April 26, 2005
Kay and John both called and asked for you earlier. They want to know what you think about changing the senate rules on filibusters in judicial confirmations. Can you give them a call back?
They say it's important, since they think William might kick it any day. They need to be ready to fill the Supreme Court seat asap.
Nah, I didn't comment because I was too lazy to look up some news about it and there was no link. Ahh, here's some.
needs more scat humor.
I'm of course angry about this obvious power grab, but the TownHall article had some interesting facts. First, the dems amended the rule in 1967 from 67 needed to break a filibuster down to the current 60. Also, only 10 of Bush's nominees have been f'busted compared to over 60 of Clinton's. I don't know what all the whining is about.
(oh, right, matthewlane mentioned why)
Here's another response:
Because of dissertation concerns (and, oh my, are there many) I haven't been so up with the current events.
I'm vaguely aware that there was some relgious telathon a few days ago where people were encouraged to call democrats about this matter to get them to change their minds. That much I have gleaned from the Daily Show.
I would be proactive and call Kay and John and tell them to keep the filibusters out of spite, except that the little I know about filibusters makes them seem like a manipulative loophole, and supporting filibusters only in certain instances is a little inconsistent. Didn't Strom Thurmond read some text as a filibuster for over a day in an effort to block civil rights legislation?
If someone can explain to my ignorent ass why filibusters are a good thing, I would gladly give Kay and John a little jingle on the tele.
WikiWikiWiki: filibuster
The upshot (at least in this case): it provides the check/balance thingy to the executive branches appointments of judges. It also means you can't run away with whatever you want to do if your party manages to get 51 people in the senate.
See, matthewlane? You don't have to talk about vibrators; whining gets equal time.
Well, Kay and John aren't my senators, it's Kit and Jim, and they really, really aren't budging on this issue. Particularly Jim Talent, who thinks Bolton isn't radical ENOUGH to be UN ambassador.
Were Clinton's appointees fillibustered as much as not given hearings by then-judiciary chairman Jesse Helms (R-Hell)? I thought there were a couple of aborted attempts at fillibusters, but none were successfully pulled off. The rediculous thing is that what Helms did is far worse than the fillibuster, but we'll just pretend that that didn't happen.
Also note that the republican leadership amended the judicary committee rules in 2001 to abolish the right of senators to block the appointment of judges from their home state by filing a sort of formal complaint to the committee. This was, of course, completely unrelated to the inaguration of a certain five year old on Jan 20 of that year.
I don't think Frist has the votes anyway. No dems will vote for it, Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snowe and John McCain have committed against it, giving 47 definite nos. There are a number of other republican senators openly leery of the idea, and the public is opposed to the rule change by a 2:1 margin
Libida.com - Sex Toys, Sex Tips and Erotica for Women
I can appreciate the motives, but the concept of filibustering doesn't really seem to be in the spirit of the constitution. If I'm wrong in interpreting this correct me, but it seems like the procedure right now is effectively saying that no matters will be voted on unless 60% of the senate say it's ok.
I don't necessarily think that concept is a bad idea, but if its purpose is to ensure checks and balances why wasn't the groundwork of filibustering introduced as an ammendment to the constitution? I also wonder about it being used as a checks and balances measure because it isn't preventing one branch of government from becoming too powerful, it is preventing one party in the senate from becoming too powerful. The fact that the president has to get others to check his nominees, and the fact that the supreme court members hold life terms are the checks and balances to prevent one president from having control of the judicial branch.
The Constitution gives each house of Congress the power to determine the manner in which legislation is proposed and voted on before it, with the proviso that a majority is needed for passage of legislation. If the Senate wishes to have a rule allowing unlimited debate on a particular issue before it, it's completely within the Senate's power to have that rule exist, even if it effectively gives a veto to those opposing the legislation. There's no need to amend the Constitution to allow the filibuster, as the Constitution already permits it. It's entirely within the Senate's power to abolish it, as the House has done. I just don't think it's a good idea.
One could make a similar objection to Congressional committees being able to block any number of things. Often, legislation that might have a chance on the floor dies in committee, never to be heard from again. Why should 10 people have the power to block Clinton's Health care measure, for example?
And also, the republicans can always just try to break the filibuster--not call recesses, wait for committee meetings, call the bluff, and try to force the issue. I expect that this is exactly what will happen for the next supreme court nominee or the next time bush proposes some ultra-dumb legislation.
