Filibuster This
A lot of political infighting is taking place around the issue of the filibuster, the ability of a Congressman or Senator to continue debating an issue when others would like to call for a vote. Filibusters are often used by the minority party to slow or block nominations and other actions that they do not have enough votes to block.
Republican leaders in the congress claim that Democrats have used the filibuster in some extreme way that has never been done before. This is a lie. Media Matters for America reports that:
"In fact, while Democratic senators used the filibuster to block 10 of Bush's 229 first-term judicial nominees, the Republican-controlled Senate prevented approximately 60 Clinton nominees from even receiving a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, much less a vote on the Senate floor. And while Senate Republicans under Clinton strictly enforced a "blue slip" rule -- which allows one home-state senator to prevent a nomination from moving forward -- they greatly relaxed this rule under Bush to circumvent Democrats' objections to several nominees."
Republicans are threatening to change the Senate rule that allows filibusters. Democrats are fighting back saying that eliminating the filibuster is wrong and perhaps even unconstitutional. This is a lie also. US Constitution, Section 5, Clause 2 states, in its entirety:
“Clause 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”
So what is the big deal? If the Republicans want to change the rules of the Senate, they just have to put it up for a vote in the Senate. They have that right. Interestingly enough, the Democrats could filibuster the rule change. But more interestingly, there is an existing rule that allows Senators to end a filibuster; all they need is 60 votes to close the debate then the filibuster is ended and a vote can be taken. So the filibuster is not the evil thing the Republicans seem to be saying it is and the Democrats aren’t abusing it the way they are accused of doing. And the American People (remember them) don’t think getting rid of the filibuster is a good idea: 66% polled oppose changing the filibuster rules.
So what is really going on? The Neo-Cons want control of the Judiciary as well as the other two branches of the Federal Government. They want to load the courts with Neo-Con judges without the publicity and attention that a filibuster would draw. It’s not about the filibuster. It’s not about “activist judges”. And it’s definitely not about “a judicial attack on faith”. It is a grab for power for power’s sake. And we the people need to let our elected representatives know that we will not allow them to make false claims and use diversionary tactics to make changes to government that we the governed do not want.
If the President’s appointees are well qualified and capable of performing their duties and upholding the Constitution, then they should have no fear of putting them before our elected representatives. They should not be afraid of public scrutiny. And the Republicans should have no problem convincing a handful of Democrats to end the debate and vote yes or no. But of course if the appointees are not qualified, if the administration is afraid of public scrutiny, and if their arguments are not persuasive, then maybe the Neo-Cons need a different strategy. Oh yeah! They do have a different strategy. They want to get rid of the filibuster while telling lies and trying to distract their supporters.
Republican leaders in the congress claim that Democrats have used the filibuster in some extreme way that has never been done before. This is a lie. Media Matters for America reports that:
"In fact, while Democratic senators used the filibuster to block 10 of Bush's 229 first-term judicial nominees, the Republican-controlled Senate prevented approximately 60 Clinton nominees from even receiving a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, much less a vote on the Senate floor. And while Senate Republicans under Clinton strictly enforced a "blue slip" rule -- which allows one home-state senator to prevent a nomination from moving forward -- they greatly relaxed this rule under Bush to circumvent Democrats' objections to several nominees."
Republicans are threatening to change the Senate rule that allows filibusters. Democrats are fighting back saying that eliminating the filibuster is wrong and perhaps even unconstitutional. This is a lie also. US Constitution, Section 5, Clause 2 states, in its entirety:
“Clause 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”
So what is the big deal? If the Republicans want to change the rules of the Senate, they just have to put it up for a vote in the Senate. They have that right. Interestingly enough, the Democrats could filibuster the rule change. But more interestingly, there is an existing rule that allows Senators to end a filibuster; all they need is 60 votes to close the debate then the filibuster is ended and a vote can be taken. So the filibuster is not the evil thing the Republicans seem to be saying it is and the Democrats aren’t abusing it the way they are accused of doing. And the American People (remember them) don’t think getting rid of the filibuster is a good idea: 66% polled oppose changing the filibuster rules.
So what is really going on? The Neo-Cons want control of the Judiciary as well as the other two branches of the Federal Government. They want to load the courts with Neo-Con judges without the publicity and attention that a filibuster would draw. It’s not about the filibuster. It’s not about “activist judges”. And it’s definitely not about “a judicial attack on faith”. It is a grab for power for power’s sake. And we the people need to let our elected representatives know that we will not allow them to make false claims and use diversionary tactics to make changes to government that we the governed do not want.
If the President’s appointees are well qualified and capable of performing their duties and upholding the Constitution, then they should have no fear of putting them before our elected representatives. They should not be afraid of public scrutiny. And the Republicans should have no problem convincing a handful of Democrats to end the debate and vote yes or no. But of course if the appointees are not qualified, if the administration is afraid of public scrutiny, and if their arguments are not persuasive, then maybe the Neo-Cons need a different strategy. Oh yeah! They do have a different strategy. They want to get rid of the filibuster while telling lies and trying to distract their supporters.
posted by Jay Larsen at 4:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home