on the filibuster, yada yada
Apr. 27th, 2005 07:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
acroyearBob Dole wrote for the Times a more respecting summary of the history and situation in the sentate without the overt accusations of proceedural hypocracy in the democrats side (it does mention Byrd's changing of the rules).
A few responses I would make to his (yes, rhetorial) questions:
Future presidents must now ask themselves whether their judicial nominees can secure the supermajority needed to break a potential filibuster. Political considerations will now become even more central to the judicial selection process. Is this what the framers intended?
Not necessarilly. But the framers also did not intend a time where a single political party whose policies are set and dominated by ideological extremists (or at the least, ideologs unwilling to compromise), would be in control of the House, Senate, Executive Branch, and Supreme Court all at the same time...particularly supported by those who follow "the party line" in spite of the fact that they have serious misgivings about the party's policies, how they came to be, and how they are being implemented, and have stated so. (only one has actually acted on his misgivings about the Republican policies and defected to become an independent in 2001.)
I have no doubts in my mind that the vote to remove the filibuster will come straight down the party line. There are times i wonder if anybody elected has an independent thought, especially those that vote the party's decision and then after-the-fact say they didn't like it (*several* Republican senators said so after the Schiavo vote). Whatever happened to voting for what you think the constituency that elected you would want? Whatever happened to representation?
The Framers also did not specifically give the Supreme Court the right to review a law for its Constitutional compliance, but the (continuing) inability for Congress to self-regulate made that a procedural necessity.
As such, things are currently not what the Framers had in mind in any instance. This is considerably new ground, with the few similar instances of single-party rule in the past (post-civil war and the new deal for example) not exactly being shining spots in our history on how the either the opposition OR the majority should handle it.
Wisdom in absolute power is showing restraint, not showing "a mandate".
Democrats can stop playing their obstruction game and let President Bush's judicial nominees receive what they are entitled to: an up-or-down vote on the floor of the world's greatest deliberative body.
I think part of the problem is that there hasn't been any real deliberation on these nominees. Democrats at some point were sure to block, said they would filibuster, and that's that. Silence. Its been so many months to years since these nominations were put forth that most people don't even know what the specific reasons for the Democrats blocking them are in the first place. Including me, I might add.
But this, in itself, is an extension of the lack of public on-the-floor deliberation in BOTH houses that we've seen on the increase since Newt's revolution of '94. The House is certainly the worser, but the Senate has shown a similar lack of action on the floor. Yes, most of the action has always taken place in the committees, but usually there would be at least SOME real debate and discussion on the floor before a vote. These days, legislation seems to go from committee to president with nary a discussion outside of the media.
Democrats using the media to convince the public that something is a bad idea should be their *second* choice, AFTER they first really debate hard with facts and observations and support from the constituency and strive to convince the handful of moderate-minded Republicans that its a bad idea.
That debate approach has been sorely missing for the last 10 years at least.
And the most discussion the House has EVER done on the floor in the last 10 years has been on Clinton's impeachment.
Of course, since the vote went in Clinton's favor, maybe it just goes to show that if you want to get something done, you don't put it to a discussion before the vote. Certainly seems the lesson aplied when things like PATRIOT II get a grand total of 12 hours between release from committee and vote with nary a single word said on the floor...because nobody outside the committee had time to even read the damned thing.
A few responses I would make to his (yes, rhetorial) questions:
Future presidents must now ask themselves whether their judicial nominees can secure the supermajority needed to break a potential filibuster. Political considerations will now become even more central to the judicial selection process. Is this what the framers intended?
Not necessarilly. But the framers also did not intend a time where a single political party whose policies are set and dominated by ideological extremists (or at the least, ideologs unwilling to compromise), would be in control of the House, Senate, Executive Branch, and Supreme Court all at the same time...particularly supported by those who follow "the party line" in spite of the fact that they have serious misgivings about the party's policies, how they came to be, and how they are being implemented, and have stated so. (only one has actually acted on his misgivings about the Republican policies and defected to become an independent in 2001.)
I have no doubts in my mind that the vote to remove the filibuster will come straight down the party line. There are times i wonder if anybody elected has an independent thought, especially those that vote the party's decision and then after-the-fact say they didn't like it (*several* Republican senators said so after the Schiavo vote). Whatever happened to voting for what you think the constituency that elected you would want? Whatever happened to representation?
The Framers also did not specifically give the Supreme Court the right to review a law for its Constitutional compliance, but the (continuing) inability for Congress to self-regulate made that a procedural necessity.
As such, things are currently not what the Framers had in mind in any instance. This is considerably new ground, with the few similar instances of single-party rule in the past (post-civil war and the new deal for example) not exactly being shining spots in our history on how the either the opposition OR the majority should handle it.
Wisdom in absolute power is showing restraint, not showing "a mandate".
Democrats can stop playing their obstruction game and let President Bush's judicial nominees receive what they are entitled to: an up-or-down vote on the floor of the world's greatest deliberative body.
I think part of the problem is that there hasn't been any real deliberation on these nominees. Democrats at some point were sure to block, said they would filibuster, and that's that. Silence. Its been so many months to years since these nominations were put forth that most people don't even know what the specific reasons for the Democrats blocking them are in the first place. Including me, I might add.
But this, in itself, is an extension of the lack of public on-the-floor deliberation in BOTH houses that we've seen on the increase since Newt's revolution of '94. The House is certainly the worser, but the Senate has shown a similar lack of action on the floor. Yes, most of the action has always taken place in the committees, but usually there would be at least SOME real debate and discussion on the floor before a vote. These days, legislation seems to go from committee to president with nary a discussion outside of the media.
Democrats using the media to convince the public that something is a bad idea should be their *second* choice, AFTER they first really debate hard with facts and observations and support from the constituency and strive to convince the handful of moderate-minded Republicans that its a bad idea.
That debate approach has been sorely missing for the last 10 years at least.
And the most discussion the House has EVER done on the floor in the last 10 years has been on Clinton's impeachment.
Of course, since the vote went in Clinton's favor, maybe it just goes to show that if you want to get something done, you don't put it to a discussion before the vote. Certainly seems the lesson aplied when things like PATRIOT II get a grand total of 12 hours between release from committee and vote with nary a single word said on the floor...because nobody outside the committee had time to even read the damned thing.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-04-28 03:34 am (UTC)Of course the framers didn't envision such a time! When they set up the system they didn't even expect for there to *be* parties, much less party politics. During the first several elections, candidates adamantly eschewed the "evils of political parties." It seems that this is the one ideological blind spot the founders had. They earnestly believed that those serving in the government would work to do what was best for the nation, not devolve into political hyenas scavanging for power.
As for Jeffords, don't even get me started. Despite his pathetic attempts to portray himself as a man of courage and conviction, heeding the call of his conscience, his action really sprang from nothing but his own greed for prestige (he was about to lose his committee chairmanship under the new rules of the Republican caucus limiting the terms of chairmen), the desire to maintain power (he felt he could better bargain to preserve the Milk Compact, the only peice of legislation that kept his VT constituants reelecting him), and to bask in the fame of his history-altering action. (I have family in VT and they report that most of the state was pretty pissed off at him for switching. They also mocked the few news reports portraying proud Vermonters supporting Jeffords. According to them, these few vocal supporters were known political hacks of Jefford's who would praise the man if he sold his own mother into prostitution. This is also the real reason he is not running for reelection, IMHO; he couldn't win against a dogcatcher. His wife's illness is a covenient excuse which he is exploiting to save face.)