Wow, thanks civics god!
you're a real sexpert valatan. wait, am I getting confused with ziggies post? This is the "ask the sexperts" forum right?
Valatan did pretty well with this, so I won't belabor it. The filibuster is not an easy thing to pull off. It becomes a battle of endurance. There were some times in the 80s that a full filibuster (not a procedural filibuster) was challenged, and people literally had to be speaking at the podium nonstop for days on end.
I don't know that it's happened recently because it makes the senate look foolish. Both sides. So, a filibuster is not a veto. Very different.
MY OPINION: My concern is that a life-time appointment should require a super-purality. I don't want this to become a contest on who can push through the most extreme judges while in power. Over the next twenty years things are going to swing both ways. Push through some super conservatives this year, and the dems will push through some ultra liberals when it's their turn. No filibuster to even get in the way - just 51 votes and a president in your court. The after 20 years we have a completely polar judiciary where decisions depend strongly on which judge sits on your case. Judges should be centrist and even-handed. Which is what the power to filibuster make more likely.
If people say that the judges are activist now!! Removing the filibuster option, is the WRONG way to go. So call John or Kay or Kit or Jim or, hell George and let em know what you think. Either way.
I think the sexperts are right and I agree.
The reply Sen. Cornyn sent me:
Dear Professor Tinsley:
Thank you for contacting me about President George W. Bush's judicial nominees. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this important matter.
As a former Texas Supreme Court Justice and Texas Attorney General, I believe Americans are best served by a federal judiciary that is functioning at full capacity, which cannot be achieved while a minority of senators fail to carry out their constitutional duty to provide the President advice and consent in the judicial nomination process. The recent filibusters against several of President Bush's highly qualified judicial nominees represent a serious threat to our federal court system. These judicial vacancies compromise our nation's ability to administer justice expeditiously—and justice delayed is justice denied. Though the President has nominated many outstanding jurists to the federal bench, there remain numerous vacancies within the federal judiciary. This is unacceptable.
Specifically, a minority of senators oppose the nominations of Justice Janice Rogers Brown, Justice Priscilla Owen, Judge Carolyn Kuhl, Judge Charles Pickering, and Alabama Attorney General William Pryor. These nominees enjoy an enthusiastic bipartisan majority of senators ready to confirm them based on their qualifications and commitment to strictly interpret the Constitution and refrain from legislating through the courts. However, for the first time since ratification of the Constitution, a partisan minority of senators has engaged in parliamentary procedures—intended to be used during legislative activity—to block judicial confirmation votes. Throughout history, every judicial nominee with majority support in the Senate has been confirmed—until now. In November 2003, the Senate held a thirty-nine hour, nonstop debate in an attempt to break the unprecedented filibusters against executive branch judicial nominees. Unfortunately, the minority continues to obstruct the process.
As such, President Bush exercised his constitutional authority to grant recess appointments. On January 16, 2004, Charles Pickering was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, and on February 20, William Pryor was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. This action enabled two deserving jurists to assume their duties; however, it was only a temporary fix.
Because federal judges are appointed for life, it is imperative that nominees demonstrate a record of wise judgment and proven legal ability. As a member of the Judiciary Committee in the 109th Congress, I will continue working to see that each of the President's judicial nominees receives a fair and impartial hearing, as well as a vote by the full Senate.
I appreciate having the opportunity to represent the interests of Texans in the United States Senate. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.
Sincerely,
JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: (202) 224-2934
Fax: (202) 228-2856
http://www.cornyn.senate.govPlease sign up for my monthly newsletter at http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/newsletter.
PLEASE NOTE:
Due to the nature of electronic communication, if you did not receive this e-mail directly from my office, I cannot guarantee that the text has not been altered. If you have questions about the validity of this message, or would like to respond to this message, please use the web form available at my website, http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/contact.
Dear PROFESSOR Tinsley:
I am an asshat.
Sincerely,
JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator
PLEASE NOTE:
Due to the nature of electronic communication, if you did not receive this e-mail directly from my office, I cannot guarantee that the text has not been altered. If you have questions about the validity of this message, or would like to respond to this message, please use the web form available at my website, http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/contact.
« Older Yes, IMBY | it's for the good of the people Newer »
To post comments to a thread you must login or create a profile.
Would this be more likely to be read if I add a token reference to vibrators? It seems that posts with vibrators get at least 7 comments... sometimes 9!
posted by matthewlane at 05:05AM CST on April 28