The fillibuster used against judicial appointments is unprecedented. It means that the democrats will not allow a vote (they are not voting yea or nay) on several nominees.

and it is their right to do so. But it is wrong.

If they continue with it this term, then you can bet it is going to be used by republicans when the next democrat occupies the white house. And boy wont this blog reflect a 180 in thinking on the part of all.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. At this rate, there will never be another Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

I'm sure when the Republicans are in the minority again, they will be pushing to return the filibuster. Rules are only there until they are in the majority.

Reply #18 By: Citizen whoman69 - 12/6/2004 1:32:15 PM I'm sure when the Republicans are in the minority again, they will be pushing to return the filibuster. Rules are only there until they are in the majority.

Like SOl said, it is not going to be changed. SO you dont have to worry about them 'changing' it back. But I suspect a lot of fowl cries when the do the same number on a democrat's nominees.

The fillibuster used against judicial appointments is unprecedented. It means that the democrats will not allow a vote (they are not voting yea or nay) on several nominees.

It actually is precedented...and quite a few times. Your claims that Dems will do a 180 when they are in power is no different than the current "woe is me"-ing of the Republicans. Republicans have consistently supported filibusters. In fact, Senator Orrin Hatch (UT-R), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, once said a filibuster was “one of the few tools that the minority has to protect itself and those the minority represents.”

The use of a filibuster to quash a presidential nomination is not new and it is not limited to Democrats. In 1995, Phil Gramm (TX-R) defeated the nomination of Dr. Henry Foster who was President Clinton's Surgeon General nominee. There was also a filibuster against the judicial nomination of Abe Fortas in 1968. In fact, cloture votes have been necessary to end debates on a number of judicial nominations In 2000, Senator Bob Smith (NH-R) openly declared a filibuster against the nomination of Richard Paez to the Ninth Court. Bill Frist (TN-R), current Senate Majority Leader, even voted against cloture that time (meaning he voted to continue filibustering).

Let's not pretend that the Republicans are always righteous and the Democrats are evil. The Democrats are simply playing by the same rules that the Republicans have used in the past.

The use of a filibuster to quash a presidential nomination is not new and it is not limited to Democrats. In 1995, Phil Gramm (TX-R) defeated the nomination of Dr. Henry Foster who was President Clinton's Surgeon General nominee. There was also a filibuster against the judicial nomination of Abe Fortas in 1968. In fact, cloture votes have been necessary to end debates on a number of judicial nominations In 2000, Senator Bob Smith (NH-R) openly declared a filibuster against the nomination of Richard Paez to the Ninth Court. Bill Frist (TN-R), current Senate Majority Leader, even voted against cloture that time (meaning he voted to continue filibustering).

Note I said judicial appointments, and you offer me a surgeon general. if you are going to call me incorrect, do so on the facts, not your interpretation of what someone said.  That is number 1.

Number 2, in 95 and 2000, the Republicans were in the majority.  hence it was an up or down, and they lost.  I did not say that no nominee ever lost, I said the use of the filibuster to prevent a vote is unprecedented, and you give me cases where nominees lost?  By a majority vote?  Not the same.

And Finally, Frist vote was political so that he could re-open it when he knew he did not have the 60 votes to stop it.  It IS unprecedented.  i.e, before Daschle and his ilk, it had never been done.

And I am not pretending the republicans are anything.  I clearly stated that if the democrats continue to use it, then it will be used against them in the future.  That is how the game in DC is played.  I offer no moral judgement on it, just a warning of things to come.

Dr. Guy:

Number 1: Please re-read. I gave you an example of a judicial appointment in 1968 being filibustered as well as the appointment of Richard Paez to the Ninth Court.

Number 2: In order to confirm a nomination, you need a two-thirds vote (so it is not an up/down vote). Both were filibustered. I should know--I worked for Smith at the time. Regardless of whether or not the Frist vote was political, he voted against cloture, which means he aided in the filibustering of the nomination.

As for your assertion that if Dems continue to use this it will be used in the future--can't it be said that Dems are using it now because Reps used it in the past? Clearly the wording of that statement depends on which side of the fence you sit on.

Number 2: In order to confirm a nomination, you need a two-thirds vote (so it is not an up/down vote). Both were filibustered. I should know--I worked for Smith at the time. Regardless of whether or not the Frist vote was political, he voted against cloture, which means he aided in the filibustering of the nomination.

You gave both, and I was criticizing the non judicial one.  And as for #2, no, it is a simple majority.  The only time you need 2/3rds is for an impeachment trial and a constitutional amendment.  Please recheck your facts.

And an OBTW, Abe Fortas was eventually sent to a vote.  How many of the 10 were?

I am not condoning or condeming it.  I am merely pointing out that as you sow, so shall you reap.  And woe be to the democrats when the next democrat president gets elected.  That is not a joyful glee, it is just an observation based upon almost 50 years of experience.  I take no pleasure in it other than an after the fact, 'see I told you so'.

You gave both, and I was criticizing the non judicial one

Actually, you were telling me I was wrong by implying that I didn't not have the facts to back up my assertion that it was precedented. You simply/conviently skipped over that information in your response.

And as for #2, no, it is a simple majority. The only time you need 2/3rds is for an impeachment trial and a constitutional amendment. Please recheck your facts.

In fact we are both wrong--you need 60 votes, not 2/3rd...here's the senate rule:

The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes.

I have to run, but as always--pleasure debating with you Dr. Guy.

In fact we are both wrong--you need 60 votes, not 2/3rd...here's the senate rule:

Sorry Shadow.  I thought you were talking of the vote on a nominee.  yes, I already alluded to the fact you need 60 votes to break a fillibuster (see response #21).  The only other times the senate needs a super majority were for the 2 I stated.

And I appologize for seeming to tell you were completely wrong, but like most people, I was answering in order without going back and revising.  Your first example was not judicial. Your second was.  I accept your second, but it does not change my dim view of the future should this behaviour continue.  That is not a wish.  That is a resignation to reality.