hearing itself was only supposed to look into who violated Senate rules by leaking Hill's confidential allegations. It was never to try and weigh the evidence for and against her charges. To act is if this "senate hearing" was anything more than a chance to try and sully Justice Thomas' reputation is extremely nieve and it was most certainly not "run of the mill".

Arles, you ignorant slut.

First off, you were replying to the SCOTUS appointments in a thread about the filibustering of non-SCOTUS judges. You argued that the Dems have villified GOP nominees - I gave SCOTUS and non-SCOTUS examples of right-wing success in the nomination process. If you just want to look at the current SCOTUS composition, you see 7 of 9 justices appointed by Republican presidents. Yeah, it is those democrats stopping the republicans. And there really isn't a bonafide liberal in the bunch. The closest is Ginsburg and she is a farcry from the days of Douglas and Marshall.

Second, you obviously have no clue about the Bork failed confirmation other than what you have read in 10 minutes of perusing the Weekly Standard and Powerline.

Third, your understanding of Anita Hill and sexual harassment is pathetic. What proof would anyone have of a couple private incidents that occurred decades ago? You might not find her credible (I have no opinion either way), but to say she lacked physical evidence is pretty much stating the reality of any "run-of-the-mill" sexual harassment complaint (especially one decades old).

Fourth, citing David Brooks's conclusion on the issue is nonsense. You compared the statements against Thomas with those of McCarthyism. That is plain offensive and your lack of recognition of that is repugnant. You obviously have no idea what McCarthyism was about, but decided to use the term for rhetorical florish.

Fifth, Anita Hill's allegations were certainly relevant and a hearing on them is absolutely warranted. And her credibility certainly exceeded that of Jones and Flowers (although I largely believed their allegations against Clinton). To just discount a prominent professor with a strong background is silly. Thomas was confirmed DESPITE her allegations which showed the process worked.

You really need to get over your right-wing martyr complex. The Right controls all three branches of the federal government, most of the state governments and courts, and dominates American culture - when will you stop feeling oppressed?

[ISiddiqui]

I agree with John Galt's last post...

I also wonder what 90s Arles was living in. Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones laughed off by the public? What? Flowers almost deep sixed Clinton's run. People don't realize how perilous it was. There was enough doubt as to whether she was telling the truth that Clinton was allowed to run in spite of it. As for Jones, that was big news for a long time. The only laughing off came later, especially after the nose job she got. Remember Ken Starr was big into the Paula Jones controversy.

[JPhillips]

It goes even farhther than that. If I remember correctly the whole impeachment process was supposedly because Clinton lied in testimony about the Paula Jones case.

[gstelmack]

Um, my memory of the Anita Hill / Clarence Thomas bit matches Arles' pretty well. I remember these long drawn out debates over a he-said / she-said situation, with absolutely nothing to back them up. It was pretty clearly a witchhunt by a group deathly afraid of putting a black man who did not support affirmative action into the Supreme Court. Not much about his judicial standing, and all about whether or not he made some inappropriate jokes around exactly ONE female associate, none of which could be corroborated. I remember some lively debates in college on this topic...

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It goes even farhther than that. If I remember correctly the whole impeachment process was supposedly because Clinton lied in testimony about the Paula Jones case.

Yup. People love to gloss over the whole perjury bit...

[Crapshoot]

Maybe its me, but I don't see how Arlie or anyone else can counter the fact that the vast majority of Federal Judges as well as SCOTUS were Republican appointed. At a Federal level, it is a super-majority. To me, it's more refelctive of justices recognizing that their obligations are to what law and fairness is, not what a public that howls about activist judges thinks.

[Arles]

Again, and I really hope this sinks in this time, my point was specifically addressed to the earlier Supreme Court comments that were in error. I never once cited "republicans being wronged" as an issue on the removal of the judicial filibuster. The fact that so many of you want to group my comments in with those about the other federal judge appointements leads me to believe the other arguments you have are fairly weak.

