The Most Important Political Issue of the Century: The Elmination of the Filibuster
After the 2004 election, us Democrats were left bewildered. How could that guy actually win reelection in light of the multiple debacles in foreign policy and the current anemic American economy? After the election, there were generally two reactions by the Democrats, 1)anger and resentment and 2)a desire to study the situation and "fix" the problem. The Republicans are currently in a state where they are shooting themselves in the foot. From the Schiavo case to Social Security reform to the present elimination of the filibuster, the Republican arrogance is attempting to act without strong support. I personally love to see it. CAN I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE: The Republicans will attempt to eliminate the effect of the filibuster in coming weeks. The obvious appearance from watching the spinning of Republican Senatorial leadership is that they have not yet received the 51 votes necessary to exercise the "nuclear option" . Democrats need to educate themselves on the rules and the history of judicial appointments. When we arm ourselves with facts, we will at the very least argue our position with confidence. So here is what is going on:
Under Senate Rule XXII, it takes sixty senators, 3/5ths of the full membership, to cut off debate and proceed to a vote. During a debate on a judicial nominee, a Republican senator would ask the Presiding Officer to rule that further debate is out of order. The Presiding Officer, VP Dickless Cheney, would so rule. The ruling would likely be challenged, but the challenge would be killed by a simple majority. (there are currently 55 Repub. Senators).
That is the procedural mechanism that will be used and from what I hear, Republicans are more than willing to use it, but they might be a vote or two short as of today. Everyone should put pressure on their senators. Republican leadership is already organizing their lies and spin. And lying they are doing with reckless abandonment. I heard the propaganda to gain support. You know the same old BS, our courts being hijacked by activist judges(The 11th circuit, the court that heard the Schiavo fed appeal, was composed of 8 rep. appointed judges, BTW) and the dems taking unprecedented moves to block Bush's appointments. Here are the facts kids and NOBODY can spin this because they are truth.
During Bush's first four years as President, he nominated 52 men and women for seats on the Circuit Court of Appeals. The Senate confirmed 35 of them. During Clinton's second term, 51 men and women were nominated and 35 were confirmed. Damn near a tie if you ask me. Furthermore, the Senate has confirmed 204 of 214 trial and appellate judicial nominees. It looks to me like the Democrats are being pretty reasonable and are blocking only the extreme nominees.
Why would Senate Republicans take such a bold move considering that this option has been available since the early 1800s, sort of? The most likely reason is their preparation for Chief Justice Renquist's vacancy. These folks want Roe v. Wade overturned and other smart decisions that are not in line with the ultraconservative platform. Here is an excerpt from The New Yorker, March 15, 2005:
"The fillibuster has been a favored tactic of the conservatives who have used it in service, successively, of preserving slavery, perpetuating white supremacy, and frustrating what Lady Bracknell, disapprovingly called "social legislation." By the same token, liberals, historically, have passionately called for its abolition. Lately the roles have reversed."
Democrats in Washington let the assault weapons ban expire without a fight, but the filibuster issue needs to be fought with everything we have. I think our biggest weapon is blocking everything in the future if they utilize the "nuclear option". So all you so called Democrats out there, take a second to write a letter or an email or blog a position statement, this is important and I am tired of seeing all these spineless Democrats lie down in fear of losing reelection: Stand up for what is right for once you little bitches.
1 Comments:
Your post suggests that the Republicans wish to end all fillibusters. This is not true and is misleading. I'm not sure they could even legally do it. What they wish to end is the use of the fillibuster against judicial nominees and the requirement of a super-majority (60 votes vs a majority of 51) on voting. This has only been in use over the last four or five years. Your suggestion that it has been in use since the 1800's is completely false. The constitution does not require a super majority on Congress's advise and consent powers. Get your facts straight before you go into attack mode please. As recently as Clinton's second term, 51 votes were all that was required to approve a judicial nominee.
Post a Comment
<< Home