On the issue of federal judges, my claim has always been related to the seperation of powers and (as I have stated numerous times) allowing the Senate to filibuster judges is akin to allowing the president to line-item veto bills. It's just not something that should be done under the current system. If people want to change the system to allow both, I say go for it. But this idea of the "minority" using the filibuster to prevent as many federal appeals court nominees as the dems have been doing doesn't sit well with me. And, BTW, I have no problem if this means the republicans can't do the same to the democrats in 5-10 years. My issue is more on principle. If the issue is that the minority doesn't have a say, they should petition the senate to re-enact the blue-slip process of something similar. Or, heaven forbid, actually make a compelling case to the people and win back the Senate to change the rules back themselves.

To the Clarence Thomas situation, it was pretty apparent that it was a cheap political ploy. The hearing was not even about Thomas' innocense, it was setup to discover the person that linked Ms. Hill's supposedly confidential claims to the press. For the tar and feathering that occured in that hearing to happen on those grounds is nothing sure of a pure partisan witchhunt. I would expect that someone with the obvious legal and political savvy of John Gault to be able to figure that out without much help. But, it appears I was wrong on that assumption.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Arles, you ignorant slut.

Anytime someone can get called an ignorant slut to start of a post about SCOTUS is good by me

SI

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Josh Marshall said it best...

Whether you call it the 'nuclear option', the 'constitutional option' or whatever other phrase the GOP word-wizards come up with, what "it" actually is is this: the Republican caucus, along with the President of the Senate, Dick Cheney, will find that filibustering judicial nominations is in fact in violation of the constitution.

(Just to be crystal clear, what the senate is about to do is not changing their rules. They are about to find that their existing rules are unconstitutional, thus getting around the established procedures by which senate rules can be changed.)

Their reasoning will be that the federal constitution requires that the president makes such nominations "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" and that that means an up or down vote by the full senate.

Nobody believes that.

Not Dick Cheney, not any member of the Republican Senate caucus.

For that to be true stands not only the simple logic of the constitution, but two hundred years of our constitutional history, on its head. You don't even need to go into the fact that other judicial nominations have been filibustered, or that many others have been prevented from coming to a vote by invocation of various other senate rules, both formal and informal, or that almost countless numbers of presidential nominees of all kinds have simply never made it out of committee. Indeed, the whole senate committee system probably cannot withstand this novel and outlandish interpretation of the constitution, since one of its main functions is to review presidential appointees before passing them on to the full senate.

Quite simply, the senate is empowered by the constitution to enact its own rules.

You can think the filibuster is a terrible idea. And you may think that it should be abolished, as indeed it can be through the rules of the senate. And there are decent arguments to made on that count. But to assert that it is unconstitutional because each judge does not get an up or down vote by the entire senate you have to hold that the United States senate has been in more or less constant violation of the constitution for more than two centuries.

For all the chaos and storm caused by this debate, and all that is likely to follow it, don't forget that the all of this will be done by fifty Republican senators quite knowingly invoking a demonstrably false claim of constitutionality to achieve something they couldn't manage by following the rules.

This is about power; and, to them, the rules quite simply mean nothing.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

my claim has always been related to the seperation of powers

IMO, the seperation of powers mandates that the Senate have its own rules on how to advise and consent to the President's nominees. That includes judicial filibuster.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Arles

A witchhunt is exactly what they were. Hill never had anything remotely resembling proof against Thomas.

Wow, I can't believe you just rolled out David Brock and then complained about a witch-hunt against Clarence Thomas. You are aware that Brock later wrote another book repudiating his smear campaign against Anita Hill? How about this quote instead:

Originally Posted by David Brock

"When I wrote those words, I knew they were false. Perhaps the errors of 'The Real Anita Hill' could be attributed to journalistic carelessness, ideological bias, and my misdirected quest for acceptance from a political movement. In the review of 'Strange Justice,' however, to protect myself and my tribe from the truth and consequences of our own hypocrisy, smears, falsehoods, and cover-ups, I consciously and actively chose an unethical path. I continued to malign Anita Hill and her liberal supporters as liars. I trashed the professional reputations of two journalists for reporting something I knew was correct."

And you think Thomas suffered through a witch-hunt...

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Um, my memory of the Anita Hill / Clarence Thomas bit matches Arles' pretty well. I remember these long drawn out debates over a he-said / she-said situation, with absolutely nothing to back them up. It was pretty clearly a witchhunt by a group deathly afraid of putting a black man who did not support affirmative action into the Supreme Court. Not much about his judicial standing, and all about whether or not he made some inappropriate jokes around exactly ONE female associate, none of which could be corroborated. I remember some lively debates in college on this topic...

And that is the exact pattern of most "run-of-the-mill" sexual harassment claims. And that is the reason, most plaintiffs lose at the summary judgment stage. The claims brought by Hill were serious and deserved a full hearing. There was no witchhunt and it certainly wasn't McCarthyist. Was Thomas asked to name names? Was there a black list? Were there allegations which destroyed careers (only against Hill)? Seriously, the hyperbole about this is nonsense. And as I said (and someone else has since pointed out), the attacks on Hill were largely falsified and have been retracted by the authors.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Arles

Again, and I really hope this sinks in this time, my point was specifically addressed to the earlier Supreme Court comments that were in error. I never once cited "republicans being wronged" as an issue on the removal of the judicial filibuster. The fact that so many of you want to group my comments in with those about the other federal judge appointements leads me to believe the other arguments you have are fairly weak.

On the issue of federal judges, my claim has always been related to the seperation of powers and (as I have stated numerous times) allowing the Senate to filibuster judges is akin to allowing the president to line-item veto bills. It's just not something that should be done under the current system. If people want to change the system to allow both, I say go for it. But this idea of the "minority" using the filibuster to prevent as many federal appeals court nominees as the dems have been doing doesn't sit well with me. And, BTW, I have no problem if this means the republicans can't do the same to the democrats in 5-10 years. My issue is more on principle. If the issue is that the minority doesn't have a say, they should petition the senate to re-enact the blue-slip process of something similar. Or, heaven forbid, actually make a compelling case to the people and win back the Senate to change the rules back themselves.

To the Clarence Thomas situation, it was pretty apparent that it was a cheap political ploy. The hearing was not even about Thomas' innocense, it was setup to discover the person that linked Ms. Hill's supposedly confidential claims to the press. For the tar and feathering that occured in that hearing to happen on those grounds is nothing sure of a pure partisan witchhunt. I would expect that someone with the obvious legal and political savvy of John Gault to be able to figure that out without much help. But, it appears I was wrong on that assumption.

You are worse than Bubba at staying on subject.

Your initial post said:

"Clinton nominated (and got) Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993 and Stephen Breyer in 1994. Clinton got both his nominees fairly easily - compare that to what happened to republican nominees for the supreme court over the past 10-15 years."

I demonstrated that 7 of 9 justices were GOP appointed. I also argued that the court is the most right-wing in modern history. I also pointed out that the biggest idealogue on the court (Scalia) was approved by an overwhelming majority. I also noted that Bork was almost 20 years ago and was nominated by Reagan. You answered none of these claims. Instead, you address the fact that I ALSO talked about lower court appointments. I think the success in appointing lower court judges is relevant because it shows the GOP has not been stifled in its efforts to pack the federal courts. If you don't think that has anything to do with this discussion (which is what the current filibuster debate is about), then why don't you actually attempt to answer any of the numerous claims I made.

You also said:

"The democrats tried to tar and feather both Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork under Bush I, the latter with which they suceeded in removing and forcing Bush to replace him with (the much more liberal) David Souter."

I argued Bork was unique and you have no counter to that argument because you have obviously done no significant reading on the subject. Have you ever read the transcript of the hearing? Have you read any of Bork's scholarship? Have you at least read the Antitrust Paradox? Bork was a unique judge and had he not been such an ass before Congress, he still would have made it to the SCOTUS, but he was too arrogant.

As for Thomas, you only cite a retractor and show no actual knowledge of what happened. Do you think Anita Hill's allegations should have been dismissed without a hearing? You completely ignore the basic fact that THOMAS IS ON THE SUPREME COURT.

Lastly, you said:

"The democrats have had runaway victories on three of the last four nominees, with the lone "winner" for the republicans being subject to perhaps the biggest witchhunt since Joe McCarthy."

Your hyperbole is plain offensive and rather than apologize or note your error, you continue to push on the attack. It shows you have no grip on reality at all.

In your recent post, you go on a diatribe about the filibuster and line item veto and conclude that I wasn't responding to your original post. You might notice that all that I did was reply to your original post AND SAID NOTHING ABOUT THE FILIBUSTER. Seriously, are you Bubba's Dr. Hyde? You accuse others of ignoring what you actually posted while trying to change the subject when you are proven wrong.